"\u003C!DOCTYPE html\u003E\u003Chtml xmlns:xlink=\u0022http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\u0022 xmlns:xsi=\u0022http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance\u0022 xmlns:mml=\u0022http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\u0022\u003E\n  \u003Chead\u003E\n    \u003CMETA http-equiv=\u0022Content-Type\u0022 content=\u0022text/html; charset=utf-16\u0022\u003E\n    \u003Cmeta name=\u0022viewport\u0022 content=\u0022width=device-width, initial-scale=1\u0022\u003E\n  \u003C/head\u003E\n  \u003Cbody style=\u0022font-family:sans-serif; font-size:100%;\u0022\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022904a3b20a75a42e6a6fb5cd31f808fa5\u0022\u003ETUESDAY, 6 MAY 2025\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c656e4347c4d45a79466e862bfce291c\u0022\u003ETUESDAY, 6 MAY 2025\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000002\u0022\u003EThe Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00222b40df033cf2488fb1b5a35e736b6ee8\u0022\u003EKarakia/Prayers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00228a84810b50154f86ac498fd5c74dd2f7\u0022\u003EKarakia/Prayers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022 data-id=\u0022667d2460751a40e6b93d1859e52302a3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022667d2460751a40e6b93d1859e52302a3\u0022\u003ETEANAU TUIONO (Assistant Speaker):\u003C/span\u003E E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu m\u0101tou, m\u014D ng\u0101 karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a m\u0101tou. Ka waiho i \u014D m\u0101tou p\u0101nga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi m\u0101tou ki te K\u012Bngi, me te inoi atu m\u014D te \u0101rahitanga i roto i \u014D m\u0101tou whakaaroarohanga, kia m\u014Dhio ai, kia whakaiti ai t\u0101 m\u0101tou whakahaere i ng\u0101 take o te Whare nei, m\u014D te oranga, te maung\u0101rongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. \u0100mene.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022\u003E[Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility for the welfare, peace, and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022297a42026bc84a51bef2b6724b65bfb3\u0022\u003EResignations\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00220bf3b5e039894106b65923b703a814d7\u0022\u003EHon David Parker, New Zealand Labour\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ceb0579542334a0ba37df38e89fdd550\u0022\u003E the Hon David Parker\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022f6ba6e55dfa7429dbaa8bf924790fc6b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f6ba6e55dfa7429dbaa8bf924790fc6b\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Members, I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from, resigning his seat in the House with effect from 4 p.m. on Monday, 12 May 2025.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022dec89a212f98407f87824f86dc952c58\u0022\u003EObituaries\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00225a5c5d99f38f4032836ab192b45b1471\u0022\u003EHis Holiness Pope Francis\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022 data-id=\u0022661cfc664b0c44af9cf498a481d015b5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022661cfc664b0c44af9cf498a481d015b5\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice to acknowledge the passing of His Holiness Pope Francis.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220e47ddb18ae04681a0abfac0bfa2fe2e\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002265a9e13f5dc04c6895f839e52eddd0c2\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I move, That this House express its deep sadness on the recent death of His Holiness Pope Francis and express its sincere condolences to the Holy See and to Roman Catholics in New Zealand and around the world, who are feeling a profound sense of loss and sorrow at this time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003EIt was with great sadness that we learnt of the passing of Pope Francis on Easter Monday. It was also my great honour to pay respect to His Late Holiness on behalf of all New Zealanders at his funeral.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003EThe Pope was a man of enormous humility: a priest who had worked as a nightclub bouncer and a floor sweeper; a servant leader who saw his life\u2019s work through a prism of service to others, not to his own self-aggrandisement; a Pope among the people, who embraced the poor and washed the feet of prisoners.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003EA man who described himself as being from the end of the world, Francis was the first Pope from the Southern Hemisphere, with his second-to-last pastoral visit to our neighbourhood in Papua New Guinea, Timor-Leste, Indonesia, and Singapore. He was also a moderniser, a man who wanted the Church to bend down to every person regardless of their beliefs or condition.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003EWith nearly 100 heads of State and of Government in attendance at his funeral, we heard the Pope\u2019s exhortation to build bridges, not walls. World leaders were reminded that this was a man of peace. He believed in negotiated solutions. He intervened himself to mediate conflicts, engaged in interreligious dialogue, and he felt personally the pain of those most afflicted by war. I have no doubt that the world leaders present heard his message of peace.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003EOn behalf of the Government, I join other members in sharing the sense of loss and sorrow at His Holiness\u2019 passing and also a profound sense of gratitude that we were graced by his leadership in this world. May he rest in peace.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022 data-id=\u00224db0c42270b54b10bc51ea00bd670723\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224db0c42270b54b10bc51ea00bd670723\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition):\u003C/span\u003E On behalf of the Labour Party, can I also offer our heartfelt condolences to Catholics in New Zealand and around the world, as we join in mourning the loss of a spiritual leader whose impact extended across nations, bringing hope to the world and to the Church. Throughout his papacy, Pope Francis was a beacon of hope, compassion, and mercy. He embodied the values of humility, mercy, and devotion to justice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EHe chose the name \u201CFrancis\u201D after Saint Francis of Assisi, stating in one of his first speeches, \u201CHe is the man of poverty, the man of peace, the man who loves and cares for Creation.\u201D Pope Francis lived out those values in both word and action. He called on world leaders and everyday people to take urgent action on the climate crisis. He wrote, \u201CCaring for ecosystems requires a perspective that extends beyond the immediate, because when the focus is solely on \u2026 economic gains, genuine concern for their preservation is often lacking.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EHe spoke out against systems of inequality and called for global justice. A lasting legacy is his request that his popemobile be turned into a health clinic for the children of Gaza\u2014a symbol reminding the world that they are not forgotten. He apologised to indigenous peoples across the world for the Church\u2019s role in colonisation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EMay he rest in peace, and may we carry forward his message of mercy and compassion, and work towards creating a world that is more just, more equitable, and fairer for all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fe342415-6351-4072-a17e-19dab2ef184d\u0022 data-id=\u0022038a03dede004690a897ac177a5d218b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fe342415-6351-4072-a17e-19dab2ef184d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022038a03dede004690a897ac177a5d218b\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green):\u003C/span\u003E It\u2019s a privilege to stand and pay tribute to the Holy Father on behalf of the Green Party\u2014the grief of so many people who share my Catholic faith but also the millions of others who are not Catholic who expressed grief at his passing. The Holy Father was a man who was a sinner, a prophet, and a peacemaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fe342415-6351-4072-a17e-19dab2ef184d\u0022\u003ELet me begin with an acknowledgment of the Pope\u2019s sins and failings. Perhaps it is fitting that some of his first words after elevation of the Chair of St Peter were \u201CI am a sinner whom the Lord has looked upon with mercy.\u201D I want to acknowledge the sexual abuse survivors, particularly those who suffered at the hands of the Catholic Church. While progress was made during Pope Francis\u2019 reign, there was not enough and it was compromised by the blind spots that the Pope had. I also want to acknowledge the Rainbow community, particularly Rainbow people of my Catholic faith. The Church hasn\u2019t always been the kindest place for you, and while the Pope went the furthest in affirming your human dignity, dining with trans, gay, and lesbian prisoners, calling the criminalisation of homosexuality an injustice and funding abuse shelters for trans people, the Church is still fundamentally a conservative institution with millennia of doctrine to evolve.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fe342415-6351-4072-a17e-19dab2ef184d\u0022\u003EThe Pope\u2019s ministry has been likened to that of a prophet by others, like the Archbishop of Louisville, and, like the prophets of old, he was a man utterly unafraid to call out the injustices of a broken global system that throws away the most poor and marginalised. About one year ago, I was sworn in on Laudato Si\u2019, the papal encyclical on care for our common home. In the papal encyclical, he calls for the end of the throwaway culture that throws away lives, that throws away the unwanted, and that throws away the waste, the refuse, of modern society. Pope Francis stressed that \u201CThe human environment and the natural environment deteriorate together; we cannot adequately combat environmental degradation unless we attend to causes related to human and social degradation.\u201D, and that \u201Cthe gravest effects of all attacks on the environment are suffered by the poorest.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fe342415-6351-4072-a17e-19dab2ef184d\u0022\u003EHe condemned the short-termism and influence of elites in modern politics, saying that \u201CA politics concerned with immediate results supported by consumer sectors of the population is driven to produced short-term growth. In response to electoral interests, governments are reluctant to upset the public with measures which could affect the level of consumption or create risks for foreign investment.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fe342415-6351-4072-a17e-19dab2ef184d\u0022\u003EPope Francis always had a special place in his heart for the marginalised, the poor, and the imprisoned. One of his last acts was to defy medical advice to visit prison on Holy Thursday, the week before he passed away.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fe342415-6351-4072-a17e-19dab2ef184d\u0022\u003EFinally, Pope Francis was a peacemaker and a builder of bridges. Throughout his whole career, he held a consistent record for facilitating interfaith dialogue between all peoples of faith and fostering a spirit of broad ecumenicalism within the Christian faiths. The Pope understood that the first step towards building peace was talking to and loving your enemies. I have always tried to keep this in mind as I engage in my parliamentary business, and I hope that colleagues all across the House do so as well. In his final public address, the Pope called for peace in this world, for the release of the hostages, and for an enduring ceasefire that ends the genocide in Gaza. He called for peace in Ukraine, South Caucasus, Africa, and all around the world.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fe342415-6351-4072-a17e-19dab2ef184d\u0022\u003EI want to conclude with his words: \u201CI appeal to all those in positions of political responsibility in our world not to yield to the logic of fear, which only leads to isolation from others, but rather to use the resources available to help the needy, to fight hunger, and to encourage initiatives that promote development. These are the \u2018weapons\u2019 of peace: weapons that build the future, instead of sowing seeds of death!\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fe342415-6351-4072-a17e-19dab2ef184d\u0022\u003ERest in peace, Pope Francis. Thank you for being a channel of the Lord\u2019s peace as you lived. Rest easy, for it is in dying that you rise to eternal life.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002258baa209-edaf-42a5-92d6-b2613c144bfb\u0022 data-id=\u002269a6169de56b4a3aaf0ea7b73f396cdb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258baa209-edaf-42a5-92d6-b2613c144bfb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002269a6169de56b4a3aaf0ea7b73f396cdb\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c3e854004df24e3594f44b8da483f2ae\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, I\u2019ve\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226403a95195ab4b23913c45bf722b2bbd\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: Nicole McKee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224ab692fe9a6141b19421d22df6edca9b\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m sorry about that. I\u2019m just slightly moved, given the nature of the debate. The Hon Nicole McKee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258baa209-edaf-42a5-92d6-b2613c144bfb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c178b382215643c39e47891802f275fc\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party to acknowledge the passing of Pope Francis from Casa Santa Marta, the Bishop of Rome, the leader of the world\u2019s 1.4 billion Catholics, our Holy Father Francis.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258baa209-edaf-42a5-92d6-b2613c144bfb\u0022\u003EI went to Ss Peter and Paul School and also to Sacred Heart College before moving to Rotorua in my college years, and I recall seeing Pope John Paul II in photographs all over the schools and being in awe of this strange man who spread the word of God all over the world. Then, in 1986, he came to New Zealand\u2014the only Pope to have ever visited\u2014and the entire school of Sacred Heart College was a choir that sung at his Mass delivered at Athletic Park alongside 25,000 other Catholics excited at his arrival. The momentum and the movement were inspiring. Here was the picture on the wall in real life, giving us all his blessings. So I was saddened when he passed, and I\u2019ve always watched with interest the popes that came after him and the messages that they gave us.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258baa209-edaf-42a5-92d6-b2613c144bfb\u0022\u003EPope Francis is not just a religious leader for the Catholics worldwide but also a symbol of continuity who walked a very delicate path between tradition and the modern world. He carried that responsibility with a unique grace, speaking often of mercy and championing the poor, while at the same time addressing issues such as the position of women within the Church. What seemed like small steps to the outside world were massive achievements as Pope Francis appointed the first woman leader of a department in the Church\u2019s central administration, and the first female president of the office governing the Vatican City State.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258baa209-edaf-42a5-92d6-b2613c144bfb\u0022\u003EIn a time when so much feels fractured, the presence of a figure who spoke for the possibility of unity, forgiveness, and meaning is not something to take lightly. He reminded many, including some of us who no longer attend Mass, of the better traits of human nature and the importance of forgiveness, love, and faith\u2014faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and in humanity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258baa209-edaf-42a5-92d6-b2613c144bfb\u0022\u003ETo Pope Francis, thank you for your service, for your witness, your imperfections, and your efforts. May your soul rest in peace in the arms of our Heavenly Father.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022feb2e3ca-4ad3-4c7c-9958-b10d28c83bc8\u0022 data-id=\u00224ce626f5690247c39bc33b1d32c9ea99\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022feb2e3ca-4ad3-4c7c-9958-b10d28c83bc8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224ce626f5690247c39bc33b1d32c9ea99\u0022\u003EHon CASEY COSTELLO (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I am grateful to this House to give time to recognise the passing of Pope Francis on Easter Monday, and honoured to be speaking on behalf of NZ First. This honour is an opportunity to pay respect not only to the Pope but to the Church, my faith, and the influence that this has on who we are as a nation and our place in the world. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022feb2e3ca-4ad3-4c7c-9958-b10d28c83bc8\u0022\u003EWith over 400,000 Catholics in New Zealand and nearly 1.5 billion Catholics throughout the world\u2014representing 20 percent of the population\u2014I am truly appreciative of the importance the Church and the papacy still has in this modern world. Our world leaders came together to pay their respects, and the international media honoured the Pope, and, in so doing, honoured the place that the Church and faith still has in our daily lives. Pope Francis, as with every pope before him, was called by his faith to serve. The Catholic faith has filled my life, and when I was last in Auckland on Anzac Day, I was able to visit my aunt, Sister Monica Costello, who is still the epitome of faith and service. She taught at Carmel College in Auckland from 1959 and became the second principal, in 1975. She was elected as a Superior-General of the Auckland Sisters of Mercy in 1982 and continued to serve well into her 80s. Finally, in her 90s, she has taken time to rest and be cared for, as she cared for so many in her life. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022feb2e3ca-4ad3-4c7c-9958-b10d28c83bc8\u0022\u003EI talked with her about Pope Francis and the papacy. She reminded me of the impact that the leader of the Church has and why the ethos of service means so much. Her eyes lit up when she recalled meeting Pope John Paul II, who was the only pope to visit New Zealand. The strength of faith and the value of the Church is fundamental to who we are as a nation, and it is my hope that we will receive the next pope with the same reverence. It is this leadership that guides us, not just as Catholics, in a direction that honours God and provides a pathway to unity. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022feb2e3ca-4ad3-4c7c-9958-b10d28c83bc8\u0022\u003EPope Francis once said, \u201CI think this is truly the most wonderful experience we can have: to belong to a people walking, journeying through history, together with our Lord, who walks among us! We are not alone; we do not walk alone. We are part of the one flock of Christ that walks together.\u201D In our reflection around the world on the Pope\u2019s passing, we, I believe, acknowledge that we are journeying together. The honour we afford to him today and at his death was greater than to the man but it is a tribute to the Catholic faith. It is this faith that is greater than any one person, and a foundation to the Church. The papacy provides this foundation as Matthew 16:18 \u201CAnd I tell you, you are a rock, Peter, and on this rock foundation, I will build my Church, which not even death will ever be able to overcome.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022feb2e3ca-4ad3-4c7c-9958-b10d28c83bc8\u0022\u003EIn closing, in honour of Pope Francis and the Catholic Church I wish to say: \u201CHail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227a76db18-baa4-41c1-b366-89e2c753a1e7\u0022 data-id=\u00228a52f1ad829541aeac736362ab7565c6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a76db18-baa4-41c1-b366-89e2c753a1e7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228a52f1ad829541aeac736362ab7565c6\u0022\u003EDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader\u2014Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koe e te P\u012Bka. Today, I\u2019m honoured to rise on behalf of Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori to acknowledge the passing of a figure of immense global and spiritual influence\u2014Pope Francis\u2014a spiritual leader of over a billion Catholics around the world. His death marks the end of an era for many, the loss of a guide, the voice of a conscience, and a symbol of continuity in a rapidly changing world. We extend our huge aroha to our Catholic wh\u0101nau in Aotearoa, across the Pacific, and across the globe. Your mourning is shared. Your grief is heard.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a76db18-baa4-41c1-b366-89e2c753a1e7\u0022\u003EFor billions, we have seen his navigation around complex global crises\u2014from wars, to pandemics, to poverty, to migration, to climate devastation, and to takat\u0101pui issues. While his role was rooted in the traditions of the Catholic Church, it\u2019s an influence that has reached beyond the faithful, affecting geopolitics, indigenous rights, and the spiritual lives of people across many cultures and nations. But, as we reflect on his life, we also take time to reflect on his legacy\u2014not only that of the man but of the institution he led. That is where our responsibilities as leaders of people come into sharp relief.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a76db18-baa4-41c1-b366-89e2c753a1e7\u0022\u003EThe Catholic Church, under his watch, faced enormous reckoning. Survivors of abuse\u2014many of them are indigenous people\u2014continue to carry intergenerational pain that was often met with silence, bureaucracy, or denial. The Church\u2019s relationship with colonised peoples\u2014particularly in Canada, Australia, and, yes, Aotearoa\u2014remains unresolved. Our histories, our lands, and our languages were often suppressed in the name of salvation. But we also acknowledge the mana of this pope. Unlike many before him, he did begin to name the pain. He apologised to indigenous peoples in Canada. He denounced what he called the \u201Ccolonising mentality of the Church\u201D. While it was not enough, it was a beginning. It was a beginning towards a movement of truth. Pope Francis was a champion for many of those who are left behind by global leaders and global movements\u2014those who are marginalised. It is the humility of a great leader to remember those and never leave anyone behind.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a76db18-baa4-41c1-b366-89e2c753a1e7\u0022\u003EPope Francis showed strong support for Gaza through both action and advocacy. He donated his popemobile to be converted into a mobile health clinic for tamariki\u2014children\u2014in Gaza, providing vital medical services where the health system was devasted. He repeatedly\u2014repeatedly\u2014called for peace, urging a ceasefire, urging for the release of hostages, and urging for humanitarian aid to be able to get through. He personally supported Gaza\u2019s Christian community, phoning the Holy Family Church regularly during the conflict. He respected peace and dignity for all. His final public appeal was a plea for justice and of compassion for the people of Gaza.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a76db18-baa4-41c1-b366-89e2c753a1e7\u0022\u003ELet us use this moment not just to mourn but to commit to his legacy, to commit within ourselves as leaders of Aotearoa to upholding justice over silence, to protecting children and survivors over protecting power, to honouring indigenous spiritual knowledge without the need for erasure or conversion, and to ensuring that we have dignity for our takat\u0101pui community. True faith, whether in Church and whenua or in w\u2019akapapa, does not fear accountability; it embraces it. So we say haere atu r\u0101 e te rangatira [farewell, noble leader]. May you rest in peace. Kia tau ng\u0101 manaakitanga ki runga i ng\u0101 wh\u0101nau katoa e tangi ana i t\u0113nei w\u0101. Haere, moe mai, moe mai r\u0101. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a76db18-baa4-41c1-b366-89e2c753a1e7\u0022\u003E[May all the families that are grieving at this time be cared for. Farewell, rest in peace.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a76db18-baa4-41c1-b366-89e2c753a1e7\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00221254e7b4f674413784be37ea04db7c46\u0022\u003EMotions\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00228f15922ef9ae40fca083f230cb329d6b\u0022\u003EKashmir, Terrorist Attack\u2014Leave Declined\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002258eae615-ef83-4df5-bace-6749bdd312a8\u0022 data-id=\u002214ef1c5168cc4f67b4b5f895708bf1fc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258eae615-ef83-4df5-bace-6749bdd312a8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002214ef1c5168cc4f67b4b5f895708bf1fc\u0022\u003EDr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate that this House condemn the terrorist attack that occurred in the town of Pahalgam, Kashmir, on 22 April 2025. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221c8b18a8ae5840a2aafd52990dcf8c43\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Have you discussed this with other parties in the Parliament? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258eae615-ef83-4df5-bace-6749bdd312a8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225916c80c00a94a5090cb8457a42e0369\u0022\u003EDr PARMJEET PARMAR\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, it has been discussed, and there has been disagreement about some wording in the motion. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022337af3081e2b40f4be98f5d18df6c513\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022337af3081e2b40f4be98f5d18df6c513\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, there\u2019s Speaker\u2019s ruling 28/1, which makes it somewhat disruly to seek leave knowing that it won\u2019t be granted, but I\u2019ll put the leave. Leave is put. Is there any objection? There is objection. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022875aacc9f23040eb8275387715b9bd24\u0022\u003EUrgent Debates Declined\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00227bfa0e23a025482ca5130ffbfa512772\u0022\u003EAmendment to Equal Pay Act 1972\u2014Use of Urgency\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00224219384bcdf54fc7ace6d29caddd525a\u0022\u003EHon Erica Stanford\u2014Use of Personal Email Addresses to Conduct Ministerial Business\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022a257d281ce534111b32d7f93191c2568\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a257d281ce534111b32d7f93191c2568\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Members, I have received a letter from the Hon Jan Tinetti seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the announcement that the Government will seek to amend the Equal Pay Act 1972 under urgency. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. \u201CThe fact that another parliamentary means of debating the subject of the urgent debate [request] \u2026 is a relevant consideration for the Speaker to take into account in deciding whether to accept the application.\u201D\u2014I refer to Speakers\u2019 ruling 224/1. The Government has indicated that it intends to progress the bill urgently, which will provide a parliamentary means to debate it at some length. On that basis, I do not think an urgent debate is warranted and the application is declined.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EI have also received a letter from the Hon Willow-Jean Prime seeking to debate the Hon Erica Standford\u2019s use of personal email addresses to conduct ministerial business. This is a particular case\u2014[Interruption] These rulings, when I\u2019m standing on my feet, are heard without any interruption at all, for fear that there may be a change of mind. Erica Standford\u2019s use of personal email addresses to conduct ministerial business\u2014this is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. The House has a duty to scrutinise the executive to determine if it retains the confidence of the House. The conduct of Ministers in relation to the Cabinet Manual is a matter primarily for the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office. I do not think this matter has reached the level of urgency and importance to warrant setting aside the business of the House today. The application is declined.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00222e1ee9af1a1348a2a90714872498ff9f\u0022\u003EPetitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b07a862e94424a8e8910a92d414dbd37\u0022\u003EPetitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u002295c7eb9a49bb45fcb73c8bd5f40fe374\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002295c7eb9a49bb45fcb73c8bd5f40fe374\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Three petitions have been presented for the Clerk to put in front of Parliament.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022\u0022 data-id=\u0022435045c338574661b41e99f9c54adff5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022435045c338574661b41e99f9c54adff5\u0022\u003ECLERK\u003C/span\u003E: \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EPetition of Marcelo Rodriguez Ferrere requesting that the House require imports of any animal products to be produced to standards that meet or exceed New Zealand\u2019s animal welfare standards \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003Epetition of Qin Qin requesting that the House urge the Government to remove any \u201Cwork for accredited employer\u201D criterion from resident visa applications for post-study work visa holders\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003Epetition of Christian van der Pump requesting that the House urge the Minister to request that MBIE review Auckland Council\u2019s performance as a territorial authority under section 276 of the Building Act 2004.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022a8c4ad6765884b57ba9d3492ddecb6f8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a8c4ad6765884b57ba9d3492ddecb6f8\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered two papers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022\u0022 data-id=\u0022f81c0698a8c24d54af4927b2ae766365\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f81c0698a8c24d54af4927b2ae766365\u0022\u003ECLERK\u003C/span\u003E: \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EGovernment response to the petition of Kenneth Mulholland \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003Ethe Controller and Auditor-General\u2019s draft annual plan for 2025-26.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u00222550a3b0554b424cb115c42c5a583d8a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222550a3b0554b424cb115c42c5a583d8a\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Eleven select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022\u0022 data-id=\u002238f6436849f643179ffba02959aff51b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002238f6436849f643179ffba02959aff51b\u0022\u003ECLERK\u003C/span\u003E: \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EReport of the Education and Workforce Committee on the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003Ereport of the Environment Committee on the petition of 350 Aotearoa\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003Ereport of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the petition of Geoffrey Mortlock\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003Ereports of the Governance and Administration Committee on the:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBItemSL1\u0022\u003ERacing Industry Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBItemSL1\u0022\u003EStatutes Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003Ereport of the Health Committee on the Mental Health Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003Ereports of the Petitions Committee on the:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBItemSL1\u0022\u003Epetition of Catrina McGregor \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBItemSL1\u0022\u003Epetition of Lance Priestley\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBItemSL1\u0022\u003Epetition of the New Zealand Nurses Organisation\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBItemSL1\u0022\u003Epetition of Rhodes Farming Partnership\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003Ereport of the Social Services and Community Committee on the Social Security Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u002278dc9c186b1a4e8c95d71edadd511d27\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002278dc9c186b1a4e8c95d71edadd511d27\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The bills are set down for second reading. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022\u0022 data-id=\u002209fcec9b8d954f7e947813667443e081\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002209fcec9b8d954f7e947813667443e081\u0022\u003ECLERK\u003C/span\u003E: Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill, introduction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022a1666581d088419b96ff4b50cf09adae\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a1666581d088419b96ff4b50cf09adae\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That bill is set down for first reading.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00224f4181229f814d3a80b8c04b93b56f0c\u0022\u003EOral Questions\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f623a0218d074ed1b8ba72f4671b0493\u0022\u003EQuestions to Ministers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022961a8aa6aed8442ca0576119e11976d8\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 1\u2014Prime Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022 data-id=\u00221f145d5b556145d08a3467d214155f76\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E1. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221f145d5b556145d08a3467d214155f76\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition)\u003C/span\u003E to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government\u2019s statements and actions?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022 data-id=\u00222147d93a17084adc9aa9be20dd91b8f3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222147d93a17084adc9aa9be20dd91b8f3\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225ab114273a0e417792f9ef36e7b7d923\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Why is his Government willing to accept women in New Zealand being paid less than men for doing the same amount of work of the same value?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227433f2149ef0485c8239f6a798dd7198\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019re not. This is a Government that\u2019s very committed to pay equity and ensuring that we do everything we can against sex-based discrimination. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b491c5359a6e4d70b8dc477c873b757f\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Why should any New Zealanders believe that his Government is committed to ending gender-based pay discrimination when they\u2019re unilaterally cancelling pay equity claims for 34 different workforces, covering tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people, mostly women?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fd30dd6578704027afed8bd93f66009a\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, what we\u2019re doing here is we\u2019re making sure that we actually have a process that\u2019s more robust, workable, and sustainable. The Act and the practice has moved away from what it was intended to deal with\u2014sex-based discrimination\u2014into a much broader set of issues around labour market conditions and other things. So we\u2019re bringing it back to its core purpose: to deal with sex-based discrimination\u2014that\u2019s a good thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002252f93799333c41639088be268c6a85e1\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: How does he think tens of thousands of teachers across New Zealand will feel to see their claim for equal pay unilaterally cancelled by his Government?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228c5a02ea89144491a32ffb6aef83dea0\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, what we\u2019re doing is, it\u2019s important that we have one robust system. We want a level playing field for everyone. We want to make sure that\u2014it\u2019s not practical to have two systems operating at the same time. We don\u2019t want the uncertainty and we don\u2019t want the unfairness. But I\u2019d just say to those teachers, to the unions, to the individuals involved: they can make a claim under the new laws and we fully expect to be making claims under the sex-based discrimination laws under the Pay Equity Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ae328bdaf9244b90a86f864d2aafd7a9\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Was the budgetary cost of settling pay equity claims considered when the Government made this decision?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221dfb39a9c3554a3ebef7b892a012eb8a\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: No. This is about making sure that this legislation is actually fit for purpose and it\u2019s actually much more sustainable, workable, and less complex.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221bacd5bf4499414cbcb186adb5f97c98\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Will this year\u2019s Budget contain any changes to the level of financial risk that the Government is exposed to around the settling of pay equity claims?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002297d9610d34614c3aaaf49d7f3f0a876a\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, again, what I\u2019d say is that we\u2019ve put money aside to make sure that the Crown\u2019s obligations are met for any pay equity claims that come together under the new law. I admit the changes will actually lead to lower costs for the Government. Obviously, those costs will be lower than what has been previously projected, but obviously that is Budget-sensitive information that will be revealed with the Budget.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226d6c46f6e4974ffe9452777bd3015abe\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b968404e17a94fa4aa5be198ccbd698a\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Why should women across New Zealand\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f1fcf985a85e4eb8b7d90fb398dd3707\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: A point of order, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022570d624fad3d4b5486a5463bb804acb0\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: During the Prime Minister\u2019s answer, at least 10 members of the Labour Party have been screaming out their own questions, even though they\u2019ve got supplementaries that they can have allocated to them. Would you please ask them to keep quiet?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d74c13d0dee54c07afb889d0f6459b0a\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: What I would just suggest to them is if they think the questions that are being asked are inadequate, they do take a supplementary at a different time. The Rt Hon Chris Hipkins might like to repeat his question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ef3e5770dfef4bde8a6e858544591c95\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Why should women across New Zealand be the sacrificial lambs in this year\u2019s Budget, being told they have to accept lower pay for the same value work compared to their male counterparts?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b90ee2e098ec4c938a6d931cf7a9ebc4\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, that is just\u2014I don\u2019t agree with that question and the way that that was phrased. We are staying very committed to pay equity and we are staying committed to sex-based discrimination. We\u2019re making sure we\u2019re just tightening up this law. If individuals or unions have claims to make, they can make claims under this new law. The Government has set money aside to meet those obligations and we\u2019ll do that, but we want a much more workable, sustainable, robust system. [Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ae19d3ace5c44349e9b1313dc17f669\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: There is always a degree of robustness between the exchanges of the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister that\u2019s been happening for years, but that barracking has got to stop. It\u2019s far too much. It is certainly not inconsiderable, nor is it rare, reasonable, or witty. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022880959b6a4f54829b6ba41bb443b8608\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by his pledge to offer an average family with kids an extra $250 a fortnight; if so, why have only 304 families received that support?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002221428c28f4b249fd8306e356c6db4ff7\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, again, we worked very quickly to get money out to working New Zealanders who are wrestling with the early childcare costs, which are incredibly expensive in this country. We made some assumptions\u2014the Inland Revenue Department made some assumptions on some incomplete information. But, having said that, I\u2019m really proud that we\u2019ve actually got money out to 56,000 working families up and down New Zealand, costing us about $42\u00A0million. We\u2019ll continue to do that. I\u2019d just say to that member: if you really cared about low and middle income working New Zealanders, you would have supported the tax cuts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cef657186a9b4c80b9a986d3a04105f8\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Why are only half the number of families he promised extra support getting anything at all under his complicated FamilyBoost scheme?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ccc2c922dd544a739d4c02173c3f5e63\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I\u2019m pleased to say that there are 56,000 families that have applied and received support for their early childhood education costs. Isn\u2019t that a good thing? I would have thought the member would have been thankful that, actually, working families are getting money and support for their early childcare costs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002206118586ec39497189fcf0b9b9c48f16\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 2\u2014Environment\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cfc7092e-b202-4acf-aa9c-8aebd551cc39\u0022 data-id=\u0022445be5585f4d4d43a83d4e740a897d52\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfc7092e-b202-4acf-aa9c-8aebd551cc39\u0022\u003E2. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022445be5585f4d4d43a83d4e740a897d52\u0022\u003ECAMERON LUXTON (ACT)\u003C/span\u003E to the Associate Minister for the Environment: What has he seen and heard from recent engagement with farmers?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226cac9fcd-1934-4007-b10a-4b9d301a0af1\u0022 data-id=\u00225c3d0cf400424d378fc9620d52581b9e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226cac9fcd-1934-4007-b10a-4b9d301a0af1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225c3d0cf400424d378fc9620d52581b9e\u0022\u003EHon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister for the Environment):\u003C/span\u003E Over the last month, I\u2019ve had the opportunity to visit several farmer-led river catchment groups in a range of spots throughout the country. I got to hear about and see examples of some wonderful land management from groups of people who obviously care deeply about the environment. I saw a range of techniques, including specially engineered wetlands and containment bunds, which will do a great job of filtering contaminants. In my local area, I saw a bioreactor which essentially uses wood chips to react with contaminants, like nitrate, and filter them out. It rammed home to me that the people that live on the land have the most interest in protecting it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfc7092e-b202-4acf-aa9c-8aebd551cc39\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022503d4e82ad2d448ea80195d68167710d\u0022\u003ECameron Luxton\u003C/span\u003E: Did the Minister see any barriers to farmers making further environmental improvements?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226cac9fcd-1934-4007-b10a-4b9d301a0af1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a26d1320cf5b46b686730717044cba47\u0022\u003EHon ANDREW HOGGARD\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, yes. I was amazed to see the level of bureaucratic red tape that farmers have to battle to do something great for the environment. I saw one example of a farmer who wanted to fill in a few open drains and create a beautiful wetland rich in biodiversity, but would have been forced to go through a costly resource consenting process. I talked to a farmer who almost gave up on creating a wetland just because of the cost of the red tape. One landowner wanted to put a decarbonisation plant at the back of their property, but because there were a couple of rushes in the paddock, the council called it a wetland and they weren\u2019t allowed to do anything. It just confirmed to me how broken our resource management system is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aaf16ddc51be4335a5cd186756efea52\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019ll have answers that are sort of matched to the conciseness of questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfc7092e-b202-4acf-aa9c-8aebd551cc39\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226b21cdf3cc184ec9b91326d72cf16a12\u0022\u003ECameron Luxton\u003C/span\u003E: What is the Government doing to address these issues?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226cac9fcd-1934-4007-b10a-4b9d301a0af1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226f6d2acd795b45ec9d972f9606e2fce2\u0022\u003EHon ANDREW HOGGARD\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s absolutely vital that we make it as easy as possible for farmers to do the right thing. I\u2019m a big believer in the potential of farm planning. It\u2019s a much better way to manage environmental effects than these resource consents or local planning rules that are often far too one size fits all. That\u2019s why we are reforming farm plans to make sure the cost and the amount of work that goes into them is based on risk. We\u2019re also changing the law to avoid duplication by recognising the heavy lifting that industry groups, primary sector processors, and catchment groups do in supporting farmers to develop these plans.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfc7092e-b202-4acf-aa9c-8aebd551cc39\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002277cea8169e054a9695531fa932f20dfa\u0022\u003ECameron Luxton\u003C/span\u003E: What other changes is the Government working on to address this red tape?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226cac9fcd-1934-4007-b10a-4b9d301a0af1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221ab88e152dab47d28bc96873d6337637\u0022\u003EHon ANDREW HOGGARD\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the Government is looking at replacing the Resource Management Act with a system based on the enjoyment of property rights. This system will have a tighter scope based around managing genuine environmental effects and the effects on the neighbours\u2019 property rights. We will make it narrower and faster, replacing the default requirement for getting permission via blunt consents. By using other tools like standards that will lay out accepted ways of doing things like building a wetland, Kiwi farmers will be able to get on with doing the good stuff, not filling in paperwork.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c1eb246a1b1b415384123462fe835774\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 3\u2014Prime Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022 data-id=\u0022d969589b271e48c49da5c248d3d3e2f0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E3. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d969589b271e48c49da5c248d3d3e2f0\u0022\u003EHon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader\u2014Green)\u003C/span\u003E to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ng\u0101 k\u014Drero me ng\u0101 mahi katoa a t\u014Dna K\u0101wanatanga?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E[Does he stand by all of his Government\u2019s statements and actions?]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022 data-id=\u0022231c18d625964cb1a2f449f5f95f4032\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022231c18d625964cb1a2f449f5f95f4032\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cbd396cb5eb54d7fa491c77c5bd3ef04\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Does he believe his Government is doing enough to meet the growing demand for emergency food relief, and, if so, when does he anticipate his tax cuts for the wealthy will start trickling down to the one in four children now living in households where food runs out often or sometimes?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cb777b7787c547a498aaac2a8c10c2bd\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Now, look, sorry, you\u2019re going to have to rephrase that question. You can\u2019t have suppositions thrown into questions if you want factual answers. We went through this during the last session, and I\u2019m going to be a bit strict on it from this point. Please have another crack.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224ae56e19b57644b5ab86d31966e65c9d\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: I will rephrase: does he believe his Government is doing enough to meet the growing demand for emergency food relief, and, if so, when does he anticipate his tax cuts will start trickling down to the one in four children now living in households where food runs out often or sometimes?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225d051769ac82463aa3529fdbb3483bbd\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I thank the member for their question. What this Government\u2019s doing is we are rebuilding the economy, and we are under strong economic management in very uncertain times. We are making sure that we have got inflation down to 2.2\u00A0percent. It was 7.2 percent under a Labour-Greens Government; now 2.22, 2.5. Interest rates are down 200 basis points. That means, for someone with a $500,000 mortgage over 25 years, that\u2019s $300 extra a fortnight freed up to be spent in the economy and to support that family and those individuals. For the first time in a long time, our economy\u2019s growing again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022297c0a440c864877b9cae0c4916b15f8\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: What is his response, then, to the Children\u2019s Commissioner\u2019s statement that the latest annual report on child and youth wellbeing \u201Cshows a deeply concerning reality for the children of New Zealand. It shows that on the most basic things, like having enough healthy food, safe and healthy housing, and physical health, we are majorly letting children down. We are going backwards.\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227dc6a99e314241038ba541035947da29\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I disagree that we\u2019re going backwards, because our Budget 2024 is designed to lift 17,000 children out of poverty, unlike the last year of the Labour-Greens Government, that put 23,000 more children into poverty. So we know we have more work to do, but we\u2019re working incredibly hard on all of these issues.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b9e71d04a30c44aaa1b4d8b08564bbbc\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: What does he say to Amber, a mother from Auckland who recently shared with Auckland City Mission that \u201COur cupboard can look so empty. Some nights I don\u2019t eat. I\u2019ll make sure the kids have eaten heaps and then I save some for tomorrow night.\u201D, and what is he doing to address food insecurity faced by wh\u0101nau like Amber\u2019s?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e4132c3f3a5a429ba0e4c32e21db2867\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, what we\u2019re doing, as I said before, is we want to grow our economy. We\u2019re fixated on growth, growth, growth. We don\u2019t believe the degrowth approach of the Green Party, for example, is the way in which we can get more money to Amber so that she can be supported with her food needs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e81e376fe85c4abba1bb7d810364b482\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I just equally suggest that reference to another party\u2019s policy when the Government is being questioned should only be in reference to historic facts and not supposition.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221011fe1f94754581ab301b5abe91deac\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Will he acknowledge that if his Government does not increase funding for food security measures in the upcoming Budget, things will get worse for the 54.8\u00A0percent of Pacific children, the 34.3 percent of M\u0101ori children, and the 41 percent of disabled children who are already disproportionately impacted by food insecurity?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fe201d481c944d18ae5dd0c4fbe30253\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, this is a Government that focuses and spends $120\u00A0million to directly support Kiwis in need of food through the hardship grants available through the Ministry of Social Development. But it\u2019s also a Government that\u2019s fixing the economic fundamentals to make sure that we can get cash into Kiwis\u2019 back pockets. We\u2019re doing everything we can to grow, grow, grow, to run a great economy so that we can get cash through to people so they can deal with the cost of living.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fd9851c4434e43a6aac5d98d71eecd22\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Will the Prime Minister commit to lifting all families out of poverty through ensuring everyone in and out of work will have a decent weekly income so all tamariki have enough to eat?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022176172b68bd54e659376436e8e3c0fdc\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, we\u2019re working incredibly hard to lift incomes, and the way we do that is through economic growth\u2014it\u2019s as simple as that. That\u2019s why every decision that we take in this Government is through the prism of economic growth, because that matters above and beyond everything else. It\u2019s the way that we get cash into families\u2019 pockets.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022cb25520c3e97435e9f4ab05ae56bd260\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 4\u2014Finance\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002289809535-e289-43e8-ad08-668cf3046ffb\u0022 data-id=\u0022a9a9317cf3d44544af3a63465905734e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002289809535-e289-43e8-ad08-668cf3046ffb\u0022\u003E4. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a9a9317cf3d44544af3a63465905734e\u0022\u003ECAMERON BREWER (National\u2014Upper Harbour)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Finance: What is the operating allowance for Budget 2025?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022 data-id=\u0022b1d0f64514c8402eb07ffbf9f51adfe3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b1d0f64514c8402eb07ffbf9f51adfe3\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance):\u003C/span\u003E The operating allowance is the amount of net operating funding, on average, per year that the Government intends to spend on new discretionary policy initiatives in the forthcoming Budget. In the Budget Policy Statement last December, I said that the operating allowance for Budget 2025 would be $2.4 billion. Last week, I announced that the Government has reduced the size of the allowance to $1.3 billion. This has been achieved by a combination of spending restraint and reprioritisation. To put it in perspective, the operating allowance in Budget 2022 was around $6 billion and, in Budget 2023, it was $4.8 billion\u2014two far bigger-spending Budgets than this one\u2014which left New Zealand with a structural deficit that our Government is working hard to remedy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002289809535-e289-43e8-ad08-668cf3046ffb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002236ff26cf57a0423095ede204b13f9ece\u0022\u003ECameron Brewer\u003C/span\u003E: What role do operating allowances play in New Zealand\u2019s fiscal management approach?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224de91bbcc2484b1ea1297bf05b936365\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: They play a key role and have been used by successive Governments for more than two decades. Importantly, allowances are a net concept. Within the operating allowance, spending increases and revenue reductions are offset by savings and revenue-raising initiatives. The operating allowance, therefore, captures discretionary choices under the Government\u2019s direct control. I would note, however, that some of the biggest changes to expenditure and revenue in the Government\u2019s forecasts, such as revisions to tax forecasts and the increasing costs for things like New Zealand superannuation, are managed outside the allowance framework. This means that overall spending in the Budget will increase by more than the operating allowance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002289809535-e289-43e8-ad08-668cf3046ffb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220273d2c659b54010b55088b6bcc7c0ee\u0022\u003ECameron Brewer\u003C/span\u003E: What is the impact of a lower Budget 2025 allowance?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b385d4c07a654178a476611e1a7759b4\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it adds up to smaller deficits and less debt. As I said, we\u2019re dropping the allowance from $2.4 billion to $1.3 billion. This means the Budget deficit will be $1.1\u00A0billion smaller each year, on average, than it otherwise would have been. Consequently, Government debt will be less than it would have otherwise been.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002289809535-e289-43e8-ad08-668cf3046ffb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f25b1dbbdf1a422090af1dcbdb77b43d\u0022\u003ECameron Brewer\u003C/span\u003E: What reaction has she seen to her announcement of a lower operating allowance?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cc1ca16a4cc741ae90fbd610e9a1e5a0\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, one member referred to this as \u201Cslash and burn\u201D. ANZ\u2019s economists offered a more sober appraisal, saying, \u201CThe previous Government\u2019s expansion was so unsustainably large that part of the cost to rectify that was always likely to include some tough choices.\u201D They go on to say, \u201CFrom a macroeconomic perspective, reducing the operating allowance in the face of a weaker economy is not going to exacerbate any economic underperformance caused by global factors. That\u2019s because the Reserve Bank will respond to the growth and inflationary implications of fiscal developments with a lower-than-otherwise official cash rate, supporting households and businesses.\u201D This is good economic management. It is not austerity. It is not \u201Cslash and burn\u201D. It is responsible economic management that restores the principle that Governments should take fiscal care so as not to burden future generations with unmeetable debt.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d50197728c984f09adfb471d36c4df22\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 5\u2014Finance\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261725fea-7d5e-4d1f-8fd3-e5779bb7a14d\u0022 data-id=\u0022f1cc83013d1547818e7341271a56694c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261725fea-7d5e-4d1f-8fd3-e5779bb7a14d\u0022\u003E5. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f1cc83013d1547818e7341271a56694c\u0022\u003EHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour\u2014Mana)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement about FamilyBoost that \u201Cthere are around 21,000 families who would get the full rebate of the $150 per fortnight\u201D; if so, how many families have consistently received the full rebate of $150 a fortnight since the scheme started?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022 data-id=\u0022f305e880ef7b45c9b450e1b0c31f1f53\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f305e880ef7b45c9b450e1b0c31f1f53\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance):\u003C/span\u003E Yes. I was using an estimate provided by Inland Revenue (IRD). As the member will know from her time working there, Inland Revenue is a highly professional organisation that uses the best available information to cost policies. IRD advised me that the modelling for this policy was challenging as there was little reliable data about how much parents were paying for early childhood education. We now have much better data about that. IRD assumed more families were paying higher childcare costs than turned out to be the case. In answer to the second part of the question, I can advise that, in total, 57,736 families have so far received FamilyBoost. I continue to encourage more families to apply. In the third quarter of 2024, 1,646 families received the very maximum payment. In the fourth quarter of 2024, 1,189 received the maximum payment. In the first quarter of this year, 1,272 families received the payment. As you will appreciate, families\u2019 circumstances vary throughout the year, so across those three quarters I\u2019m advised that 349 families received the full payment in each quarter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261725fea-7d5e-4d1f-8fd3-e5779bb7a14d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002241e6d6aa6122452c88a266f8e8fae48a\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: How is it IRD\u2019s fault when they were forecasting the scheme that she designed and estimated to benefit 130,000 families?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002252002c6f11ca4a129c28980ce671fb40\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, at the time that National was campaigning on this policy\u2014and I\u2019d note that that is not my ministerial responsibility\u2014we estimated, and what was very clear was that up to 130,000 families would be eligible for the policy. We were clear that the amount of payment that families would get under the scheme would depend on two things: (1) their income, but (2) how much they were paying in early childhood education fees. To get the maximum payment, families would have to have more than $300 a week in early childhood costs. It remains my goal to ensure that more families are getting the benefit of this great policy to support families with the cost of living. So I have asked IRD for more advice on how we can make tweaks to the scheme to ensure it reaches even more families. I\u2019d note that under the member opposite\u2019s approach, zero families would have got this payment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261725fea-7d5e-4d1f-8fd3-e5779bb7a14d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022664b40c2d2fe4d15b4caa01931d0e7f4\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: Why have only a fraction of those she promised received the full amount?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227ae6938e0ccf4ca0a1992390b738c05f\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, as I\u2019ve made clear in my earlier answers, when I was asked how many families we estimated would get the full payment, I relied on modelling and data provided to me by the IRD. I stand by that as a sensible approach. An alternative approach, I suppose, is for me to make up my own number rather than rely on the tax officials whose job is to inform me of their estimates and modelling. I think I did the appropriate thing by relying on IRD\u2019s data, and I continue to stand by the fact that FamilyBoost has ensured that more than 56,000 families have received cold, hard cash in their bank accounts to support them with the cost of living.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261725fea-7d5e-4d1f-8fd3-e5779bb7a14d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221e74fda2d086414c9adb6af79072f5fa\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: Is it a failure that only 349 families, rather than the estimated 21,000 families that National made promises to, received the full amount?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f2947c8452e240deb95c51f86a366ebd\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: I again reject the characterisation of the member\u2019s question. National never promised a particular number of families would receive the maximum payment. We always anticipated that payments would vary depending on circumstances. I can advise the member that in the third quarter of last year, 13,713 families received more than $500 for the quarter; 9,556 received more than $600; and 6,344 received more than $700. The point here is that, while the amount of the payment varies, tens of thousands of New Zealand families have benefited to the tune of hundreds of dollars because of this policy. And I would remind everyone in this House that when it came to addressing the cost of living, our Government delivered and that party opposite opposed this policy to deliver cost of living relief to families with young children. Under their approach, zero families would have got those payments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261725fea-7d5e-4d1f-8fd3-e5779bb7a14d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226020c4c721c24a3bb3cf724722da4015\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: What broken promise is she most proud of: the $150 a fortnight for 21,000 families\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220ce8faad68ec4eb69501b6fa2c1c5863\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No\u2014sorry. As much as the previous Greens speaker had to reword a question, for the same reasons you need to restart that question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261725fea-7d5e-4d1f-8fd3-e5779bb7a14d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e2c8be0f479a4145b120486abce19de4\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: What is she most proud of: the $150 a fortnight for 21,000 families, the delivery of the Cook Strait ferries, or the over a billion dollars of savings for her Budget by making it harder for women to seek pay equity?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e929591bf4704a019d6b0f35412d2627\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: I am most proud that after 14 years of denying New Zealanders any tax relief, after a Government that delivered them sky-high inflation and rapidly rising interest rates, our Government delivered millions of New Zealand workers and families tax relief that supported them to meet their costs of living. Behind that commitment was a principle we hold dear, and that is: those who work hard should be rewarded for their effort, and the Government should respect the wages of working people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022468aaba66c8e4d4888c5c2cf5d76f6d2\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: After all that, not one clap.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ab6b103ef4ee48ea9d9c262c09081d2b\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: There\u2019ll be a right clap over there. Can I ask the Minister whether she\u2019s done the financial analytics behind the thinking that somehow a ferry tender for two ferries at $400\u00A0million that blows out to $4 billion can somehow make common sense economically?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c2e7b394a7e140f980a0df6d7ed3cd1c\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the Deputy Prime Minister makes a good point, which is that there are a number of achievements that this Government should be proud of, and one of them is the fact that we actually faced up to the complete blowout that the last Government allowed to occur with their ferry project, which was beset by problems, and as a consequence we are delivering a much better deal for the New Zealand taxpayer, who deserves a lot more respect than they got under the last Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f2bf4f3b7afc419bb1b53407f4657033\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 6\u2014Justice\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d64de4c1-ef68-477e-9c50-db5cbdf99404\u0022 data-id=\u0022038a1a2ab19f4f0f85231f097f1d4de4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d64de4c1-ef68-477e-9c50-db5cbdf99404\u0022\u003E6. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022038a1a2ab19f4f0f85231f097f1d4de4\u0022\u003ETOM RUTHERFORD (National\u2014Bay of Plenty)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Justice: What actions has the Government taken to restore real consequences for crime? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022 data-id=\u0022096d5e86c2444e2888fb6d284b1491e4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022096d5e86c2444e2888fb6d284b1491e4\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice):\u003C/span\u003E The Government has been busy in its efforts to restore real consequences for crime. We\u2019ve delivered on our promise to strengthen sentencing by restricting sentence discounts and by adding added aggravating factors so that offenders are more appropriately held to account. We\u2019ve restored three strikes, and we\u2019re making changes to ensure convicted adult sex offenders are publicly named and held to account, if that\u2019s the victim\u2019s wish. There\u2019s much more to come. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d64de4c1-ef68-477e-9c50-db5cbdf99404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b0cdbef7e4b44f5b8aa8ef765f04eea3\u0022\u003ETom Rutherford\u003C/span\u003E: What decisions has the Government made in relation to prison voting? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022036912cec7fc49459262eb38e147cd28\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH\u003C/span\u003E: The Government has agreed to reinstate a total ban on voting by sentenced prisoners, reversing the changes made by the previous Government. Our country has rights and responsibilities. If individuals breach those responsibilities to the extent that they\u2019re sentenced to prison for crimes that are serious enough to result in a prison sentence, it\u2019s only fair that they temporarily lose the right to participate in the democratic process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d64de4c1-ef68-477e-9c50-db5cbdf99404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dd7c85a15a344a84b527371b6ab979d0\u0022\u003ETom Rutherford\u003C/span\u003E: How have voting rights changed over the past few years? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c2e57a6ad5014675a6c468c4e3a46f14\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the previous National Government brought in a full prisoner voting ban in 2010. The Labour Government changed that in 2020 so that some prisoners\u2014those serving less than three years\u2014could vote. Those serving three years or more still can\u2019t vote. The proposed change will establish a consistent approach to prisoner voting, regardless of the length of the sentence. The total prison voting ban for all sentenced prisoners underlines the importance that New Zealanders accord to the rule of law. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d64de4c1-ef68-477e-9c50-db5cbdf99404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002245f19d6db04a427eb348559a14c2a9da\u0022\u003ETom Rutherford\u003C/span\u003E: What feedback has he had on the announcement? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022856544af52b84bbdb93d8f5dcfbc75b1\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I\u2019ve had a lot of feedback, including one from Jenny online, which said, \u201CIt\u2019s the victims that deserve rights, lots who will never get over what has happened to them because of people who committed crimes. It\u2019s time to thank you, National, for being there for the voice of the victims.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f7fc7ac3-5ce1-43ca-8cd6-dbb0941bf3ae\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b193eec381c743188361cbfc1c62b5e9\u0022\u003EHon Dr Duncan Webb\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister agree with the Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, who stated that people serving two years or less in prison should still be able to vote and that a total ban on prisoner voting is \u201Cextreme\u201D? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226347cb72e99545cb8a6b6a13faf25520\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH\u003C/span\u003E: No, I don\u2019t agree with that sentiment, and, of course, with the passage of time, people and parties sometimes change their views on matters. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d8b1075774094b3395ff1f12bcbdf4a5\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 7\u2014Prime Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dbaac12b-3efa-4d95-a08d-f0f637a48bab\u0022 data-id=\u0022e78420d4a22c4271acdfdd5643102c04\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dbaac12b-3efa-4d95-a08d-f0f637a48bab\u0022\u003E7. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e78420d4a22c4271acdfdd5643102c04\u0022\u003ECHL\u00D6E SWARBRICK (Co-Leader\u2014Green)\u003C/span\u003E to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ng\u0101 k\u014Drero me ng\u0101 mahi katoa a t\u014Dna K\u0101wanatanga?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dbaac12b-3efa-4d95-a08d-f0f637a48bab\u0022\u003E[Does he stand by all of his Government\u2019s statements and actions?]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022 data-id=\u0022e3eb7d7cc7da464cb912cf13fd72dd08\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e3eb7d7cc7da464cb912cf13fd72dd08\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dbaac12b-3efa-4d95-a08d-f0f637a48bab\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e39d2da3317548f3930c4b69fa531d23\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Prime Minister agree that his Government\u2019s decision to rapidly and radically cut the size of Government from 34 to 30 percent of GDP without any appreciation of the limits of private investment\u2019s ability to fill the economic activity gap has kneecapped the growth that he so often likes to tell us he\u2019s aiming for?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225d183a8f0cff43a2b74a0f723e07607a\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dbaac12b-3efa-4d95-a08d-f0f637a48bab\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d6df0858ca4f49ae83b2ceb1742b5c6e\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: How exactly do you grow an economy, as the Prime Minister keeps saying is his goal, by cutting investment in people, a stable climate, public services, and infrastructure?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224e4f5a52651f4b94ad0e9391aa4e7fe3\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I reject the characterisation of the question. What I\u2019d say is, first and foremost, you have to make sure you\u2019ve got an economy that\u2019s being well managed, and we have stopped the wasteful spending. That in turn has lowered inflation; that in turn has lowered interest rates; that has driven GDP growth; and, important, that will keep people in their jobs. We have been through a challenging time. But the good news is we have turned the corner and now we cannot just watch a recovery take place; we get to shape it. I just encourage the member to look at our Going For Growth plan; make sure we get a world-class education system; embrace science, technology, innovation; have world-class infrastructure; make sure we get rid of red tape and bureaucracy; and, importantly, have more trade and investment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dbaac12b-3efa-4d95-a08d-f0f637a48bab\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002277b51c001f9644fa8d1d5397fd94ddd5\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Prime Minister consider his Government\u2019s self-imposed fiscal rules, resulting in a slashing in investment in public services, radical, given Treasury has said that this historically low expenditure would change \u201Cthe fundamental role of Government in New Zealand\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002218da4ccf8067415bacb3b618dedc6710\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I\u2019m a little bit confused what the member\u2019s talking about because this is a Government that has put almost $17 billion more into healthcare, on top of the normal almost $30 billion spent each and every year. This is a Government that has spent more on healthcare than any previous Government in the history of New Zealand. This is a Government that is actually fixing our education system to make sure that our kids have a shot at high-paying jobs down the road, by learning to read and to do maths well, and we\u2019re getting them to school\u2014thanks to two great Ministers doing an awesome job. This is a Government that\u2019s wanting to grow our economy. Growth, growth, growth is great. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022971c2ef0d6484d40ae0533e91147c35a\u0022\u003EHon Nicola Willis\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Prime Minister confirm that far from the radical position which the member characterised spending at a rate of 30 percent of GDP as, it was in fact the case under successive National- and Labour-led Governments that spending as a proportion of GDP by the Government was less than 30 percent, including\u2014as I recall\u2014during the first years of the Labour Government, supported by the Green Party? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f0bb51e2684d48b3840e90aa34d601f4\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I can. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dbaac12b-3efa-4d95-a08d-f0f637a48bab\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002267f4bd4eda2d494a9b4a82ab65212861\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: How exactly did the Government find $12 billion for military spending while it\u2019s also telling us that there\u2019s simply not enough money to invest in ending child poverty or climate action? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ebd9c3bdd7548e1ab16058552dbc922\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: I disagree. We can do both things at the same time. We can walk and chew gum. I\u2019d just say to that member: who do you think are the people that go and help the Pacific in climate-related emergencies? Who are the people that actually support peacekeeping around the world? It\u2019s our Defence Force. So we\u2019re very proud of the investment that we\u2019re making in our defence assets, and, at the same time, we\u2019re increasing expenditure on health and education, law and order, and also business growth. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dbaac12b-3efa-4d95-a08d-f0f637a48bab\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db31cebf8762499da8ba9af4163c506a\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: When his Minister today announced stopping pay equity claims, saying, \u201CThe changes I am proposing will significantly reduce costs to the Crown.\u201D, are we to take it that his Government expects working women to pay the cost of his landlord tax cuts? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ab1c4754ec2642d8990bd722611250ff\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I reject the characterisation of the question. As I said in answer to earlier questions on this, we have money set aside to make sure we are meeting the obligations for pay equity claims under the new laws. The costs will likely be lower and, as a result, you\u2019ll see what they will be in the Budget. But the thing is, money will be invested in health and education and core front-line public services, and that\u2019s a good thing. [Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b3f59c09fbac4c55a85289b1ade527b7\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, we\u2019ll just wait for a bit of quiet. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022939b5a230af54c4e9ae892fc44be8bbc\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: What changed between when his Government said the pay equity process was working well, and therefore it could abolish the pay equity task force, and today, when they\u2019re now legislating under urgency to do away with 33 active pay equity claims, or is it simply the case that what they\u2019re trying to do is desperately find a way to balance the budget because the tax cuts they delivered were unaffordable? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e988b6836f444ea5bd03488e743ad284\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019d just say to the member, I answered this before: we are making sure that we have a much more workable, sustainable, robust pay equity and sex-based discrimination system. We are very committed to it. We just need to make sure that, actually, there is evidence for the claims; we need to make sure that there are strong comparators that are relevant. We want specific claims, not broad claims, and we need to make sure that the reviews are appropriate. We\u2019re just making sure that it\u2019s a much more workable system, fair and level for everybody. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d691aaddfe1a48639878dc388368ace9\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 8\u2014Health\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022aed260be-c954-464b-bb75-85579e53d05a\u0022 data-id=\u0022458a443426cc4980a167bd9dbda9e5ac\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aed260be-c954-464b-bb75-85579e53d05a\u0022\u003E8. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022458a443426cc4980a167bd9dbda9e5ac\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Health: Is his first priority as Health Minister still \u201Cfocusing Health New Zealand on delivering the basics and achieving targets\u201D; if so, why have wait times for first specialist assessment and elective treatments worsened?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002255d0b7a4-a2c9-4c38-9b77-475311a48a89\u0022 data-id=\u002231cb4ef2496245f1bebdab41d5c4d15f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002255d0b7a4-a2c9-4c38-9b77-475311a48a89\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002231cb4ef2496245f1bebdab41d5c4d15f\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health):\u003C/span\u003E Yes, you cannot manage what you don\u2019t measure, and that\u2019s why this Government reinstated health targets: to drive accountability and ensure access to timely, quality healthcare. Too many New Zealanders are waiting too long for first specialist assessments and elective treatments, and addressing this is a priority. Wait-lists have been growing over several years. Despite an increase in elective procedures and first specialist assessments being completed last year, the rate at which people were being referred on to wait-lists continues to outpace the rate at which people were receiving treatment or being seen. However, I\u2019m pleased to inform the member that Health New Zealand advises me that the number of patients waiting for a first specialist assessment in the week ending 13 April has reduced by over 8,000 since the first week of January.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aed260be-c954-464b-bb75-85579e53d05a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dab6493fa5744d9fbe12b09b65927b84\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: How can he expect others to be accountable for targets, if he doesn\u2019t own up that there has been a 6 percent deterioration in first specialist assessments, and a 3 percent deterioration in elective treatments since the change of Government?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002255d0b7a4-a2c9-4c38-9b77-475311a48a89\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d25a3a9c74364cba881540ad3bdb828f\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: If we\u2019re going to talk about percentages, we could talk about the 6,500 percent increase in the number of people waiting more than four months for a first specialist assessment when that party was in Government; or we could talk about the 2,500\u00A0percent increase in the number of people waiting for an elective treatment more than four months, while that party was in Government. The wait-list ballooned. We\u2019ve put in place targets. Now we\u2019re focusing the system on delivery so that people can get the healthcare they need in a timely and quality manner.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aed260be-c954-464b-bb75-85579e53d05a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bafd4af48d354cc4ab3a139a35c97b89\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: Who does he expect to do the additional procedures, when Health New Zealand\u2019s last quarterly workforce report shows 310 fewer nurses and 47 fewer doctors employed in our health system?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002255d0b7a4-a2c9-4c38-9b77-475311a48a89\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c2f9c49d0ad74bda8a6420457fe8e9d5\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: There are more doctors and more nurses working at Health New Zealand than in 2023. We\u2019re investing in front-line services and we\u2019re focusing on ensuring that we treat the patients and get the timely and quality access to healthcare that is needed. As I said in my primary answer, I\u2019m pleased to inform the member that Health New Zealand advises me that the number of patients waiting for a first specialist assessment in the week ending 13 April has reduced by over 8,000 since the first week of January. That is progress. Because of the huge wait-list that we inherited, it\u2019s going to take time to deliver. I\u2019m focused on delivery. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aed260be-c954-464b-bb75-85579e53d05a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022910c21b6b3d9466ebfacc7bf8d120e9e\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by his statement \u201CThere is no such thing as a hiring freeze.\u201D, or does he accept that official statistics now show hiring has been frozen?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002255d0b7a4-a2c9-4c38-9b77-475311a48a89\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cac8c4a48f15473bb47ca60061dd0ad8\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: There are more doctors and more nurses working at Health New Zealand today than there were in 2023. We\u2019re investing in front-line health workforces and we\u2019re focusing on delivery. We\u2019re investing $16.68 billion over three Budgets, so we can invest in the front-line services that New Zealanders need.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222bd3adf2bf504958bb517217cbad0e2b\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Could the Minister confirm that with the last three answers on the statistical improvements that he gave in those answers, the primary question, or the questioner, was demonstrably, deliberately false?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002255d0b7a4-a2c9-4c38-9b77-475311a48a89\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229c028c9f695f4f5394b3c543ab5294c9\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019re focused on delivery. We\u2019re focused on outcomes. We have more doctors and more nurses working at Health New Zealand today than in 2023. We\u2019re focused on outcomes. As I said in my primary answer, 8,000 fewer people are waiting on the first specialist assessment wait-list for the week ending 13 April than in the first week of January. That\u2019s progress. We inherited massive wait-lists which ballooned under the previous Government, and we are focused on getting patients the care they need.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aed260be-c954-464b-bb75-85579e53d05a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022837390725d8e40879845f14175ee7963\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: Why did he try to blame senior doctors for longer waits for treatment, when it is his Government\u2019s hiring freeze that means New Zealanders are going without the care they need?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002255d0b7a4-a2c9-4c38-9b77-475311a48a89\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220ea1a1e9d8744e2e984ac57a4a67470f\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: I was very clear when it came to the union deciding to go on strike, that they should have put the offer that was presented to them a week prior to the strike to their members to vote on, rather than going on a strike which has caused 4,300 elective treatments or first specialist assessments to be delayed. That\u2019s unacceptable. We must put patients first. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a76db18-baa4-41c1-b366-89e2c753a1e7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222c19ce8dc6ed41cbb5db8bc9eebd2014\u0022\u003EDebbie Ngarewa-Packer\u003C/span\u003E: Supplementary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c8724e71b3ab44fab6b743c4a0db6e0b\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Question No. 9\u2014just waiting for a bit of quiet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a76db18-baa4-41c1-b366-89e2c753a1e7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fff0608984f340fb9ce941ec1987e248\u0022\u003EDebbie Ngarewa-Packer\u003C/span\u003E: Supplementary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221023ce86e45246b59e4b44188580317e\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, supplementary. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a76db18-baa4-41c1-b366-89e2c753a1e7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221f1470b9e985455b8b1fbc3f9b333f79\u0022\u003EDebbie Ngarewa-Packer\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. How does the ministry\u2019s decision to remove ethnicity as a factor in wait-times align with his targets to reduce wait-times when M\u0101ori are still waiting longer for treatment than non-M\u0101ori?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002255d0b7a4-a2c9-4c38-9b77-475311a48a89\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b9ee8850f82742f28bbc42c86ddf92d0\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: Our Government is very clear: we are focusing on need and we\u2019re focusing on making sure that we are ensuring that patients get the treatment they need in a timely and quality manner, and that applies to all New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a76db18-baa4-41c1-b366-89e2c753a1e7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022afa5b0c882224165b54cac942bd23e99\u0022\u003EDebbie Ngarewa-Packer\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. That was a mischaracterisation of the actual question. The question, which is an equity-based, policy-based, needs-based\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220d1db3e9513c4757a69bdffd96edc028\u0022\u003EHon Judith Collins\u003C/span\u003E: Just ask the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a76db18-baa4-41c1-b366-89e2c753a1e7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c0bdde6016ad430f801994fb810d086d\u0022\u003EDebbie Ngarewa-Packer\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014addresses M\u0101ori and Pacific Islanders, and there wasn\u2019t actually an answer in that\u2014thanks, Judith.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226f5db10e4eec4495a17485050063eddc\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the Minister could say the same thing again if he likes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002255d0b7a4-a2c9-4c38-9b77-475311a48a89\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225781d7640956440d92c25d1274c5b4bc\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: The Government is focusing the health system to treat people based on the needs that they have and ensuring that all New Zealanders can get the access to timely and quality healthcare.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a76db18-baa4-41c1-b366-89e2c753a1e7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ff17c13839f34c62a2ef8ac6d64141c5\u0022\u003EDebbie Ngarewa-Packer\u003C/span\u003E: Supplementary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ba1b8fc2caf44e8b5a27b9dd9587f97\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Supplementary question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226ee876d2f8654960bb06edfbebaea317\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Supplementary\u2014Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e3fad9d15e064825a759418b2d6bd4e0\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: How did that go?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b2daa2ce42854da1a5c3284fdfd400bb\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Because she was faster off her feet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002282a92bc58073445ca9f254961ea6305a\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: No, she wasn\u2019t.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225b54a23dbc00472f88f362ddc886edb6\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, she was. I\u2019m pretty sure. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer\u2014it was like a blur; you could hardly see it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a76db18-baa4-41c1-b366-89e2c753a1e7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f4baed1aaa07425286b767301a8d738a\u0022\u003EDebbie Ngarewa-Packer\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. How will proposed cuts to M\u0101ori and Pacific health and immunisation providers, many of whom serve high needs and hard to reach wh\u0101nau, achieve his target to increase immunisation rates for children to 95 percent at 24 months?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002255d0b7a4-a2c9-4c38-9b77-475311a48a89\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222d23846b6b4f48198d1ef0d44128ff8c\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: Well, this Government is very much focused on delivering on the basis of need. We continue to invest in providers who serve a variety of communities to ensure that we are reaching out into M\u0101ori and Pacific communities so that we can meet those targets. But as I said in the previous answer, we are focusing healthcare delivery on the basis of need so that all New Zealanders can access timely and quality healthcare.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bb2dadd5d84b4026ac81dc3e7f92bcb2\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Can I ask the Minister as to why on earth he hasn\u2019t consulted with Ayesha Verrall, who\u2019s an absolute expert on medical waiting lists and endless delays?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fce4e8dcde8642a2994a0c0f51711871\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No. Is there another question?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a76db18-baa4-41c1-b366-89e2c753a1e7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c10a630f40974908af22f6cf100cf162\u0022\u003EDebbie Ngarewa-Packer\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. How does his decision to cancel bowel cancer screening for M\u0101ori and Pasifika from the age of 50 align with his target of faster cancer treatment for 90\u00A0percent of patients when these groups have the highest rates of bowel cancer in the country, with 18 percent of cases diagnosed under the age of 50?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002255d0b7a4-a2c9-4c38-9b77-475311a48a89\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fe6fadc5fd494ef6bade6da66054ffe5\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: Well, we\u2019re focusing on, as I said, healthcare delivered on the basis of need. We are lowering the age for all New Zealanders to be able to access bowel cancer screening to the age of 58. We are also making targeted investments to target those communities\u2014M\u0101ori, Pasifika, Asian communities\u2014where they have lower bowel cancer screening rates, to lift those rates so that we can save as many lives as possible.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002261b098fa2c61487a9987f354822a682f\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 9\u2014Prime Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227a76db18-baa4-41c1-b366-89e2c753a1e7\u0022 data-id=\u0022c9a9d0bc1e0844ddad9c4ab2c0f18e78\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a76db18-baa4-41c1-b366-89e2c753a1e7\u0022\u003E9. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c9a9d0bc1e0844ddad9c4ab2c0f18e78\u0022\u003EDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader\u2014Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori)\u003C/span\u003E to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his Government\u2019s statements and actions?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022 data-id=\u00227626980d3ceb4484b1fbf01443591894\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227626980d3ceb4484b1fbf01443591894\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a76db18-baa4-41c1-b366-89e2c753a1e7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a1da5f67fe314c2081cb687c19fc66af\u0022\u003EDebbie Ngarewa-Packer\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Prime Minister believe that M\u0101ori health outcomes have improved since his Government dismantled Te Aka Whai Ora?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022158e18cd547347f29fa5b37472e6dbe2\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, what I can say to the member is that we are making tremendous progress; we\u2019re investing more, hiring more. We\u2019ve set real clarity around the targets of what we expect to deliver for M\u0101ori and for non-M\u0101ori. Now we need a high-performing Health New Zealand to deliver it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a76db18-baa4-41c1-b366-89e2c753a1e7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e35e045996b74402badfdd4f6a7dd13c\u0022\u003EDebbie Ngarewa-Packer\u003C/span\u003E: What specific action has the Government taken under his leadership to address inequities in life expectancy for M\u0101ori and non-M\u0101ori?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f3540dd287b840a0ab71a7a9d86c7bbb\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I\u2019m very proud of the five targets that we\u2019ve set in healthcare. We want people to have faster access to cancer treatment, M\u0101ori or non-M\u0101ori. We want to make sure that under-two-year-olds, M\u0101ori or non-M\u0101ori, are immunised. We want to make sure there are less wait-times for emergency departments, first specialist appointments, and elective surgeries.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a76db18-baa4-41c1-b366-89e2c753a1e7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002265aea8b4498d4bf5b6f66819160b7b40\u0022\u003EDebbie Ngarewa-Packer\u003C/span\u003E: Does he consider it unacceptable that M\u0101ori die seven years earlier than non-M\u0101ori?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022862c18eb0b07440c8c14807fd3308529\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, we\u2019ve got to continue to work hard to close that gap.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a76db18-baa4-41c1-b366-89e2c753a1e7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225d9e9cfbd3a54c09a077a08738e2bcec\u0022\u003EDebbie Ngarewa-Packer\u003C/span\u003E: How can the Prime Minister claim to govern for all New Zealanders when M\u0101ori health outcomes are deteriorating under this Government?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022696c9e60fa9548819637da72d9d01595\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I would dispute the characterisation of that question. I said this Government has set clear targets about what we expect the healthcare system to deliver for patients, M\u0101ori or non-M\u0101ori. This is a Government that\u2019s invested record amounts of money in the healthcare system. It\u2019s a Government that\u2019s expanding the workforce in the healthcare system, and it\u2019s given tremendous clarity to the system as to what it\u2019s to deliver for patients. Now we need to crack on and build a high-performing Health New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002263410dfbecf942ea9d066d0e0d874ec7\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 10\u2014Defence\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022071f7800-2755-41b6-83df-07ebaf867ae2\u0022 data-id=\u0022d2165eae3f624add96bd94bce6d1513b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022071f7800-2755-41b6-83df-07ebaf867ae2\u0022\u003E10. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d2165eae3f624add96bd94bce6d1513b\u0022\u003ETIM VAN DE MOLEN (National\u2014Waikato)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Defence: What recent announcement has she made about funding for Defence?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022 data-id=\u00222f48e55e84ec4354b7f7a7a40a541d9f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222f48e55e84ec4354b7f7a7a40a541d9f\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence):\u003C/span\u003E On Sunday, at Whenuapai Air Base, with the Prime Minister and the foreign affairs Minister, I had the pleasure of announcing a substantial investment in the Defence Force. We\u2019re committing around $2 billion to replace the ageing Seasprite maritime helicopters, and we\u2019re investing an extra $957 million in defence force activities, personnel, and estate. These investments are the first step in implementing the Defence Capability Plan announced last week, which outlined $12 billion of planned commitments in the next four years. We\u2019re building a modern, combat-capable New Zealand Defence Force to operate in a rapidly changing world which is inherently more dangerous, and we\u2019re dealing with the world as it is, not the world we\u2019d like it to be.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022071f7800-2755-41b6-83df-07ebaf867ae2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220c181cee3c974452a5a8e4af48363a58\u0022\u003ETim van de Molen\u003C/span\u003E: What are the capabilities of these helicopters and how does this benefit New Zealanders?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cf51bf1eb6664eac9573f1962e1dfa9f\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, these maritime helicopters will operate off Royal New Zealand Navy ships. They will increase the defensive and offensive capability and surveillance range of the frigates. The helicopters are a new generation that will be equipped with more advanced sensors, communications technology, and combat systems, all of which are critical for Defence to protect New Zealand and New Zealanders. In addition, they will extend the Navy\u2019s ability to support non-combat tasks like search and rescue and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. We are a trading nation with a huge exclusive economic zone. We need naval and aviation capability that can support New Zealand\u2019s defence, security, and trade objectives.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022071f7800-2755-41b6-83df-07ebaf867ae2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002284c3689bcbda4979a73bdc20ed556121\u0022\u003ETim van de Molen\u003C/span\u003E: What will the additional $957 million of operating funding cover?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226831533a200745868c678b4a6699030d\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: This $957 million is for the New Zealand Defence Force activities, personnel, and estate. This investment in defence equates to $239 million a year over four years and puts us on the path for defence spending to reach 2 percent of GDP by 2032-33. Our people are being called upon to go more places more often and for longer, and we must continue to pull our weight and play our part in contributing to global security. This funding will enable the Defence Force to do that. It includes $150 million for the Defence Force to sail, fly, patrol, and train more often; $39\u00A0million for personnel allowances for such things as deployments; $20\u00A0million for international deployments; $3 million to increase essential engagement with international partners; and $26 million for critical estate maintenance to improve accommodation and working and training conditions for our people, as well as $33 million over four years to provide for civilian staff pay increases.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022071f7800-2755-41b6-83df-07ebaf867ae2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002283f22dfadafd4b9c9ad1f4c37a6a9e6b\u0022\u003ETim van de Molen\u003C/span\u003E: What reports is she hearing from Defence Force personnel about these announcements?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221b5f5c9ebfb24fbb8c8ac357082bb132\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, they\u2019re just delighted. They are absolutely fizzing. They joined up to do stuff; they joined up to serve their country and to get stuff done. This Defence Capability Plan and Budget funding will enable them to do even more. They\u2019re feeling supported and appreciated and they\u2019re no longer leaving in droves. In fact, statistics from April show that Navy attrition has fallen to 5.8 percent from a high of 17.3 percent about two years ago. For the Air Force, it\u2019s down to 6.9 percent, down from 13.1 percent, and for the Army it\u2019s 7.8 percent, down from 17.7 percent. They\u2019re hearing the message that we value them and that we want to help them to keep us all safe. And there\u2019s another message for them: it\u2019s just the beginning.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00224802f690d2df4f9db17df28ab4efce35\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 11\u2014Education\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221ebd1031-ea10-4c3d-bb56-2cd99528ae91\u0022 data-id=\u0022d5dcef3c286d49308fdba58e1a350dc6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221ebd1031-ea10-4c3d-bb56-2cd99528ae91\u0022\u003E11. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d5dcef3c286d49308fdba58e1a350dc6\u0022\u003EHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Education: Is she satisfied that she has complied with paragraph 2.86 of the Cabinet Manual?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022275c91f8-c6b8-42fd-b3ab-d8fc000dd41f\u0022 data-id=\u0022ee4714c70a2d4c6ea5a60ca39d56e276\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022275c91f8-c6b8-42fd-b3ab-d8fc000dd41f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ee4714c70a2d4c6ea5a60ca39d56e276\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education):\u003C/span\u003E I have used my personal email in the past. While the Cabinet Manual acknowledges that this may happen, I have now put in place practices so that, as far as possible, this is minimised in the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221ebd1031-ea10-4c3d-bb56-2cd99528ae91\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222cbcb5b4e21a44f09cbde02dd8020c77\u0022\u003EHon Willow-Jean Prime\u003C/span\u003E: Has she ever invited people to email her on her personal Gmail account for ministerial business since becoming Minister?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022275c91f8-c6b8-42fd-b3ab-d8fc000dd41f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022466690a62cb649a487d3b19113e8d687\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: Many people have my Gmail address, both from before I was a Minister and when I was in Opposition. Some of them still continue to use it. As I\u2019ve said in my primary, I take steps as far as I possibly can now to ensure that that stops happening.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221ebd1031-ea10-4c3d-bb56-2cd99528ae91\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a40cf8238c964356ac242fde29f1c4dc\u0022\u003EHon Willow-Jean Prime\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. That wasn\u2019t my question. My question was \u201CHas she invited people to email her on her personal Gmail account since she has become\u201D\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228bae432fd02845d8b58492f500e4cf70\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, wait on. Are you taking a point of order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221ebd1031-ea10-4c3d-bb56-2cd99528ae91\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022da7e9aa2c2a44e9182dd4e371e728aab\u0022\u003EHon Willow-Jean Prime\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, that was not my question. I asked if she had invited people to email her on her personal Gmail account.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022743f2b5d6e764d9fbd35731783e3a95a\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, presumably, if she\u2019s given them that address at some point, they\u2019ve been invited. That would be the conclusion you\u2019ve reached.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221ebd1031-ea10-4c3d-bb56-2cd99528ae91\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223e9456448ed043d68505994ee6d243ce\u0022\u003EHon Willow-Jean Prime\u003C/span\u003E: But since becoming a Minister, I said. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ec78baee517d40a2aaf17c3b587fe781\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Minister. OK, well, the Minister may like to have another crack at that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022275c91f8-c6b8-42fd-b3ab-d8fc000dd41f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227aedb75c0fa9478e885f126ff743755f\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll reinstate what I said. Many people have my Gmail address, and I receive unsolicited emails. As far as I can recall, I\u2019ve never given out my personal email, but, as I say, it\u2019s freely available. Unfortunately, many people can find it online and they have emailed me at my personal email.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221ebd1031-ea10-4c3d-bb56-2cd99528ae91\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e906c3cea5d3461aab91476efec6526d\u0022\u003EHon Willow-Jean Prime\u003C/span\u003E: Has she ever used her personal Gmail account to organise ministerial meetings?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022275c91f8-c6b8-42fd-b3ab-d8fc000dd41f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223d8bbea9fb4f49449bd0ee47ebc78c96\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: No. All meetings that have been organised have been organised through ministerial office, and they are all available in the proactively released diary managed either through my political staff or through my private secretaries.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221ebd1031-ea10-4c3d-bb56-2cd99528ae91\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222830f022ea974b39bb86162be54cce20\u0022\u003EHon Willow-Jean Prime\u003C/span\u003E: Is everything she organised via her private email recorded in her ministerial diary?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022275c91f8-c6b8-42fd-b3ab-d8fc000dd41f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ccf22a8b1c5a449f9fbf2f39415c9588\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: I didn\u2019t organise any meetings through my Gmail, and any meetings that have been organised have been organised by my senior private secretary, my office, and have been recorded in the proactive diary releases.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002234f10ab30bf2483897815b132318d2ce\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister find it unusual that there are some members of Parliament who are so lacking in doing their duty as responsible MPs or Ministers that nobody writes to them? [Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c51d018584784861a658658f3b820a57\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: Every question time, we\u2019ve got to put up with this nonsense.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002281002eba30784678a826d59bd2c8a858\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I just hear from my left the suggestion that every question time there is a need to put up with so-called dis-nonsense. Unfortunately, it is a House where people do have the right to stand on their feet and say largely what they\u2019re thinking, as long as it is not offensive to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223e350a8a5dd0463e86996213a4c851e7\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. So just to clarify, you are saying that members have the right to stand up and ask a question they know is not in order to make a political point, and that\u2019s all good with you?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022658cdc03354446a5a5eeed364085a6af\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, that\u2019s not what I said at all. If you will then refer to Hansard, you\u2019ll find out what I did say.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221ebd1031-ea10-4c3d-bb56-2cd99528ae91\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022157221fd3ce3414f83fe0d18783d688d\u0022\u003EHon Willow-Jean Prime\u003C/span\u003E: Has everything that has been through her personal email account that relates to her portfolios been recorded in accordance with the official record-keeping practices?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022275c91f8-c6b8-42fd-b3ab-d8fc000dd41f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002259dbce784afc4beea0407d0f3202fa68\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s exactly why we\u2019re here. The Cabinet Manual says that any emails should be kept for the purposes of the Official Information Act. They have been; they\u2019ve been disclosed, and that\u2019s why we\u2019re here. What I would say, though, is that I am absolutely, 100\u00A0percent focused on reforming the education system, which is why we\u2019ve done so much work. All the while, the member across the House has spent her time trawling through my Gmails, and I\u2019d rather she spent time perhaps reading the message that I sent her, inviting her to be part of the NCEA change package, which she has declined to respond to\u2014but that sums up the Opposition\u2019s priorities, which is not our kids.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221ebd1031-ea10-4c3d-bb56-2cd99528ae91\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222092b6e402c746deb03f72ff7a249aae\u0022\u003EHon Willow-Jean Prime\u003C/span\u003E: Has she received assurances from the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS), Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC), Ministerial Services, parliamentary IT, or any other relevant agency that her Gmail has never\u2014[Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022140e0236a5b544438dba2f10bbbd3765\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, look, sorry\u2014a question\u2019s being asked, and questions are asked in silence. We\u2019ve had too much of that today on both sides. Start again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221ebd1031-ea10-4c3d-bb56-2cd99528ae91\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228568482e0bab4c64b63a2fc4ce8076a6\u0022\u003EHon Willow-Jean Prime\u003C/span\u003E: Has she received assurances from the GCSB, the NZSIS, DPMC, Ministerial Services, parliamentary IT, or any other relevant agency that her Gmail has never been breached?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022275c91f8-c6b8-42fd-b3ab-d8fc000dd41f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022993524d89aa147e2925bc925eee8833f\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: I have not done that, but I have made sure that there is two-factor authentication on my Gmail, which is one of the things that we\u2019re required to do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00224d187c3fca1849428528f48463b09ce2\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 12\u2014Trade and Investment\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002239b9bac1-a992-4ccf-a473-9591aeb3a298\u0022 data-id=\u00225859d903ae9f4c039473d5f33efd2543\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002239b9bac1-a992-4ccf-a473-9591aeb3a298\u0022\u003E12. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225859d903ae9f4c039473d5f33efd2543\u0022\u003ERIMA NAKHLE (National\u2014Takanini)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister for Trade and Investment: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding free-trade agreements?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c0f78f60-c2fd-46f4-8138-72f39692fc20\u0022 data-id=\u00222a0f54604e8b4663af32af8ac9af2f11\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0f78f60-c2fd-46f4-8138-72f39692fc20\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222a0f54604e8b4663af32af8ac9af2f11\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade and Investment):\u003C/span\u003E Last week marked the one-year anniversary of the New Zealand - European Union Free Trade Agreement. As a result of its early entry into force many months sooner than had been forecast, goods exports to the EU from New Zealand have surged by 28 percent, delivering an additional $1 billion in export revenue in the first year. This is very good news for our hard-working exporters and, as the Hon Damien O\u2019Connor has said, should be celebrated by every member in this House. This week also marks the first in-person negotiations for a comprehensive free-trade agreement (FTA) with India, one of the world\u2019s fastest-growing economies, with huge untapped potential for New Zealand exporters\u2014an important milestone in our relationship with that country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002239b9bac1-a992-4ccf-a473-9591aeb3a298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022de04529f68324d409bb534b4a972a00c\u0022\u003ERima Nakhle\u003C/span\u003E: What benefits has the European free-trade agreement delivered for New Zealand\u2019s exporters over the past year?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0f78f60-c2fd-46f4-8138-72f39692fc20\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bc677eaa6cdb4222be1dc87bdca7f48a\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY\u003C/span\u003E: In just 12 months, the agreement has unlocked major new opportunities for exporters and delivered improved market access to nearly 450 million consumers. That $1 billion increase in export revenue is already benefiting Kiwi exporters directly, particularly our farmers\u2014for example, sheep meat exports grew by 29 percent, worth more than $200 million; kiwifruit exports grew by 69 percent, an additional $316 million; butter exports, 105 percent increase; squid exports, 66 percent, worth $25 million; and machinery exports grew 104 percent, worth an additional $173\u00A0million. Services trade also grew by 22\u00A0percent, meaning more jobs and better pay for Kiwis.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002239b9bac1-a992-4ccf-a473-9591aeb3a298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fb582bb6fcc540a78c58764bf5452117\u0022\u003ERima Nakhle\u003C/span\u003E: What is the significance of a comprehensive free-trade agreement with India?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0f78f60-c2fd-46f4-8138-72f39692fc20\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a26eb57538bd41909e8421f074f610c6\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY\u003C/span\u003E: With a population of 1.4 billion people and GDP estimated to grow to US$5.2 trillion by 2030, India offers significant potential for New Zealand exporters. Negotiations were launched on 17 March, and there has been significant engagement with officials since then. This week, as I said, marks the first in-person round of negotiations towards a comprehensive FTA, and they\u2019re taking in place in India. This follows the highly successful visit to India by our Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, including to Gujarat last year, and the formal launch of negotiations by my Indian counterpart and me during the Prime Minister\u2019s large and successful trade mission to India in March.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002239b9bac1-a992-4ccf-a473-9591aeb3a298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002207b2679edb2c40f2b5163202710b1ec6\u0022\u003ERima Nakhle\u003C/span\u003E: What else has the Government achieved in the past 17 months regarding trade agreements?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0f78f60-c2fd-46f4-8138-72f39692fc20\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224ddd6aa2dc2a4eacacc9b3dedbe9fa21\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY\u003C/span\u003E: One in four Kiwi jobs relies on trade, and last year, our export revenue added a significant $100 billion to the economy, including a significant, huge contribution by New Zealand farmers. Strong agreements and relationships ensure better jobs, higher wages, and access to world-class public services for New Zealanders. It\u2019s been a very busy and important year for trade and agriculture. Since the Government was formed, we have brought the EU FTA into force earlier than forecast; signed an agreement with the UAE, 99\u00A0percent of tariff elimination on day one; concluded negotiations with the Gulf Cooperation Council, also 99 percent tariff elimination over time; brought the upgraded ASEAN - Australia - New Zealand FTA into force recently; signed the ACCTS agreement on trade and sustainability; announced services on trade-upgrade negotiations with China; and now are launching negotiations for an FTA with India\u2014all part of the Government\u2019s agenda to grow the economy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00227ce1615d52b846eb842b506a454f4883\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 1 to Minister\u2014Amended Answer\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022 data-id=\u0022b9e865fd44ed40338e45b9b280e5757f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b9e865fd44ed40338e45b9b280e5757f\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E I seek leave to make a personal explanation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e982320155c84461aab04e6cec8c6d3d\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db38ce077a6145ddbde6f7bdc90a1b49\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: For what reason?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022947887d19ed94240902567b214521b02\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: You don\u2019t\u2014well, a small outline of the reason.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a25e013d8bbb4885989c089171a67382\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer to a supplementary question to No. 1 today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022898f25ef8c024a5cb0d3b86044ad5e79\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea31fdd3-90e9-47d7-92a4-20b6a3109eef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225141e17dcc9b4ff7adc870352b6cf0cf\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was asked whether the budgetary cost of settling pay equity claims was considered when the Government made this decision. What I should have said was that while Cabinet received advice on a range of considerations, our primary motivation was ensuring the regime would be more robust, workable, and sustainable. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022866a391df38f44768ccef32c755a8481\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022866a391df38f44768ccef32c755a8481\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The normal practice would be for a much more substantial reason. But can we now take 30 seconds while the House allows those who need to go to other business to do so.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00227bc80bf97ae74e4184ec4585c60965cb\u0022\u003EStanding Orders\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e870ff6c419742c0a15833a0def821f7\u0022\u003ESessional\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002257e41e9d-285b-4fb3-847d-a63820ae7137\u0022 data-id=\u00227db81198494f4e4cba31ba99b7b94b3b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257e41e9d-285b-4fb3-847d-a63820ae7137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227db81198494f4e4cba31ba99b7b94b3b\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the following sessional order be adopted:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257e41e9d-285b-4fb3-847d-a63820ae7137\u0022\u003EOral questions after urgency accorded\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257e41e9d-285b-4fb3-847d-a63820ae7137\u0022\u003E(1) During a sitting that is extended by urgency, oral questions will be taken at 2 pm on a Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, unless the Business Committee determines otherwise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257e41e9d-285b-4fb3-847d-a63820ae7137\u0022\u003E(2) Standing Order 59 is read accordingly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257e41e9d-285b-4fb3-847d-a63820ae7137\u0022\u003EThis is a very short motion just to make clear that when the House goes into urgency, there will be question time on each actual day, even though, in parliamentary terms, it\u2019s not a real day, but there will be question time during urgency. It just, essentially, makes sure that the Government doesn\u2019t have to go through the Business Committee and get the Business Committee to agree or, indeed, move a motion like we are. So, hopefully, it will be one and done, and I suspect this will be an issue that gets referred to the Standing Orders Committee for permanent adoption into the Standing Orders into the 49th Parliament.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257e41e9d-285b-4fb3-847d-a63820ae7137\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002263a2203ff23f45199fda14f092f85c53\u0022\u003EUrgency\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ceeb6fea610c4e17a3b8a90a990ae969\u0022\u003EUrgency\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002257e41e9d-285b-4fb3-847d-a63820ae7137\u0022 data-id=\u0022b6e1f4c8248847799f47cffafa72517f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257e41e9d-285b-4fb3-847d-a63820ae7137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b6e1f4c8248847799f47cffafa72517f\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That urgency be accorded the introduction and passing through all stages of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, the passing through all stages of the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill, the remaining stages of the Social Security Amendment Bill, the second reading of the Racing Industry Amendment Bill and the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill, and the first reading and referral to select committee of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257e41e9d-285b-4fb3-847d-a63820ae7137\u0022\u003EThe Government is moving into urgency for a range of reasons today. The first is that it is desirable to provide legal certainty in relation to the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, to provide legal clarity as soon as practicably possible.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257e41e9d-285b-4fb3-847d-a63820ae7137\u0022\u003EIn relation to the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill, I think it has been widely canvassed, certainly in parts of the media. The decision of the High Court, I think it was a few weeks ago, has provided real legal uncertainty in relation to a range of infrastructure projects. The recent court decision, I am advised, impacts over 300 applications to the Department of Conservation for permits under the Wildlife Act. At some point in the future, Parliament is going to have to turn its mind to the Wildlife Act itself, which is a law that dates from 1953. I think it is clunky, but, in the meantime, we need to provide clear legal certainty in relation to matters under the Wildlife Act, as a range of infrastructure projects are affected. That is why that is being taken through all stages under urgency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257e41e9d-285b-4fb3-847d-a63820ae7137\u0022\u003EThe Social Security Amendment Bill needs to be enacted by 26 May, and the Government intends to make progress on some other bills that are important to it, including the Racing Industry Amendment Bill. Both of those are second readings, not passing through all stages. The Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill is a good bill and we\u2019re keen to get that off to committee. It\u2019s at the tail end of the urgency motion; if we get there, we\u2019ll be doing well. Let\u2019s wait and see how we go. With that, I\u2019ll commend the urgency motion to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00221aa251c413a94127b60d8f5829888837\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002266018fabd1aa4934979592ec557da06c\u0022\u003EEqual Pay Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a547d30f2bfa48ac8b5e471dddba9fc9\u0022\u003EIntroduction\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u002208fde4c866e94825a441e5e2955a2ad5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002208fde4c866e94825a441e5e2955a2ad5\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I understand it is the intention of the Government to introduce a bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022\u0022 data-id=\u0022974d994be8f94256ba8fd86f2ba7e0ab\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022974d994be8f94256ba8fd86f2ba7e0ab\u0022\u003ECLERK\u003C/span\u003E: Equal Pay Amendment Bill, introduction. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u00224b8a443a62a342769bb1cb1173d2c3e9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224b8a443a62a342769bb1cb1173d2c3e9\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The Equal Pay Amendment Bill is set down for first reading immediately. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002281080a2e93354efaa295356968e8ca63\u0022\u003EFirst Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u00221ad28fc802834aab828abb6cdac8d19f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221ad28fc802834aab828abb6cdac8d19f\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E I present a legislative statement on the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226d6ab8ed3aeb43f2abce2d3eeffe3082\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002246f2d737387f4784a58dff3a28d3eb80\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN\u003C/span\u003E: I move, That the Equal Pay Amendment Bill be now read a first time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EThe Equal Pay Amendment Bill improves the process for raising and resolving a pay equity claim. It provides a better framework for assessing whether there is sex-based undervaluation in remuneration in female-dominated occupations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EIn 2014, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the Equal Pay Act did not only require the same pay for the same work, but also equal pay for work that is different but of equal value. A bill providing a framework for raising and resolving pay equity claims was introduced into Parliament in 2017, and a substantially reworked bill was passed into law by the previous Government in 2020.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EThe previous Government\u2019s bill significantly lowered the entry threshold for pay equity claims, provided limited tools for employers to contest broadly scoped claims, and enabled parties to choose from a wide variety of comparators to support their claim. The settings the previous Government introduced have led to claims being progressed through the entry threshold without strong evidence of undervaluation. There have been broadly scoped claims where it is difficult to determine whether the differences in remuneration are due to sex-based undervaluation. For example, the DHB, Allied, and Technical health pay equity settlement covers 90 occupations including hospital dental assistants, physiotherapists, wheelchair technicians, and cultural advisers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EThe current Act provides the flexibility to choose from a wide range of comparators, which has led to comparators being chosen even where the comparator\u2019s work and skills are very different to the claimant\u2019s. Health New Zealand admin and clerical staff, as an example, have been compared to mechanical engineers, Health New Zealand librarians have been compared to transport engineers, and Oranga Tamariki\u2019s social workers have been compared to air traffic controllers. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EThe same comparators have been used repeatedly across several claims, despite several differences with the work of the claimants. Corrections officers, for example, have been used as comparators for nurses, admin support staff, and teacher aides. And review clauses that are required to be included in settlement agreements have considered factors that may not have been connected to sex-based undervaluation. In some settlements, review clauses have included factors to consider\u2014such as the Consumers Price Index\u2014that may not have been connected to a return of sex-based undervaluation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EThis Government is committed to maintaining a process to raise and resolve pay equity claims, but we need the system to be robust, workable, and sustainable. Whether it is a public or a private sector employer, implementing a pay equity settlement means that employers will need to determine how to factor in additional costs. Parties, therefore, need to be able to have the confidence that the process to assess a pay equity claim is robust.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EIn order to provide a better framework for raising and resolving pay equity claims, this bill introduces a suite of changes, which includes a more robust process for raising a claim where claims need to have merit to progress; further tools for employers to ensure that claims are appropriately scoped; additional clarity and guidance on how to choose an appropriate comparator and on comparison methodology; changes to enable employers to meet their pay equity obligations in a manner that is sustainable; and changes to ensure that the parameters for the Employment Relations Authority relating to fixing remuneration provide the right incentives to resolve pay equity claims.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EThe bill will apply to existing unresolved claims and to review clauses in existing settlements. Existing pay equity claims will be discontinued, and they will need to be raised under the amended legislation, whether they have been raised with the employer or filed at the authority and are not yet determined. The Government is doing this because we consider it\u2019s important that everyone is on the same playing field from the start, rather than allowing for two systems to operate at the same time for a period of time. The review clauses in existing settlements will also become unenforceable. The short time frame of the review cycle in the Act has made it difficult to determine whether any differences in pay were due to pay equity issues having reemerged or to short-term labour market dynamics. These transitional provisions are necessary and justified to meet the policy objective of maintaining a process to raise and resolve pay equity claims while providing a better framework that is workable and sustainable. They will provide certainty for people involved in pay equity claims.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EWe are progressing this bill under urgency because we have to move quickly to make the changes to the Act to ensure that the system is workable and sustainable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EOverall, the bill will provide greater confidence that pay equity claim assessments will focus on any sex-based undervaluation and remuneration, and that any non-sex-based factors are appropriately accounted for. These changes will provide greater confidence that genuine pay equity issues will be correctly identified and addressed. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022 data-id=\u00227b34c2313d3a4d4ebcce29d3421eef8b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227b34c2313d3a4d4ebcce29d3421eef8b\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022 data-id=\u00221ddb8f9cd16b4fb6bd670c0ea4ea9f13\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221ddb8f9cd16b4fb6bd670c0ea4ea9f13\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Speaker. I found that incredibly insulting towards women, that speech. How dare anybody pour shade on the work that has happened since 2020 that had 13\u201413\u2014pay equity claims be successful in this country, when prior to that we had very few successful pay equity claims. How dare anyone pour shade on a process\u2014and here we are, in urgency, going through all stages of a bill and totally, totally taking away the democratic rights of women in this country to have their say on something that is incredibly important to them. How absolutely shameful. And why is not every woman on that side of the House hanging their head in shame and standing up and saying that this is not good enough?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003EThis is absolutely disgraceful that we are here today, when nobody\u2014nobody\u2014other than the executive knew anything about this bill until a few hours beforehand. The fact that this would come through and cause many, many people to come at short notice to stand outside and protest against this bill says it all. What an absolute disgrace.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003EFor the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety to stand up and say that claims have been able to progress without strong evidence of undervaluation, does she even know what the process looks like? Did she listen to Tessa today, who stood outside there as a librarian who has been through four years so far progressing their claim\u2014four years of robust discussion, four years of working through those comparators, four years of making sure that their claim was going to stand up so that they were going to be valued how they have always desired to be valued? All she said is that \u201CWe want to be paid for our work\u2014the value of our work.\u201D Four years she has been working through that, and for the Minister to stand there and say that there is no strong evidence of undervaluation is absolutely shameful\u2014absolutely shameful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003EThis is a disgraceful affront to women\u2019s and workers\u2019 rights, and I am absolutely disgusted that this House is even having this conversation. We should be moving forward, and this is taking us backwards. It is taking us backwards to a time when women were undervalued for their work, and now we are starting\u2014I thought this was something that we agreed upon across the House. I thought that this was something that we would not have arguments about, that we would stand here together and say, \u201CWomen need to be valued.\u201D But what this smacks of is that we have a Government that cannot make their Budget balance, and so this is a way that they are actually having to go desperately, to grasp desperately, to make their Budget balance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003ESo what are they doing? They are throwing women under the bus. Women are the people who are absolutely paying for their inability to make their Budget work. Women once again in this country are being put in a position where they are having to pay for other people\u2019s work, for other people\u2019s inability to make their Budgets work. Women are paying for tax cuts. That is the bottom line here: women are paying for tax cuts. It is a shameful, shameful day. It is outrageous, dishonest, and an absolute backward step\u2014absolute backward step.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003EThis Government is simply extinguishing what are very legitimate pay equity claims for tens, if not hundreds, of thousands. When you think that the teacher pay equity claim is covering 94,000 teachers alone, and there are 33 claims in progress at this current point in time, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of women who this is impacting upon. And it\u2019s the claims to come. But not only that; it\u2019s the claims that have been, because what the Minister is taking away in this shameful piece of legislation is that she is taking away the review rights. So she is condemning women to be at lower levels of pay for a long, long, long time. It is shameful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003EThe Government getting back into surplus should not be at the expense of women. Women are being asked to once again pay the price. This is an absolutely shameful day in the history of this Parliament. I have never felt so disgusted in what I am seeing right now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022 data-id=\u0022ccdb55a81fba4aafbdb72a7ebc0da8bd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ccdb55a81fba4aafbdb72a7ebc0da8bd\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green\u2014Rongotai):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Madam Speaker. T\u0113n\u0101 koutou e te Whare. I am disappointed, I am absolutely disgusted, but I am not surprised that this is the action this Government takes. Now, the first person I want to mention in my speech is Kristine Bartlett, who won New Zealander of the Year, who has been recognised for outstanding contributions to our country, who took the first claim under the Equal Pay Act about the discriminatory pay that she and so many other people received as aged-care workers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EThe reality is that the hardest and most important caring work that holds together our society is underpaid and undervalued, and it has been for decades, and that was recognised by the National Party in 2020 when we passed the amendment to the Equal Pay Act. On 22 July 2020, the National Party stood up, and Nicola Willis said she was proud to stand in the House that night and say that National would support the final reading of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill\u2014\u201CI\u2019m proud [of what the National Party] \u2026 contributed to crafting this legislation and bringing it to the House.\u201D Erica Stanford said that she was pleased to take a very short call. She spoke of the dreams she had for her daughter and her grandchildren, that they would grow up in a country where the work that they do is equally valued and compensated equally to that of their male counterparts, and that bill set up the framework that we need to achieve that outcome.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003ENow, I, as Minister for Women, oversaw this in conjunction with our Labour colleagues, but we had the support of the National Party. We had the support of Business New Zealand and the unions. There was a tripart working group that went through and developed the process, and the whole point of it was to make it easier for pay equity to be achieve. That means that people, whether they\u2019re male or female or gender diverse, working in historically female-dominated industries, whether they\u2019re teachers, midwives, nurses, admin and clerical workers, cleaners, aged-care workers, care and support workers\u2014they don\u2019t get paid enough, and that\u2019s because of gender-based discrimination.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EWhat the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety has said and made very, very clear in her public media today is that this is about saving money for Government. Who pays the price of that? Our essential workers, who are predominantly female and who are struggling to make ends meet, going out there and doing the hardest work that actually holds together society, all right?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003ELike, the highest-paid people in our society right now are not the ones doing the hardest work. Let\u2019s just be honest about that. We have a broken economic system that rewards people who go out and make money by ripping people off or by playing the shocks and the training system, and not the people who actually look after our tamariki, who look after our aged people, who look after our disabled people\u2014and that\u2019s predominantly women, and they\u2019re predominantly employed by Government because the work they do is for public good, and that needs to be recognised.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EThe whole point of this very long process that we went through to ensure that pay equity was acknowledged and had a process that everybody could agree to under the Equal Pay Act was so that we could rectify that historic discrimination, which means that single mothers who are doing some of the hardest work out there are able to be properly paid and recognised for their contribution and their mahi, as they deserve to be.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EThere are so many women that I\u2019ve heard from, or people just working in these sectors, for whom the pay equity cases have made a life-changing difference. It is the difference between being able to put food on the table\u2014healthy kai. It\u2019s the difference that they might be able to save up a little extra and be able to have a proper holiday, for example, or be able to take some well-deserved time off; to be able to live in a warmer, drier house, which may have higher rent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EThere is no question\u2014the Government has made it very, very clear\u2014that the overriding driving purpose for the changes that have been introduced and will be passed today is not justice, it is not fairness, it is not about ensuring that the Crown is a good employer; it is about saving money so we can give more money to the people who already have the most. That\u2019s what this Government has prioritised: tax cuts for landlords, the people who already own the most wealth; tax cuts for tobacco companies. That\u2019s what women in this House have made their work, is to look after the people who donated to the Government parties, rather than looking after the women who are underpaid and doing the most critical work. Those are the workforces in which we have shortages. We don\u2019t have enough teachers, and we don\u2019t have enough midwives, because we do not pay them enough.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022 data-id=\u00220eccf25860554498b2f1963a2fd8a088\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220eccf25860554498b2f1963a2fd8a088\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to speak on behalf of the National Party in support of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. This will, of course, amend the Equal Pay Act 1972 and provide a better framework to assess whether there is sex-based undervaluation of workers covered by a pay equity claim.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EThis piece of legislation is not about collective bargaining. It is not about where wages are low. This is a piece of legislation to provide a framework that allows us to determine where there is sex-based undervaluation. And this is where things went astray with the 2020 legislation, because, all of a sudden, the Government in power wanted to wrap a whole bunch of other issues into a piece of legislation that removed it from its core purpose, which was about pay equity. So our Government is returning it to be about pay equity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EI want to remind the House that in 2017 the then National Government settled with Kristine Bartlett. I applaud her determination and her courage in taking that case, and the $2 billion settlement that resulted. The legislation that we introduced in 2017\u2014really, we\u2019re going back to a more pragmatic approach, which means the process is more robust. It is more transparent. It is more workable and sustainable for all parties involved. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EI do want to just correct a couple of the nonsenses that the Labour and Green members talked about in dramatising this and scaremongering. The first is the blatant\u2014blatant\u2014inaccuracy that this is removing review rights. It\u2019s not. It\u2019s just putting review rights in a 10-year interval. What we do want to do\u2014and here\u2019s the thing: if there is a sex-based discrimination case that works the way through its process and leads to change, why is it that we think in only three years there would still be sex-based discrimination? It wouldn\u2019t work if that was the case. So 10 years is a realistic interval in terms of that change being made.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EThe other thing I do want to put on the record, because I think it is important in terms of National\u2019s support of the 2020 legislation\u2014I just do want to remind the House that the Labour Government rammed through a massive Supplementary Order Paper that had no scrutiny by anyone, and many of the issues that we are fixing today in this piece of legislation, brought by my colleague the Hon Brooke van Velden, fix those difficulties.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EThis piece of legislation is about sex-based discrimination. I\u2019m proud of the National Party record and what we have done in terms of equal pay, in terms of introducing legislation and recognising pay equity in 2017. I accept what members of the House have said about a range of New Zealanders whose pay is too low. That is why we want a growing economy that lifts wages. But that is a very different issue to sex-based discrimination. So let\u2019s keep the debate about the issue of the day, which is pay equity. It\u2019s not about low wages. It\u2019s not about issues that the other side want to scaremonger. It is about pay equity, so let\u2019s focus on that, because it\u2019s about historical undervaluation of areas that have been traditionally dominated by women. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EOne of the other really important components of this legislation is when we are using comparators, and the Minister outlined some of the comparators. If I think about the concerns that have been raised with me by workers and by employers across the board, people want to understand comparators that make sense and, unfortunately, what we\u2019ve seen with the current system is just an absolute stretching beyond of what is logical and reasonable in terms of a comparator.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003ESo we want to see pay equity claims that are successful, that are based on merit, and we must have a system that is more robust, workable, and sustainable so that we can achieve greater pay equity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022feb2e3ca-4ad3-4c7c-9958-b10d28c83bc8\u0022 data-id=\u0022f345bea908c64f1e80af721e595775e1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022feb2e3ca-4ad3-4c7c-9958-b10d28c83bc8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f345bea908c64f1e80af721e595775e1\u0022\u003EHon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs):\u003C/span\u003E I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022439ce663b9ed410d9d00080cb07fb536\u0022\u003EHon Ginny Andersen\u003C/span\u003E: Standing up for women\u2019s rights! \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022feb2e3ca-4ad3-4c7c-9958-b10d28c83bc8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022092db910169f4ec9bb5536130316a4e0\u0022\u003EHon CASEY COSTELLO\u003C/span\u003E: This is an important piece of legislation because we are standing up for women\u2019s rights. When we take the emotion and the noise out of this conversation, the key point that we are talking about\u2014and the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, when introducing the bill, mentioned that this is having remain the ability to raise the sex-based undervaluations but, more importantly, resolve them through a framework that will be effective and efficient and that will have a really clear connection to the core purpose of this legislation, which is about sex-based undervaluation. We are seeking to support meritorious claims, and when members across the House can muddy the water with a whole lot of issues about pay gaps and underpaid workforces, this is blurring the line about the point of this piece of legislation, which is to raise and resolve the claims. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022feb2e3ca-4ad3-4c7c-9958-b10d28c83bc8\u0022\u003EMembers across the House talked about four years of fighting an equity claim\u2014four years shows you that the system needs to be resolved and improved. The system needs to be made more effective, because otherwise we will spend years working through legislation because we\u2019re too afraid to say that perhaps this isn\u2019t achieving what we wanted it to achieve. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022feb2e3ca-4ad3-4c7c-9958-b10d28c83bc8\u0022\u003EIt is about having a workable and sustainable solution into the long term. It is about having logical and effective ways of ensuring that we can raise these sex-based undervaluations and resolve them, and that is the key point that we are doing in this piece of legislation. This is why it is important to have the confidence, the ability, the common sense, and the bravery to actually stand up and go, \u201CHang on, let\u2019s take a look at this. Is it achieving what we want it to achieve?\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022feb2e3ca-4ad3-4c7c-9958-b10d28c83bc8\u0022\u003EI have worked nearly my entire working life in male-dominated roles, and I think we can say proudly in New Zealand that we have progressed effectively to ensure that women\u2019s work is valued. Are we at the end destination? No. There is work we can do, but the work has to be about the ability to resolve these claims, to recognise where they sit\u2014differentiated from general concerns about pay rates\u2014and actually deal with the specific conversation about sex-based undervaluations so that we can achieve the equity goals that we want to, and not blurring it with a whole lot of emotive language about all of these things and how we\u2019re selling women down the road, and all of this emotional language which will make it easy to get some points. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022948b4513461141a49ad4b5865b9565cf\u0022\u003EHon Carmel Sepuloni\u003C/span\u003E: Why is she trying to make this emotional\u2014we\u2019re talking about women, and it becomes an emotional issue?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022feb2e3ca-4ad3-4c7c-9958-b10d28c83bc8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229eb3dd276d284a8d9f4577d8a0c5b3d5\u0022\u003EHon CASEY COSTELLO\u003C/span\u003E: But here we have this point where we have emotions being shouted across the House. This is about the point of exactly what we\u2019re trying to achieve. It is a common-sense piece of legislation that will address and adjust what we\u2019re trying to achieve, which is sex-based undervaluation claims being able to be raised and then resolved. That is the direction we need to do and that is the direction this Government is taking. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022feb2e3ca-4ad3-4c7c-9958-b10d28c83bc8\u0022\u003EWe are not removing the ability to raise these claims. We are not removing the ability to deal with the issues. We are working through a process to ensure that this ability to raise exists and the ability to resolve is a priority, and that is why New Zealand First is commending this bill to the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002298182bc2e3e74e00b58e0436c0e84931\u0022\u003EHon Carmel Sepuloni\u003C/span\u003E: She should be ashamed of herself. Shame! \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022 data-id=\u002219adf3f04e704117a4ec9ee8e3f8cdd2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002219adf3f04e704117a4ec9ee8e3f8cdd2\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Takutai Tarsh Kemp. Sorry, we\u2019ll just wait for the next\u2014I don\u2019t think we need personal attacks, right? I\u2019m going to get it clear from the beginning of this that this is a Government bill, and we don\u2019t want those sorts of comments passed to Ministers personally. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022 data-id=\u00224db010a5823b4269a2d8282e7b0c672c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224db010a5823b4269a2d8282e7b0c672c\u0022\u003EHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Point of order, Madam Speaker. I\u2019ve been here a long time, and interjecting with the term \u201CShame!\u201D to another member across the House has\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022 data-id=\u002250e03544a01049489c5c25c3e2e4f407\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002250e03544a01049489c5c25c3e2e4f407\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, it wasn\u2019t the word \u201CShame!\u201D; it was the words you used\u2014\u201CYou should be ashamed of yourself.\u201D\u2014to that member. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c0e08ee8814443c2846c98620198346c\u0022\u003EHon Carmel Sepuloni\u003C/span\u003E: Actually, I said, \u201CShe should be ashamed.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022017002135f8f42d4877edfd9e097b653\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I think you used the word \u201Cyou\u201D, but I can check that out. But this is a Government bill, so let\u2019s try and do it with the\u2014we know that it\u2019s going to be a bill that\u2019s going to create a lot of angst and a lot of emotion, but let\u2019s try and keep the personal attacks out of it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002256295840-7a18-46fb-bbb3-164ac3edf716\u0022 data-id=\u0022073886f469784ccc983fea0ec9354dbd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002256295840-7a18-46fb-bbb3-164ac3edf716\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022073886f469784ccc983fea0ec9354dbd\u0022\u003ETAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori\u2014T\u0101maki Makaurau):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koe e te P\u012Bka. T\u0113n\u0101 t\u0101tou e te Whare. Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori opposes this bill in the strongest terms. It is emotional, because we stand by w\u0101hine, we stand by the rights of our w\u0101hine, and we deserve better. This bill will make it impossible for people in female-dominated professions to be paid fairly. This is an attack on working women and will lock in gender discrimination for years to come. Why is this Government so determined to erase equity and entrench inequality? This bill will stop 33 current claims immediately, under urgency, because this Government can afford to give $3\u00A0billion to landlords and $13 billion to the military but we cannot afford to pay our w\u0101hine fairly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002256295840-7a18-46fb-bbb3-164ac3edf716\u0022\u003EFor every $1 a P\u0101keh\u0101 man makes, a M\u0101ori wahine makes 81c\u2014get that. A Pasifika woman makes 79c\u2014even more shameful. An Asian wahine makes 88c, and Middle Eastern, Latin American, and African women make 88c as well. Where is the equity in that? That means that over a lifetime, taking inflation into consideration, the average M\u0101ori wahine will earn over $400,000 less than P\u0101keh\u0101 men. Asian women, too, have earned over $400,000 less, and Pasifika women have earned nearly $500,000 less than P\u0101keh\u0101 men. This illustrates the intergenerational impact of pay discrimination on wh\u0101nau. These aren\u2019t just numbers; these are tamariki, these are mokopuna.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002256295840-7a18-46fb-bbb3-164ac3edf716\u0022\u003EI want to share an example. I worked in an organisation where this occurred. This happened to our team of workmates, to the w\u0101hine in this team\u2014high-performing w\u0101hine, I\u2019ve got to say. We did the same job as our male counterparts, but we were never paid the same equal, fair-pay rate as our male teammates. Every year, we would go to the performance review, fight and prove that we could reach our key performance indicators just as much as our male counterparts. Did we ever get that pay rise? No. Did we ever get the same pay rise, actually, as our male counterparts? No, we didn\u2019t, and for years we felt undervalued. For years, it felt demoralising.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002256295840-7a18-46fb-bbb3-164ac3edf716\u0022\u003EYes, it is emotional, because you put your heart, sweat, blood, and tears into your mahi because you love your community, and all you ask for is fair and equal pay, the same as your male colleagues. Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori oppose this bill, and we won\u2019t be supporting this bill in the House. Kia ora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229634e377-7e76-4353-9662-fb444eb2ec9d\u0022 data-id=\u002266053e04b11c4716a11f72a162551928\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229634e377-7e76-4353-9662-fb444eb2ec9d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002266053e04b11c4716a11f72a162551928\u0022\u003ECARL BATES (National\u2014Whanganui):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Speaker. My colleague the Hon Louise Upston made it very clear in her speech earlier that this today is about sex-based pay having equality and that National is committed to this and has been committed to this throughout. In fact, National led the introduction of legislation to this House in 2017. We have Labour crying foul this afternoon, when it took them three years even to get their legislation into this House. During urgency, they introduced a Supplementary Order Paper that fundamentally changed that legislation for the worse. This afternoon, we have come to the House to fix that. That does not take away from the importance of ensuring equality in pay based on sex.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229634e377-7e76-4353-9662-fb444eb2ec9d\u0022\u003EI want to correct the previous speaker who spoke a lot about equal pay. The bill that has been introduced to the House this afternoon does not make any changes to equal pay. Equal pay is receiving equal pay for equal work. Pay equality is about ensuring\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002250ba220076c54ab8b2f88bb9a5556fe7\u0022\u003EHon Ginny Andersen\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s called \u201Cequity\u201D, mate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229634e377-7e76-4353-9662-fb444eb2ec9d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f15d55ad6322403bb6668466fdaeb4c7\u0022\u003ECARL BATES\u003C/span\u003E: Pay equity\u2014thank you. It\u2019s about ensuring that people doing different work in different organisations of similar value are paid at a similar level.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220a36168aad0f4277b3165c90e3394eeb\u0022\u003ERachel Boyack\u003C/span\u003E: We do know that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229634e377-7e76-4353-9662-fb444eb2ec9d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224b1156f2009b419aa9265f1eabf4f013\u0022\u003ECARL BATES\u003C/span\u003E: Well, clearly, the Opposition doesn\u2019t, because the previous speaker got that wrong. I think, in order to have an effective, appropriate, respectful conversation as we fix this, this afternoon, and ensure that those with claims are able to go through the process in a robust manner, that we have a sustainable and workable system\u2014are able to do that with the sorts of changes we are making this afternoon to enable that to occur. Because of that, I commend this to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022 data-id=\u0022a018ec72b6b14db28be6be3b2f59b8fe\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a018ec72b6b14db28be6be3b2f59b8fe\u0022\u003EHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I don\u2019t think anyone should be mistaken: this is a war on women. They are fundamentally doing this because they cannot afford their Budget. They promised tax cuts that they were told were unaffordable. They told New Zealanders before the last election that they would be better off. Now they can\u2019t afford them and who do they expect to pay the bill? It\u2019s going to be future women, women who will no longer have their pay equity claims addressed. In fact, they won\u2019t even be able to take those claims up. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EThis just goes to show where the priorities of that side of the House lay. They were more than happy to give $2.9 billion to landlords, more than happy to give the tobacco industry a tax break, more than happy to pay out tax cuts that they were told were unaffordable and that would disproportionately go to those who were on higher incomes. Now what we see is that women are going to have to continue slogging it away in the workplace, earning less than their male counterparts, and it is wrong. And I do not resile from the fact that I\u2019ve said previously that it is shameful\u2014shameful for that side.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EYou know what really gets me, to every woman MP in this House, is that whenever we\u2019re standing up at those forums\u2014the New Zealand Parliamentarians\u2019 Group on Population and Development (NZPPD), the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union\u2014any forum where women are expected to sit on the panels, women members of Parliament from across this House, including those in Government, are the ones that sit on those panels, stand up and do those wonderful speeches about things like pay equity in New Zealand, the claims that we have settled. They make wonderful speeches about representation of women in this House, but they are not the ones that have ever delivered for New Zealand women in any way whatsoever. They have always deprioritised the health of women, the working wages and conditions for women, the education for women, even representation in this House. Because of them, we\u2019re no longer at 50 percent. So, please, I do not want to see the women in this House stand up at those forums\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228f20b644-642a-4c85-ade9-d5af32dc690b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d088e3d4fccc4572973e04d216e183c4\u0022\u003ELaura McClure\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e7e3f140e30a47dcbd77b6948d86f35f\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Is it a point of order? Laura McClure\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022184ebd05e1c34088b67ef49fe3565b60\u0022\u003EHon CARMEL SEPULONI\u003C/span\u003E: What? Her feelings are hurt.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228f20b644-642a-4c85-ade9-d5af32dc690b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dc468ed810a345448ab0fef40e9deddc\u0022\u003ELaura McClure\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, no, this is more of a personal reflection as opposed to the contents of the bill, to ask the Speaker to consider the relevance\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022624b31efe4f54c6fb17bdaac3ef61a37\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m not sure that I heard any personal message from the speaker, so carry on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022737abbed888b4416bebe1bb12887b596\u0022\u003EHon CARMEL SEPULONI\u003C/span\u003E: And we heard from the member earlier that this is, according to that member, an emotional issue. Well, clearly it is to some. But I don\u2019t want to deem it an emotional issue, because we\u2019re not, on this side of the House, crying over what has happened here. All too often, when it\u2019s a policy that involves women and women are outraged by it, it is referred to as something that\u2019s emotional. Well, me being angry is not me being emotional. Me being angry for the women who have fought for these pay equity agreements, who have fought for fair pay\u2014me being angry for the M\u0101ori and Pacific women who continue to be the people that are paid least in this country is me being angry for the right reasons, actually, and it\u2019s not me being emotional.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EWe, of course, are opposing this, and we are absolutely shocked with the process that we\u2019ve seen here. They have announced it today and brought it here in urgency to go through all parts, with no ability for the legislation to be interrogated by the general public, let alone women, who this is going to affect. This is a shameful way to conduct business as a Government, and so they should be ashamed. This bill is going to take progress back for women by decades. This bill is not only going to be bad for women, but it is going to be bad for their families and for their children.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EThis is a reflection of a Government who do not support workers, who do not support women, who do not support children, who do not support New Zealand families, and we need to be clear and make sure that we got that on the record. We will not be supporting this bill, and I will not apologise for being angry about it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002289809535-e289-43e8-ad08-668cf3046ffb\u0022 data-id=\u0022a21dcd78c33a49468ed5ccaec0faf484\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002289809535-e289-43e8-ad08-668cf3046ffb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a21dcd78c33a49468ed5ccaec0faf484\u0022\u003ECAMERON BREWER (National\u2014Upper Harbour):\u003C/span\u003E I think we just need to go back to first principles of this legislation, the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, for those who might have just tuned in. I reflect on the explanatory note, which is always a good start: \u201CThe purpose of this Bill is to achieve a better regulatory framework for parties to a pay equity claim to assess whether there is sex-based undervaluation, by ensuring that there are: a robust process for raising claims; clarity on the appropriateness of comparators to assess sex-based undervaluation; sustainability for employers to meet their obligations; and the right incentives to encourage parties to resolve pay equity claims.\u201D Then we go to the legislative statement\u2014and, again, it\u2019s important to stick to the narrative around this legislation inside the bill and inside the legislative statement\u2014\u201C[This] Bill maintains a process to raise and resolve pay equity claims, while ensuring that the process is workable and sustainable.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002289809535-e289-43e8-ad08-668cf3046ffb\u0022\u003EAs others have articulated, the National Party has a proud record on pay equity. It was the National Government, as others have mentioned, that made a $2 billion settlement back in 2017 with the care and support workers. It was National also who introduced the bill to formally legislate for pay equity in 2017. Labour decided not to progress that bill in 2017, when they came into office. The changes we are making through this bring us closer in line with that original 2017 bill. In fact, we look back even further to the landmark legislation of the day, which was the Equal Pay Act 1972, which aimed to eliminate sex-based discrimination. Now, it\u2019s 1972. This side of the House here will jump to the incoming Norman Kirk Government, but can I just finish with this: it was the Jack Marshall National Party that saw this bill through the House in 1972. It achieved Royal assent and had a commencement date of 20 October 1972, with the Labour Government elected on 25 November 1972. National has a very proud record in this area, and we will continue to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022 data-id=\u00221fc126f2cb084973b3be6cd45eb64487\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221fc126f2cb084973b3be6cd45eb64487\u0022\u003EHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. This bill is good evidence that we have a two-faced Government. With one face, they tell Kiwis that they\u2019re going to put more money in their pocket. They tell them that there is a cost of living crisis and they are going to do the right thing. The very words of Nicola Willis in this House were that she said she was proud to stand in this House and say that National support the final reading of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill and that she\u2019s proud to be part of a party that\u2019s contributed to crafting the legislation. Whereas today, in this House, we unpick the very fundamental fabric that gives women a fair go.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003EI don\u2019t think that the National Party have fully thought through the consequences of what they\u2019re doing today, because this will come with ramifications. This will come with the women of New Zealand standing up and saying, \u201CWe do not accept a Government that puts us second. We do not accept a Government that takes money out of our pockets, that makes it harder to feed our children, that makes it harder to buy shoes for them in winter, and that makes it harder for us to pay the rent. It wants us to work longer hours for less money because we are women.\u201D And that is not fair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003EThis bill signifies the devaluation of women\u2019s work in New Zealand. It sends a message politically and socially to our women and our communities that their work is not valued and that this Government does not value their work. It ends active claims to make pay more equal for women. In fact, it starts right from scratch with those 33 active claims being scrapped. Those women who have been waiting to receive the pay they deserve for the hard work they do, this Government has told them today that they have to go back to the start of the queue, and they\u2019re going to shift the goalposts so it will be even harder for them to receive the pay they deserve. The truth is, while we\u2019ve had the words from one face that, \u201COh, we\u2019re going to make this more robust. It\u2019s got nothing to do with the Budget. We\u2019re just going to make it a bit more robust.\u201D, the reality is that the new law and this bill raises the bar for evidence required to prove historic undervaluation for women\u2019s work. Many roles traditionally held by women, like caregiving, nursing, support, and education roles, have complex histories where direct evidence is difficult to find. This bill makes it even harder to find.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003EThe next reason is the narrow definition of comparator jobs. New rules limit the ability to compare women\u2019s work to better paid, male-dominated roles straight away making it harder for women to prove that they should be paid a fair wage, and it\u2019s shameful. Without these comparisons in place, it is harder to show that women\u2019s work has been undervalued just because it is a female-dominated profession. It places financial barriers for workers. Gathering the stronger evidence now required, like historic wage data and independent job evaluations, will be expensive and more difficult to prove. Individual workers and small unions may not have the money or even the expertise to compile the sophisticated cases that are now needed to do this. They have made it harder for female workers to get the pay they deserve, and that is unfair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003EDavid Seymour today has applauded Brooke van Velden for finding billions of dollars just weeks out from the Budget, when it\u2019s most needed. Those are the words used out there on the tiles today, while the Prime Minister has said it\u2019s got nothing to do with the Budget. The reality is this Government borrowed for tax cuts. They borrowed for tax cuts they could not afford in order to get them votes. Now, who is paying for those tax cuts? Who is paying for the inability to make the Budget balance? It is women workers, who do not get pay for hard work. It\u2019s absolutely disgraceful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003EWe have members opposite who don\u2019t even know what pay equity is, let alone what it stands for. This is a dark day for women in New Zealand, who once again have been put to the back of the queue by a Government that doesn\u2019t care about them and that is more interested in making sure that landlords and tobacco companies get a back pocket pay, but not those women who look after the very fabric of our society. Those ones that are working hard just to be able to see their family before the sun goes down, you just made their lives a whole lot harder and a whole lot more difficult to feed their families. You\u2019ll reap the rewards come election day.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228ba11b3f-65ea-4f86-92e4-fe78ea522647\u0022 data-id=\u0022dee14d93ac2749a0b726f89b44e1e88e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ba11b3f-65ea-4f86-92e4-fe78ea522647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dee14d93ac2749a0b726f89b44e1e88e\u0022\u003EDANA KIRKPATRICK (National\u2014East Coast):\u003C/span\u003E Madam Speaker, thank you. I rise to take the last call in this first reading for the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. Look, I think it\u2019s fair to say that the National Party has a proud history of supporting pay equity. It was a National-led Government that first introduced the bill to legislate a pay equity system, and we still support pay equity. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ba11b3f-65ea-4f86-92e4-fe78ea522647\u0022\u003EThe Government is now committed to addressing sex-based discrimination in the workplace, and we\u2019re amending the Act to make the process more workable and sustainable. As our colleague the Minister Louise Upston said, this is not about a collective bargaining tool or where wages are low; it\u2019s about a clear framework to assess where pay discrimination is as a result of gender. It is the Government\u2019s view that the previous system became too wide and unsustainable, and we are now correcting that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ba11b3f-65ea-4f86-92e4-fe78ea522647\u0022\u003EThis is about pay equity. We support pay equity, and we applaud the work that Kristine Bartlett did in this, and we\u2019ve always done that. The Opposition can dramatise this all they like today, and they will, but this is a pragmatic approach to a clear framework, and we support the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022cdf1e760ebf64a82ab0ebc1a9303667f\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the Equal Pay Amendment Bill be now read a first time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000404\u0022\u003EBill read a first time.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022 data-id=\u0022acd62292ddf7404f980d732d063d355f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022acd62292ddf7404f980d732d063d355f\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: This bill is set down for second reading immediately. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e150367a51d344ef8d247c9d8f11b8a1\u0022\u003ESecond Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u0022c614837c12a2479198e5bdf9af6a2e14\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c614837c12a2479198e5bdf9af6a2e14\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Equal Pay Amendment Bill be now read a second time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EThe Equal Pay Amendment Bill improves the process for raising and resolving a pay equity claim and provides a better framework for assessing whether there is sex-based undervaluation and remuneration in female-dominated occupations. Pay equity is about women and men receiving the same pay for doing work that is different but of equal value. Pay inequity is caused by systemic sex-based discrimination leading to the undervaluation in the remuneration of work that is predominantly performed by women.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EThe Equal Pay Act provides a process for raising and resolving pay equity claims. The fundamental principles of the Act will remain the same once this bill is in force. If an employee or a union considers that their work is subject to systemic sex-based undervaluation, they can raise a claim directly with their employer. Their employer has to consider whether the claim meets the requirements for raising a claim and, if the employer decides it does, the parties proceed to bargaining. The parties then work through the pay equity bargaining process, including undertaking an assessment of the work of the claimant and the work of the appropriate comparator. If a pay equity issue is identified, parties will then bargain to determine a settlement that does not differentiate on the basis of sex. The agreement is recorded in a pay equity settlement. This process is supported by a disputes resolution process, including mediation or facilitation, and the ability to take disputes to the Employment Relations Authority and Employment Court. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EWhile the fundamental principles remain the same, the bill amends legislative settings that are too permissive and have resulted in the pay equity framework not working as intended. The bill will: increase the threshold for raising a pay equity claim, including by requiring claims to have merit; provide employers with the tools they need to ensure an appropriate scope of claims; introduce a hierarchy of comparators and add more prescription to comparison methodology; remove the ability for a settlement to include a review clause and limit when claims can be re-raised; provide for phasing of pay equity settlements, changes to when and how the authority can fix remuneration; and remove the provision for the authority to award back-pay.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EThese amendments maintain the fundamental principles of the pay equity regime while ensuring there is a robust process for raising claims, clarity on the appropriateness of comparators to assess sex-based undervaluation, sustainability for employers to meet their obligations, and the right incentives to encourage parties to resolve their pay equity claims. These amendments will achieve a better regulatory framework for parties to a pay equity claim to assess whether there is sex-based undervaluation and ensure that the pay equity regime is workable and sustainable. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022 data-id=\u0022cde4789bd6784e3aaf04ad7b3124f84a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cde4789bd6784e3aaf04ad7b3124f84a\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the motion be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022 data-id=\u0022d4c29284db4c4da2ae8ce10c47f967d7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d4c29284db4c4da2ae8ce10c47f967d7\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Speaker. I\u2019m having to have some calm-down time because I\u2019m still incredibly angry about what we are doing in this House today. This is a bad lawmaking process. Nothing is worse than taking away people\u2019s democratic rights to have their say on a bill that is going to take away their ability to be able to get their pay equity claims through, as they were able to do under the amendment Act that came through in 2020.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003EAt that time, we had a number of groups around the country that had their say around what they thought that law should look like, and that was followed through. And now we\u2019re taking that away and we\u2019re creating a much more difficult process, and we\u2019re going to see, we know, less pay equity claims coming through. And if people on the other side of the House don\u2019t think that is reality, go back and have a look at just how many pay equity claims were successful before the amendment bill was passed in 2020. Go back and have a look, because the reality is that we had a process that wasn\u2019t working. It absolutely wasn\u2019t working. And what we\u2019re doing is we\u2019re going back to the future, today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003EWe are taking this country backwards. We are taking women\u2019s rights backwards\u2014no, not we; you are taking women\u2019s rights backwards.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223e6d94ee02de4e8ba1d15d65d9c1c618\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Not me.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227e895cebe16c46ae9928d2819a725446\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI\u003C/span\u003E: Not you, Madam Speaker. I should point to them over there. I would hate to put that on you, Madam Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003EAs I\u2019ve said, this is bad lawmaking. It is unfair to thousands of women nationwide. Normally what we would be doing at this point in a second reading speech is we would be going through and prosecuting what happened at the select committee process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002262ff759d-9586-405a-a6e6-208ad65adeb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229e50e9dbd9d646dfaea3b0296e75054c\u0022\u003ETangi Utikere\u003C/span\u003E: But where\u2019s that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223f79597ad2144efd81ce9cab19c5666f\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI\u003C/span\u003E: But where is that? There is no process to go through because we are here in urgency passing through something that as David Seymour has said today in the media, \u201CMinister Van Velden has saved the Budget for the Government.\u201D Taking credit, even though the Prime Minister today said, \u201CWell, it\u2019s not about the Budget.\u201D, the soon-to-be Deputy Prime Minister is saying that the Minister has saved the Budget for the Government. So who is right?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003EWell, we on this side of the House know that this is all about making that Budget work and that Budget square up. And as I said in my first reading speech\u2014and so did many others\u2014once again, women are having to pay the price. Women are having to pay the price in this country for bad fiscal management, and enough is enough. We saw that today out the front of this Parliament. We saw people say, \u201CEnough is enough.\u201D We have been waiting far too long for women to get what they are due, for women to be valued in their roles, for work that has been traditionally seen as women\u2019s work to be valued. And only when we do value that work, at that point, will we see that it won\u2019t solely be women\u2019s work, that we will see other people, other genders, men going into that work as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003EWhen we have people that are standing up outside and saying that they feel like their legs were cut off today, feeling like their breath was knocked out of them because they had no idea that all the work that they had put into working through their pay equity claims would be all for nothing\u2014and not only that; standing outside today and saying we\u2019re not even having the opportunity to speak about it, to come and put our case forward.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003ESo that is what we are here, on this side of the House, to do: to put their cases for them today so that they know that we are hearing them and valuing their work and valuing the work that they have done to ensure that their work is valued overall by society. And one of the most important ways that we can do that is by paying them appropriately.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000424\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003EOne of the aspects that was always very frustrating to me in the pay equity space when this Government came into power was that they got rid of the Pay Equity Taskforce. Now, the reason that they got rid of the Pay Equity Taskforce, in their own words, was that they said the pay equity claim process was working really well and so there was no reason to keep the Pay Equity Taskforce. At the time, I was very sceptical of that fact. I thought that perhaps it was more about saving the cost of what the Pay Equity Taskforce cost to run. But now we see what the real reality is. It is all about cost saving, because if their words were true back when they first came into power and got rid of that Pay Equity Taskforce, why now is the pay equity claim process apparently not working? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003EThey can\u2019t have it both ways. It either was working really, really well, which I know to be true because we had a large number of successful claims with the help of the Pay Equity Taskforce, or it\u2019s not. But then I go back to say that the real reason is about saving money, and the real reason is about making a Budget work that, again, is seeing women paying the price for bad fiscal management. Women are paying the price in this country for tax cuts and tax breaks for landlords. That is the absolute bottom line of what is happening here. And I go back to saying that all those women who would have come and all those\u2014it\u2019s not just women; it would have been men too. All those people who would have come into a select committee process to submit on this particular bill would have said, \u201CLeave that alone because we are getting claims through. We are getting the work done, and we are seeing the work being valued.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003EIt appals me, and I listened to the first reading speeches from the other side of the House. It absolutely appals me, the weak reasons that they have given for passing this through. It is smoke and mirrors when you say that it is about putting a better framework in place. Improve the framework if that\u2019s the case; don\u2019t get rid of it. Don\u2019t get rid of it so that there\u2019s nothing there at all. Start from that base and add to it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022feb2e3ca-4ad3-4c7c-9958-b10d28c83bc8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f5909c1dd8df46da964963f42171f1b6\u0022\u003EHon Casey Costello\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019re not getting rid of it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000428\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229c724fe45e4c4a62ae58ba58a876fe47\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI\u003C/span\u003E: If that member over there is saying, \u201CWe\u2019re not getting rid of it.\u201D, go and read the bill, because that\u2019s exactly what the bill says. And it also says in that bill that that side of the House is stopping all current claims. That\u2019s 33 claims that are being stopped with this introduction of this bill here today. Some of those claims have been in process for four to five years. How do those people and how do those sectors suddenly feel that their work is being valued? I can tell you right now that they are feeling really angry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003ESo if that side of the House thinks that this is going to quietly go away, I really feel that they need to think again and hang your heads in shame or stand up and do something about it. That side of the House still has time to put this right. Just because that side cannot make their Budget work, women should not have to pay the price for that. They have been paying the price in history for far too long, and this should end now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003EAgain, I go back to my first reading speech, and I shall end with this. This should not be something that becomes political. Women should not be used as a pawn to actually work their Budgets out for them. We should be working this through together. And you know what? In 2020, we did. We came together for women in this House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229634e377-7e76-4353-9662-fb444eb2ec9d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d7e17f2d54f547d6b8f8b66d4c3cffcc\u0022\u003ECarl Bates\u003C/span\u003E: Until you put an AP through.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225741adff01104089aed42253e4a1e4bb\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI\u003C/span\u003E: What a shame, Mr Bates, that you can\u2019t, now, support women, and that you would rather put politics first than support women to get a fairer wage, a fairer pay for their work. I absolutely condemn this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022 data-id=\u00227d8c247767da4dab89404d1dd42485c8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227d8c247767da4dab89404d1dd42485c8\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green\u2014Rongotai):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Madam Speaker. This is really about what we value\u2014what we value as a society. It\u2019s very clear that the coalition Government does not value the people doing some of the most important and difficult work in our entire society. Look, to be fair, it\u2019s been centuries of this, and so it\u2019s really just perpetuating the status quo.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EBut there is a reason why we needed to put in place the process that we did in 2020, as part of the Equal Pay Act, in order to close the gender pay gap, which was not closing. The gender pay gap can be because of individual discrimination or unconscious bias in individual workplaces, but the wide sector-based discrimination, which has meant that the work that was predominantly done by women was undervalued, is based in evidence, and that\u2019s why the process that was put in place in 2020 was evidence-based and supported by Nicola Willis of the National Party, and Erica Stanford. Nicola Willis said she\u2019s \u201Cproud to stand in [the] House tonight and say that National will support [the] final reading of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill.\u201D, proud of the contribution, and that they do think that if there are reasonable grounds to believe that work has been historically undervalued based on their gender and that they have been underpaid because of that, they should be able to make a pay equity claim. That is the fundamental fairness-based principle under which we had cross-party agreement on the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000435\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003ENow, if the Government really believed that there were just some technical improvement processes and a slightly better framework that would result in something that was more fair and reasonable, why are they doing this under urgency? Why not send it to select committee? Why is there a rushed process where the bill is literally introduced today and going through all stages of the House? It\u2019s because this isn\u2019t about fairness. It\u2019s not about making the process better; it\u2019s about saving money in the short term, which will cost us more in the long term. I guess that is a hallmark of this coalition Government: seeming to save money by doing things that will actually increase the costs to everyone in society over the long term. That\u2019s the fundamental problem.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EBut what do we value? Do we value the work of early childhood education teachers? Do we value the work of midwives and nurses? Do we value the work of teachers? Do we value the work of aged-care and support workers, those looking after people with disabilities, those looking after our elderly in their final stages of life? Do we not value that? How can we as a society say that those people do not deserve to be paid properly for their work? Isn\u2019t it shocking? Isn\u2019t it a surprise that we have a hard time recruiting teachers, that we have a shortage of early childhood teachers, that we have a shortage of nurses and midwives, and they can go to Australia and get paid so much more? That\u2019s because of decisions made by subsequent Governments but particularly this coalition Government, which is looking at those people doing this important, caring work that supports everyone in our society to thrive, viewing them as a fiscal liability rather than an investment in our society. An investment in early childhood education and midwives and nurses is an investment in a future, a more equitable society, one where people actually have what they need to survive and thrive, and then we\u2019re all better off as a society. But instead they just look at it as a short-term cost.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EThe thing that really kills me about this is that there is no limit to the amount of money that these people will spend on a road. There is literally no limit to the amount of money they will spend on a road, as if some tarmac somehow magically creates economic growth\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002244967dc4-6cc7-4567-b8ef-cc3a9b354544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ff29cd7e701642b5975463c4ed2824c9\u0022\u003EGrant McCallum\u003C/span\u003E: Absolutely, yes, it does. It invests in people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227d54f20cc6fc4dc0b2d0d7ee4d8ae52c\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014but investing in people doesn\u2019t. If the member opposite knew or understood anything at all about economics, he\u2019d be able to look at the cost-benefit analysis and see, \u201COh, actually, that road costs more than it benefits us.\u201D It does. It costs more than it benefits. That\u2019s what the official economic evidence says, and multiple economists have come out and, basically, slammed the case for the Northland road in particular, because we already have a road to Northland. The issue is we\u2019re not maintaining it and improving it, and we\u2019re not reducing the amount of fuel that we need to use.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000440\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s disgusting to me. There\u2019s always jobs for the boys and jobs for the machines, and billions and billions of dollars for a bit of tarmac, but they do not fundamentally understand that the thing that actually supports our society to be able to do things is investing in our people, our children\u2014our children\u2014investing in early childhood education and teachers. But it is a product of an economic system and a way of valuing things that does not understand that people are an asset that we can invest in. We invest in concrete and tarmac as if we could sell it on the open market, which is not true, by the way. We cannot sell those things for money. But we don\u2019t look at investing in people and their work and making sure that their livelihoods enable them to pay for rent, pay the bills, pay the electricity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EActually go out and talk to some aged-care and support workers. I challenge every member of this Government to go out with the aged-care and support workers, like Kristine Bartlett. See what their day is like and tell me that they are not worth more than what they are paid. Go to the retirement villages\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229634e377-7e76-4353-9662-fb444eb2ec9d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228abfb858d5424565948fc7d3ee0d56ec\u0022\u003ECarl Bates\u003C/span\u003E: We did. On Wednesday, the Prime Minister was with me in Whanganui. We did. I\u2019ll show you the photo.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022496522cbc17148c2a30fbf47e7e72f83\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014and talk to the people who are working and tell me that they don\u2019t deserve to earn more money.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d3961b2647344197b1dd69e082fd3357\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Bates, I see you\u2019re on the speaking list later on, that might be a good time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221b3324eef3d543ada09e68901280ea35\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER\u003C/span\u003E: This decision, which is being rushed through in urgency with no opportunity for a select committee to process and for people to show up and actually debate the issue and understand the proposed changes, is being pushed through because the Government is trying to find short-term cost savings because they have promised more than they can actually deliver. The fundamental trade-off they\u2019re making is going to hurt the lowest-paid women and all those working in female-dominated industries. It\u2019s going to make it harder for them to make ends meet. It\u2019s going to make it harder for us\u2014and I say \u201Cus\u201D, like, through our public services, we need nurses, midwives, teachers, care and support workers, disabled-care workers, admin and clerical support. We need all of those people. We need them to function as a society, and it\u2019s harder and harder to recruit them, because they don\u2019t have a pathway to fair pay.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EAll of this is because of historic gender-based discrimination, which Ministers in this Government, like Erica Stanford and Nicola Willis, at the time when the bill was passed, professed a great passion for in support for the idea that we should actually rectify that historic gender-based discrimination. They did support it, but now in Government: \u201CToo hard, too hard. Let\u2019s just make it easier to underpay people and ignore the fact that that\u2019s going to create more problems for us down the road.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000447\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003ESo the Green Party is not supporting this bill. We don\u2019t support it going through under urgency. I would really like to say that people watching this outside, people looking at this, should see who these people really are, see who this coalition Government really is. They\u2019re people who went out and made extravagant promises about being able to deliver better public services while delivering tax cuts to the wealthiest people. Yeah, they gave up to 20 bucks a week to some households, but, actually, the lowest-paid people don\u2019t get the full benefit of the tax cut. The lowest-paid people get the least out of the tax cuts. So, once again, a series of decisions that make it easier for the wealthiest, who already own a lot of property, to get richer and richer and richer while those who are doing the most important work\u2014looking after our tamariki, looking after our disabled people, doing the clerical and admin work, going out there and doing the cleaning, delivering the babies and looking after m\u0101m\u0101s in the middle of the night\u2014those people are going to be forced to carry on not getting access to an evidence-based process that would result in them getting paid what they are due.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s shameful. It\u2019s hypocritical. I am not at all surprised, because it was clear before the election that those were their priorities and that the promises they were making about better public services or better pay for nurses and midwives were absolute rubbish. They would never be able to afford to pay for them, but we see when the rubber hits the road, when the really hard decisions have to be made, we see who this coalition Government prioritises and supports, and it is not the hardest-working, most marginalised people who are out there\u2014our essential workers, who deserve fair pay and they deserve not to be forced to have to be underpaid just because of gender-based discrimination.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022 data-id=\u0022f12e40b1aa8146a0ba608fdea6f06ce1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000449\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f12e40b1aa8146a0ba608fdea6f06ce1\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment):\u003C/span\u003E Unfortunately, I am going to have to repeat some of the things I said in the first reading because clearly the Opposition weren\u2019t listening. So the first thing that I want to confirm is the fact that this piece of legislation is not about saving money. This is about a piece of legislation to ensure that sex-based discrimination cases that have merit, that have claim, are able to progress through the system in a robust, transparent way. The reason it\u2019s being passed under urgency is so that we don\u2019t have claims in different processes under different regimes. So it\u2019s pretty simple. It\u2019s pretty clear. It\u2019s something that Governments do to ensure that the courts aren\u2019t frustrated, but more importantly so that those who want to have a claim are not trying to operate in two different systems.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000450\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EThe other thing that I want to say very clearly is there is no claim that will be blocked. That is another myth that the other side have repeated in their speeches. The other thing in terms of the Government\u2014because the previous speaker, Julie Anne Genter, talked specifically about nurses, about carers, about midwives. I would invite the other side just to reflect on our Government\u2019s record level of investment in health. Who do you think operates the health system if it\u2019s not nurses, midwives, carers? So I would just hold your horses on that side of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EWhen we think about the level of investment, when we think about things like FamilyBoost that ensure more parents get access to support so their children can get access to early childhood education, our focus in education is to ensure that actually teachers can focus on teaching the basics brilliantly. The amount of resources that have been rolled out to teachers to make it easier for them to do their work has been a significant part of the Government\u2019s investment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000452\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EThe other thing that this bill is not about\u2014this bill is not about an alternative way for workers to negotiate pay rounds. It is a very different conversation from sex-based discrimination.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002239c540935e374925bb2c37932a40716d\u0022\u003EHon Carmel Sepuloni\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s standard practice in this House to stand up and do a speech in the second reading on what this bill is not about. There have been a couple of points made on that line by that member, and I think she should stick to what the bill is about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000454\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220bbaa48d6dd040198be2091a0347eeb0\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019re in a second reading. Both sides have drifted from the main purpose of a second reading, which of course is to speak about what happened at select committee. There hasn\u2019t been a select committee. That has opened it. It\u2019s why I haven\u2019t redirected any of the comments from the left, but it does give the opportunity to reply to some of them. However, the member has been here. She does know the general rules of second reading. Carry on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000455\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c9bc9889621343b785a4661dc8b24e54\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is also the job in a second reading, in a debate in this House\u2014this is a debating chamber\u2014to put the myths and the incorrect statements that the Opposition are stating to bed. That\u2019s my job as a Government speaker, and I will not refrain from that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003ESo I will reiterate, this bill is not about\u2014because, unfortunately, what happened under the previous regime, and all of the speeches that I\u2019ve heard so far confuse the two points about when there is union bargaining for pay rounds, that is a very different concept to sex-based discrimination. It would be really helpful if the Opposition could understand the difference between the two. That is actually part of why we are here debating this legislation today, because we want pay equity legislation to be about pay equity. As I said in my previous speech, there are of course many workers across New Zealand\u2014male and female\u2014that don\u2019t earn the levels they would like to earn. That is a separate issue from sex-based discrimination.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EThe other thing I want to come back to is the comparators, because this is a really important part of the bill to make it really clear about a framework for comparisons for comparators and actually getting us more in line with our international countries that we would normally compare ourselves to. Some of the feedback, for example, that we had received with the previous legislation was fisheries officers being compared to librarians. Now, I think most people, if you ask them on the street, \u201CWould you expect that those are jobs of equal value and equal conditions?\u201D, would not accept that that was a suitable comparator. So we need to have a pay equity process that is clearly understood, that is robust, that is sustainable into the future. That is why I\u2019m proud to support this piece of legislation in the second reading.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022feb2e3ca-4ad3-4c7c-9958-b10d28c83bc8\u0022 data-id=\u0022a67ed5b2dfb14b95b3c46775422bc167\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022feb2e3ca-4ad3-4c7c-9958-b10d28c83bc8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a67ed5b2dfb14b95b3c46775422bc167\u0022\u003EHon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs):\u003C/span\u003E I rise again as part of the second reading debate to speak on behalf of New Zealand First in support of this piece of legislation. Yet again, I think it is right, as my colleague Minister Upston referred to previously, to bring back the discussion to some form of reality. This is not removing the ability to proceed with a pay equity claim. Yes, we will be withdrawing all the current claims under this legislation to allow them to be reapplied\u2014again, for clarity, so that all of these claims are processing under the same environment. It is the reason why this bill is under urgency, to ensure that we minimise the disruption that this change will bring about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022feb2e3ca-4ad3-4c7c-9958-b10d28c83bc8\u0022\u003EBut, again, we have to emphasise that it is unfair to create this impression that somehow we are taking away the right to deal with sex-based discrimination in pay rounds. This is a change that will not remove anything. It will allow us to be able to process the claims and bring about resolutions where they are meritorious. This is an important part of the process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022feb2e3ca-4ad3-4c7c-9958-b10d28c83bc8\u0022\u003EWhen we talk about the idea of recognising valuable workforces, as has been spoken to previously, there are pay rounds, there are processes by which we can address pay conditions and the value of work through the pay round process. This is not impacting that process either. This is about bringing a sensible process to ensure that we have resolution to the equity claims. This is the ability to ensure we can move forward in this process, but it is to bring it back to the conditions that make sense. This is about comparators that make sense. This is about a system that makes sense and is workable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022feb2e3ca-4ad3-4c7c-9958-b10d28c83bc8\u0022\u003EIt is really unfair to suggest that this is anti-women in any way. This is absolutely incorrect, and this idea of soapbox speeches that say that this is robbing something of women when the system will continue to exist\u2014the system will still be available, and the equity claim process will still exist. It is irresponsible to suggest that that is being stolen away when the system will continue to exist.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022feb2e3ca-4ad3-4c7c-9958-b10d28c83bc8\u0022\u003EThis is about moving forward with a piece of legislation that will make the process clearer, fairer, more robust, and absolutely ensure that the system continues to exist. This is, again, about sex-based undervaluation of jobs, and this is a system that will continue to exist. Therefore, I have no hesitation of commending this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022 data-id=\u0022eb8e63cf8f444699a07776b07401c65d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000463\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022eb8e63cf8f444699a07776b07401c65d\u0022\u003ETEANAU TUIONO (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Speaker. What an absolute day of shame\u2014an absolute day of shame. What an absolute debacle this bill is. This is another example of the wrecking ball that this Government is wreaking on workers\u2019 rights, and in this particular case, low-paid w\u0101hine workers. It is absolutely shameful and disgraceful. Everybody deserves dignity and decent jobs, and that includes low-paid work, which is predominantly held by women workers. I want to draw the point that actually amongst women workers as well, Pasifika and M\u0101ori women are paid even less compared to P\u0101keh\u0101 men.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022\u003EThere was a rally outside, which was called in two hours, where people showed up to show their anger to this Government, with them undermining workers\u2019 rights once again. I also want to acknowledge the work of Kristine Bartlett, the aged-care worker who successfully brought a pay equity claim through the process as well. As I read through the media, it said that she was crying; she was gutted. She was gutted for those low-paid workers as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022\u003EBut there\u2019s another issue here that we need to discuss as a Parliament and that is the confusion\u2014the confusion of the Government speakers who say that this will not hold back pay equity, that this will not hold back gender-based discrimination in the workplace. That is absolutely false, absolutely wrong. Thirty-three of these claims are going to be scrapped. Some of these claims have been on the workbooks for four years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022\u003EOutside we had Tessa, who was a librarian, and as she spoke, she talked about how she had spent four years working on their claim\u2014four years\u2019 worth of work in the garbage because these guys don\u2019t want to acknowledge the work that needs to be done. It is absolutely a disgrace and shameful. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022\u003EEven more shameful is the Prime Minister going to the media, saying that they\u2019ve found the money. They\u2019ve found their money for their Budget\u2014billions of dollars they\u2019ve found. Guess where they\u2019ve found it: by taking away that money from low-paid workers, taking that money from women workers, taking that pay from those that deserve it the most. The people that deserve the most support from this House are being denied, are being put down by this Government, and it is an absolute disgrace and absolutely shameful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022\u003EThe confusion is palpable on the other side of the House because they don\u2019t know what this is about. Here\u2019s the thing about the process: we could all actually deal with it if we weren\u2019t doing this under urgency. So to people that are listening to these speeches today, we\u2019re in urgency. The details of this bill landed on that Table just after question time, so we\u2019ve only had an hour, I think, or two hours to get to grips with the details of this bill. So the ability to actually scrutinise this bill has been absolutely curtailed by this Government. We should have been able to get this piece of legislation early. It should have had a full process where we could take it to the select committee, where those people that are directly impacted could come and talk to this Parliament, could talk to this House and in many ways confront the Government\u2014confront the Government in terms of the trampling on their rights, the trampling on workers\u2019 rights, and the undoing of years and years and years and years of work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022\u003EIt is an absolute disgrace, and you can count on the Greens to stand up for the workers. You can count on the Greens to back the unions, who\u2019ve been working incredibly hard on these issues. The Greens absolutely disagree with this piece of legislation, disagree with this process, and we\u2019ll work together with our friends in the unions, with our friends across the Opposition benches, to make that known very, very publicly. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000470\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022\u003EBut it is very important for those people out there across our communities, across our society, to question your local MPs, to question your Government MPs, because this is an absolute shame. It is an absolute disgrace. It is another example of a Government that cares more about profit than for people. You hear them talk about \u201CThere aren\u2019t enough lollies. We\u2019re not going to have a lolly scramble.\u201D It\u2019s because certain Ministers have gotten all the lollies, and none of them are for the workers. None of them are for the low-paid workers. It is an absolute disgrace, and the Greens oppose this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229634e377-7e76-4353-9662-fb444eb2ec9d\u0022 data-id=\u00223036daf49e24493e86480f48e2993115\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229634e377-7e76-4353-9662-fb444eb2ec9d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223036daf49e24493e86480f48e2993115\u0022\u003ECARL BATES (National\u2014Whanganui):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Speaker. I\u2019m not going to have that stand on the record without correcting factual inaccuracies within that last speech. National supported the pay equity Act in 2020. We supported it. But we supported it, and may I quote the Hon Maggie Barry: \u201CSo I commend the bill to the House but we oppose Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 548 for very good reason.\u201D The Hon Nicola Willis spoke in that debate, and she said, \u201CWe support this bill, but we have grave concerns about that SOP because it didn\u2019t go to select committee.\u201D Yet the Opposition stand up today, in this House\u2014in this House\u2014and argue that the problem is it\u2019s not going to select committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229634e377-7e76-4353-9662-fb444eb2ec9d\u0022\u003EThis afternoon, we have had the Opposition say, \u201CLet\u2019s not make this political\u2014let\u2019s not make this political.\u201D Yet that is exactly what they are doing. It is about time that the Opposition recognised, like so much of what they drove through the House in the last Government and the one before, that their approach, their policies, their legislation didn\u2019t work. It was this side of the House, it was the National team, that pointed that out to them and said, \u201CThis isn\u2019t going to work. It\u2019s not going to be effective. It\u2019s not going to be robust. It\u2019s not going to be sustainable.\u201D I back our Minister of Finance with what she said in that debate, and now we are fixing it. We are making it sustainable, we are making it robust, and we\u2019re making it practical.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229634e377-7e76-4353-9662-fb444eb2ec9d\u0022\u003ESo let me end by just giving one of the examples of how that\u2019s going to be the case. You settle a pay equity claim. You settle it. National had said in 2017, we need to settle these things. We need legislation to do that. We led the charge. You settle these things, and then we\u2019re saying you give the industry 10 years before\u2014if the same conditions, the threshold of conditions are met\u2014you can raise another claim. But not after three years. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022f316c18682704571a520ef6741713f98\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f316c18682704571a520ef6741713f98\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Camilla Belich\u2014a five-minute split call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022 data-id=\u00224539b1eab5b14dc48d2743d5ae1799e9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224539b1eab5b14dc48d2743d5ae1799e9\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is an absolutely shameful day for this Parliament. Kristine Bartlett took a claim to the courts of New Zealand and the interpretation was that the Equal Pay Act that has been in place since the 1970s applied to claims for work of equal value. At that time, the National Government that was once proud to stand on behalf of low-paid women at that time settled her claim for the first care and support workers\u2019 settlement. I was there across the road when the event for that happened, and I saw National MPs come in and I saw them be congratulated for standing up for working women. What I want to ask is: where is that National Party today? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EOn this day, where\u2014and no matter what anyone on the other side of the House has said, this bill makes pay equity claims for low-paid workers much harder. It takes the threshold to 70\u00A0percent. It means that you can\u2019t bring a claim for 10 years. It gives employers the entire right to decide a comparator and whether a claim is meritorious. It\u2019s retrospective. It gets rid of existing pay equity settlements. It is a blow to every working, low-paid woman in New Zealand that works in a female-dominated role. These people are midwives, allied health professionals, librarians, social workers, nurses, teacher aides. These are the people that this National Party is attacking by bringing through this regressive, retrospective bill, brought in under urgency at the very time that they knew that we were all having our caucus meetings. Snuck in. Only provided on the Table one hour ago, and we are meant to support this type of bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EThis bill will make every aspect of claiming an equal pay claim harder. The hierarchy of comparators which is put into this bill, which I bet no one else has had the opportunity to look at yet because it\u2019s complex, was initially suggested by the National Party when the National Party wanted to settle pay equity claims after the Kristine Bartlett case. That was roundly rejected. The reason for that is because when you look at a hierarchy of comparators, you\u2019re essentially saying that you need to find a comparator in your workplace. And if you can\u2019t find a comparator in your workplace, you need to look at similar jobs. And if you can\u2019t find similar jobs, you need to look at similar industries. It\u2019s like an onion; it goes out and out and out. The bureaucracy of trying to find a comparator, which is already very difficult, when you implement this hierarchy of comparators, will make\u2014mark my words\u2014this legislation completely unworkable for low-paid women.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EThis legislation introduced today is the ACT Party getting away with taking away women\u2019s rights. And the New Zealand First Party and the National Party are sitting here, letting it happen. This will mean that there is no closing of the gender pay gap. It will mean that people like care and support workers continue to be on the minimum wage\u2014absolutely shocking. I don\u2019t know how you can sleep at night, bringing this legislation through. It is absolutely shameful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EWhat about the process? I looked at the Cabinet paper. Under the heading of human rights, every single part of that was redacted. I ask: why was it redacted? I think we know the answer to that: because this bill goes against human rights. Women\u2019s rights to be fairly paid and for equal pay are human rights. I bet\u2014even though I can\u2019t see it and this House has not been given the opportunity to see it\u2014that that Cabinet advice is exactly what that says and that\u2019s why it\u2019s been redacted. Absolutely despicable process to sneak this through the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EAdditionally, I have had a look at the departmental disclosure statement, which states that there was not sufficient time for a regulatory impact statement. What is going on with this Government that you will bring in legislation under urgency, repeal it in one single day, not even have a regulatory impact statement, not allow us to see the advice on human rights? It is absolutely a shameful way of running a democracy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EI just want to emphasise, because I don\u2019t have a lot of time left, that existing pay equity settlements that are already settled\u2014already settled now\u2014will be disestablished. And those people will not be able to make another pay equity claim for 10 years, no matter what happens. So the existing settlements: the nurses\u2019 settlement, the social workers\u2019 settlement\u2014all of these jobs that we value so much that are female-dominated\u2014no matter what happens in the next 10 years, under this legislation, they will not be able to bring another equal pay claim. This is an absolutely despicable way of bringing human rights legislation to the House. It is taking away the rights of low-paid, working women throughout New Zealand and the National Party, the New Zealand First Party, and the ACT Party should be ashamed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022 data-id=\u0022bc0de8bb1d1e46c38182e66c9cbfdf24\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bc0de8bb1d1e46c38182e66c9cbfdf24\u0022\u003ERACHEL BOYACK (Labour\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want the members on the other side to go away and re-read the comments just made by my colleague Camilla Belich, who has worked on pay equity here in New Zealand and the UK for most of her working career. I bet the National Party members, who have given some of the most deluded, terrible speeches today, have no understanding of what they are voting for. This woman over here does, and I urge you to listen to her.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003EI have been so angry at so many things this Government has done, particularly Nelson Hospital, but nothing compares to this\u2014nothing compares to this. Bringing this under the cover of urgency to undermine the women of New Zealand is a disgrace, and shame on the National Party. Today, the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, said the quiet part out loud. He admitted it. He then came back and corrected it. But he admitted\u2014he admitted. Here is what he said when he was asked: \u201CI admit the changes will actually lead to lower costs for the Government.\u201D There will be less money for teachers. There will be less money for nurses, less money for midwives, less money for our aged-care and support workers, less money for our social workers, less money for all of the female-dominated industries in New Zealand that rely on pay equity legislation to ensure that they are paid equal pay for work of equal value\u2014and I\u2019m going to get to that now, because National Party members have gone on and on about the legislation they introduced when they were in Government. It did not work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000484\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003EThey talked about comparators. The comparators were too narrow. In fact, lawyers, like the wonderful Peter Cranney, who took the Kristine Bartlett case, said that under National\u2019s legislation, Kristine Bartlett would not have secured the settlement, because Kristine Bartlett\u2019s pay equity claim compared aged-care workers\u2014and I hope you listen over there, the women members on the other side; I hope they listen. Peter Cranney has said that Kristine Bartlett would not have won her case under National\u2019s legislation\u2014that is a fact\u2014because, under Kristine Bartlett\u2019s case, they compared aged-care workers to corrections officers. Now, the Minister got up and pooh-poohed that, and she talked about some of the comparators in place and scoffed at them. How dare she do that. Aged-care workers do heavy lifting; they deal with really challenging, difficult work, and absolutely they should be compared to corrections workers. But the National Party is reverting to the type of legislation that would have stopped that comparator being made, and there would not have been a settlement for Kristine Bartlett.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003EThe other thing\u2014the other nasty little thing that was put in that settlement\u2014was that workers weren\u2019t able to take a claim for years and years and years. Again, listen to Camilla Belich, who has said that this is going to stop people from being able to take claims for 10 years. That is an absolute disgrace. I say on record today: this is a war on women; this is a war on women workers. I have already had emails from people saying, \u201CWe are going to march in the street over this.\u201D Women are outraged, and I say to every National MP sitting there, hanging their heads in a shame right now because they didn\u2019t know about this either, in marginal seats: you should be very afraid of what will happen to you at the next election, because this issue galvanises women. They will be knocking on your door. They will be demanding to know why they cannot come to select committee and tell their story. They will be demanding to know why you are going to make it harder for them to get pay equity. They are going to demand to know why National has, today, cancelled all of the existing claims and said, \u201CThey are over; they are gone.\u201D Those women workers, who have been fighting and putting up robust arguments over the last few years for pay equity\u2014their claims are gone, stopped. They have to come into this new mechanism that has tougher thresholds that make it harder for them to do it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003ENational members have talked about pay equity legislation gone by. It used to be about man lawyer versus woman lawyer, because, once upon a time, male lawyers were paid less than women lawyers, and we outlawed that. This is about equal work of equal value, looking at a women-dominated job versus a male-dominated job. That is the point. That is actually the point of this, saying, \u201CThis group of women workers are, collectively, undervalued because the work they\u2019re doing is done by women, and this is a male-dominated industry that is comparable.\u201D That is the point\u2014that is the point\u2014and National are undermining this today, and shame on them. Bring on 2026, or earlier.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002289809535-e289-43e8-ad08-668cf3046ffb\u0022 data-id=\u0022ce4b4ce507c64851af60292fc98d82cf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002289809535-e289-43e8-ad08-668cf3046ffb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ce4b4ce507c64851af60292fc98d82cf\u0022\u003ECAMERON BREWER (National\u2014Upper Harbour):\u003C/span\u003E Just referring back to the bill and its legislative statement, which is on the Table for us all to peruse and absorb, I think it\u2019s important to go back to the fundamentals of what this piece of legislation is seeking to achieve. Officials say here that \u201CThe proposed changes to the Act will improve the process for raising and resolving a pay equity claim and provide a better framework for assessing whether there is sex-based undervaluation.\u201D The bill maintains a process to raise and resolve pay equity claims while ensuring \u201Cthat the process is workable and sustainable.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002289809535-e289-43e8-ad08-668cf3046ffb\u0022\u003EAs my colleague Carl Bates has alluded to in a previous speech, National did support the 2020 Equal Pay Amendment Bill, but our colleagues of the day did not support the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that was rushed through\u2014the SOP that was put there with amendments without notice. In 2020, the Hon Nicola Willis and the Hon Maggie Barry raised grave concerns as to the impacts that those amendments on that SOP at the last minute would have. So, in our view, they have been borne out, and we are now here, as a party and as a Government committed to pay equity, but it must be based on solid evidence, reflect international norms, and be sustainable in the long term. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002289809535-e289-43e8-ad08-668cf3046ffb\u0022\u003EThe Hon Louise Upston\u2014to finish with\u2014also looked overseas, didn\u2019t she? She looked at the comparable countries that we often line ourselves up against as a comparison, and, unlike most comparable countries, New Zealand allows unions to pursue claims across multiple employers. These reforms that we are putting down today will bring us closer in line with international best practice, where claims are typically made against a single employer. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002289809535-e289-43e8-ad08-668cf3046ffb\u0022\u003EAs I\u2019ve said, National supported the 2020 legislation without the last-minute amendments. It was National who settled the $2 billion case in 2017, when Bill English was Prime Minister, and we legislated then. It was National in 1972, under the Jack Marshall administration, that tabled and passed through three stages the Equal Pay Act 1972. National has a very proud history in equal pay and pay equity, and we will continue to have that. Thank you. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022b0cc5ff025494d3fac2b2f84a4198ac6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b0cc5ff025494d3fac2b2f84a4198ac6\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: This is a five-minute split call. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022 data-id=\u0022a805f2aeb1c44316851ca50672de4ec1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a805f2aeb1c44316851ca50672de4ec1\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I want to quote a speaker from the third reading of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill back in 2020: \u201CI\u2019m proud to stand in this House tonight and say that National will support this final reading of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. And I\u2019m proud that our party has contributed to crafting this legislation and bringing it to the House. We support the simple concept that people should be paid the same for the same work, regardless of their gender, and we support the equally important concept that, if someone has been doing work and there are reasonable grounds to believe that that work has been historically undervalued based on their gender and has been underpaid because of that, they should be able to make a pay equity claim. So we support this bill\u201D\u2014Nicola Willis, speaking in the House a few years ago.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e1194b4af9224b70856c21182223c219\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich\u003C/span\u003E: Where is she today?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022906758501d38466980bbee6857c60850\u0022\u003EHon Dr Megan Woods\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, where is she?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c422ec8bf94b422bb50490a585b7724d\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL\u003C/span\u003E: Where is she? Hiding. So why the change? Why the change at this point? Coming into the House today, the Prime Minister said\u2014and it\u2019s quoted on Radio New Zealand\u2014that this change that the National Party and their minions are putting through will save billions of dollars; billions of dollars. But, if we go to the Cabinet paper which has been released, and we can have a look at it now, something that has been redacted is all the financial recommendations, all the information about the finances. They\u2019re not telling us how much this is going to save.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000496\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022\u003EI tell you who it\u2019s not going to save money for: it\u2019s not going to save money for the aged-care workers, who desperately need every penny they can get at the moment; it\u2019s not going to save money for teachers, who have a pay equity claim in there at the moment and have been historically underpaid\u2014those teachers are losing money because of that; it is not going to save money for teacher aides\u2014people we need in our classrooms to help with looking after especially children with extra learning needs; it\u2019s not going to save money for cleaners, also underpaid in the long term. And all these jobs are jobs historically done by women. That Government really does not care about women workers, and it does not care about low-paid workers. All it cares about is balancing the Budget, and it is doing it in a way that kicks the lowest-paid women in this country. That is appalling; it is an absolutely appalling thing to do to our workers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000497\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022\u003EIn terms of thinking about this speech today, I recalled Professor Judy McGregor. Judy McGregor was our first Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, and one of the things that she did was go undercover as an aged-care worker to find out what the work was really like. Let me quote what she said\u2014she produced an amazing report Caring Counts, which really led the charge for pay equity\u2014in terms of aged care, \u201CWhen I did the job myself, I realised the immense emotional labour that goes into it, the skill, the technique, the fatigue.\u201D She recognised just how hard that job was. And, at about the same time, Kristine Bartlett, with the aid of her union E t\u016B, took a pay equity case. Today, Kristine Bartlett is nearly crying, and she said, \u201CWhat\u2019s going to happen to these low-paid workers? It\u2019s hurting\u2014it\u2019s really hurting.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000498\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022\u003EThese are people who are ignoring the evidence, and ignoring the evidence just in order to balance the books. The previous speaker, Cameron Brewer, said that the National Party had, in the previous debate on this, supported the pay equity legislation. It had some rules and one of the things was that it had to be \u201Csustainable in the long term\u201D. That\u2019s the exact words used by the previous speaker. Sustainable for who? That\u2019s the question. Sustainable for who? We already know that working families in this country are having to go to the food bank to get assistance, because wages are simply not high enough. We already know that 30 percent of New Zealanders had to get food assistance last year, and yet this Government is turning around and taking away one of the key protections for low-paid workers. What an absolute shame.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u00222012efff53844b16accf3a0d9db7baad\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222012efff53844b16accf3a0d9db7baad\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Just before I call the next speaker, the comments about members not being here\u2014I\u2019ll take that as a metaphorical question about absence. However, some of the comments from the sidelines were not so metaphorical\u2014just a reminder for subsequent speakers about that rule.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002239b9bac1-a992-4ccf-a473-9591aeb3a298\u0022 data-id=\u0022f4c0366560944ca682cbb30bcfa5db5b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000500\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002239b9bac1-a992-4ccf-a473-9591aeb3a298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f4c0366560944ca682cbb30bcfa5db5b\u0022\u003ERIMA NAKHLE (National\u2014Takanini):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in this second reading speech for the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, a bill shepherded by the Hon Brooke van Velden. What I think is very important to do is to just get us back to basics to a great extent, because what I\u2019m hearing from across the House, I feel is actually unfair in the characterisation. There are some things that we\u2019re missing and some people are refusing to acknowledge this is the case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000501\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002239b9bac1-a992-4ccf-a473-9591aeb3a298\u0022\u003EEqual pay is essentially when women and men are paid the same for the same work. So this is when workers in the same roles are paid the same, paraphrasing. Pay equity is when women and men are paid equal amounts for equal work where they\u2019re in different roles, even if the roles are not identical. We speak about the framework of comparisons\u2014the comparator factor\u2014and I just want to ask the House a question: we\u2019ve reached a point where a fisheries officer is compared to a nurse. Now, someone on the other side of the House said some of these examples that we\u2019re mentioning are embarrassing. Is it embarrassing to say, essentially, what is a fisheries officer? A fisheries officer gathers information on aspects of the fishing industry and enforces fisheries laws. So they gather information. These officers, with all due respect to them, are being placed in the same category as a nurse, a healthcare professional. Is this logical? Is this reasonable?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000502\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002239b9bac1-a992-4ccf-a473-9591aeb3a298\u0022\u003EAll we\u2019re trying to say is there\u2019s a lot of unreasonableness in where we\u2019ve reached because, as usual, everything that the Labour Party puts their hands on becomes murky, becomes nebulous. All we\u2019re doing is we\u2019re making it more reasonable; more clarity. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022e862e072f94b48ceb47e02c84b62bf34\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e862e072f94b48ceb47e02c84b62bf34\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: This is a five-minute split call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022 data-id=\u00226d9e0dad95a1429481d945d70244b649\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226d9e0dad95a1429481d945d70244b649\u0022\u003EHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I think the debate so far has highlighted the fact that the main speakers on the Government side are Carl Bates and Cameron Brewer\u2014those long-time proponents of women\u2019s rights and equal pay! And now we have Rima Nakhle, who doesn\u2019t even understand what the basis of what pay equity is. I think that reflects the bill that we are debating right now, the bill that has no regulatory impact statement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000505\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003EFor a party\u2014ACT\u2014who is all over regulations and trying to have some \u201CWhat is the change that we are trying to do to make sure that we have a clear understanding of why we are changing the law, and the impact that this will have, to know that it\u2019s valued?\u201D, there is no regulatory impact statement to understand what this bill will do in New Zealand. In the actual official documents, the entire section on human rights has been withheld. We\u2019ll be challenging that, because I reckon the New Zealand public would really like to know what the human rights implications are for this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003EWe know, on this side of the House, that it detrimentally impacts women in the lowest-paid jobs. We have a Government that has the gall to say that they\u2019re going for growth, that they\u2019re actually putting more money in New Zealanders\u2019 pockets. The truth is that they are taking it out of the most vulnerable, lowest-paid workers in New Zealand\u2014those people who work long hours in carer roles, in administrative roles, and cleaning roles; those areas that get paid the least\u2014because this Government is quite happy for them to clean their toilets and clean their floors and do all their dirty work, but they\u2019re not prepared to pay them what they\u2019re worth.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000507\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003EThat is going to come back and bite this Government at the next election, because there is one thing that women are good at, and that\u2019s being unified. All women in New Zealand are going to sit up and pay attention to what underhand business this Government is doing today under urgency, with no regulatory impact statement, withholding information on what it\u2019s doing to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and no select committee process\u2014no ability for New Zealanders to comment on taking away pay equity claims in New Zealand. Tonight in the House, 33 active pay equity claims are being written off with this bill, with no course for any woman, any person in New Zealand being able to have a say on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000508\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003EThose members opposite, particularly those women who have let other men step forward and try and argue that this is more robust, that this is going to provide more clarity, that we\u2019re all suddenly going to be a hell of a lot better off with this great new invention that you\u2019ve tabled at the last minute with no select committee process, that somehow this will give us the certainty that will drive us forward as a nation and make us more productive\u2014by paying women less and holding them back, the very women that we rely upon to make our country work, to make sure our children are looked after, to make sure there\u2019s food on the table, to make sure they have shoes when they go school\u2014those are the women who put every last penny into making sure we have a country who cares. This sad, miserly, selfish Government will take the money out of the pockets of the women that keep our country working, that keep our country ticking over.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000509\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003EIf I was sitting on that side of the House, I would put up Carl Bates and Cameron Brewer because I would be too ashamed to stand up and speak to such a disgraceful bill. There is no way this Government has the ability to stand up and say they are going for growth, that they are interested in productivity, and that they are putting more money in the pockets of New Zealanders, when the blatant truth today is that they are doing the exact opposite. They are looking to those who earn the very least and they are making their lives harder. In the same brief, they are lining the pockets of their rich mates. It is a sad day in New Zealand when we see you taking from those who work hard, who do not have enough to pay for bills, and you turn around and have a Budget that will reward those and find money where they could not account for it themselves. I do not commend this bill to the House. It is a sad day in New Zealand for women\u2019s rights.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022 data-id=\u0022712447cfca324dcea178b28cb23ab868\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000510\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022712447cfca324dcea178b28cb23ab868\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram):\u003C/span\u003E I vividly recall visiting rest homes in my electorate of Wigram and talking to rest home workers and carers who had received pay increases under pay equity. They told me stories of being able to afford the bus to travel to work for the first time. They told me stories of not having to walk home for 40 minutes at the end of a shift because they simply could not afford other forms of transport. They told me about the dignity of being able to supply their families and their kids with some treats from time to time. This is the difference that paying women workers their fair share makes to lives.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000511\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EWe have a disgraceful move from a Government, today, that is stripping away the rights of 33 groups of largely women workers to progress their pathway to dignity. That is what this Government is stripping away. We see a sea of suits sitting opposite us. I challenge every woman in the Government parties to come down, take a call, and explain to other women why they think it is their right to legislate away their pathway to dignity and to being valued what they are worth, because that is what the members opposite are doing today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000512\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EMake no bones about it; the Prime Minister said it on the tiles on the way into question time today. He talked about the money savings that are going to come from this legislative change. David Seymour was just about leaping with delight about the billions of dollars that his Minister had saved with this legislative change. Those dollars are being stolen out of the pockets of women across this country. They are not theoretical dollars. They are dollars that would allow women to be able to afford to take public transport to work or to get to work some other way than adding a 40 or 45 minute walk at the end of a hard shift. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000513\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EWe are talking about some of the women workers in this country that do the hardest graft day in and day out. They are the dollars that this Government and every member opposite is going to have to front up to those women across the country about and tell them why they thought it was OK to take those dollars out of their pockets and instead use it because they spent too large on tax breaks for landlords and in terms of putting subsidies in place for the tobacco industry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000514\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003ESo we cannot underestimate the injustice that is being done to women today. We\u2019ve been told \u201CIt\u2019s OK. We\u2019re just putting in place a less complex system. It\u2019s too difficult.\u201D We might compare industries with industries that don\u2019t make sense, but make no mistake, this is about saving money.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000515\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EWe heard the Prime Minister had to correct his statement at the end of question time because when asked whether they\u2019d received advice on it, he said, \u201COh no, it\u2019s not about that.\u201D But within less than an hour, the Prime Minister was having to backtrack on it because when Cabinet came to make this decision, we know that they received money about the savings. Every time we talk about those savings, I want every member in this House to reflect on where that money could have been, and that is in the pay packet and pockets of some of our lowest-paid women in this country that have been historically undervalued for their work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000516\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003ESometimes Opposition Governments do things we don\u2019t like a little bit, but I remember being in this House and looking up at Kristine Bartlett\u2019s face when we passed the pay equity legislation\u2014the difference that we as a House and the National Party at the time who supported it could make to the lives of everyday women. Instead, we have a caucus full of National Party members and ACT and New Zealand First who have sold every low-paid woman worker in this country down the river today. This day will go down in history. This will be the day that women know that this is a Government that has turned their back on them, and most of their women MPs aren\u2019t even in the House to acknowledge that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000517\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ffdfcbfb31c94734ad7f9b84df1fc941\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002219a26d8016c3475faadbc75a070b07e7\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: One more speech before you, Mr Xu-Nan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228ba11b3f-65ea-4f86-92e4-fe78ea522647\u0022 data-id=\u002264a99522d4384e49849c900e510eec41\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000519\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ba11b3f-65ea-4f86-92e4-fe78ea522647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002264a99522d4384e49849c900e510eec41\u0022\u003EDANA KIRKPATRICK (National\u2014East Coast):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, what on earth? I just have to say, what we\u2019ve heard today is a little bit of Labour\u2014I don\u2019t know what actually, but I\u2019m going to say: take a little bit of a story, twist it round, make it into a drama, and talk a load of nonsense. This bill is not about taking away the fight for pay gender equity. It\u2019s not about that. This bill is about clearing up what is happening in this system. It is about making the system clearer and better\u2014end of story. It is not about all the women of the world getting paid less\u2014it\u2019s not. That\u2019s not what this is about. But if you listen to the rhetoric from the other side, that is what you will hear.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000520\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c46de55f-b9e4-4c64-9ac6-877bd89c2fc5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e09037ac606b41e2b70d5c212aba1003\u0022\u003EDr Tracey McLellan\u003C/span\u003E: You\u2019ve been sold a lemon as well, then, if you believe that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000521\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ba11b3f-65ea-4f86-92e4-fe78ea522647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002202d659240431409cbe0536247b3bc0b4\u0022\u003EDANA KIRKPATRICK\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it might take a lemon to know a lemon. There you go. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000522\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ba11b3f-65ea-4f86-92e4-fe78ea522647\u0022\u003EWhat I would say is can I remind everyone that there are an enormous number of very good employers in this country out there paying women well. A lot of them are women; they do a great job. So let\u2019s not just tarnish every employer in the country with this. We have a lot of women doing a great job, getting paid well. We are not giving up the fight for gender equity in pay.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000523\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ba11b3f-65ea-4f86-92e4-fe78ea522647\u0022\u003EWhat we are doing is returning the pay equity system to its intended purpose in 2017. Since then, it became too broad and needed to be brought back to a place where it was clearer, and it\u2019s become difficult to tell recently if pay differences were due to sex-based discrimination or other labour market forces. So what we want to do is clear that up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000524\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022990558b7114a40d4a1583e2aa8e7b1ed\u0022\u003EHon Dr Megan Woods\u003C/span\u003E: Read it like you mean it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000525\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ba11b3f-65ea-4f86-92e4-fe78ea522647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e6b965150db9460b83dc6477b52d3310\u0022\u003EDANA KIRKPATRICK\u003C/span\u003E: The rhetoric has already started. You\u2019ve heard it\u2014that women will be paid less as a result of this. What a load of nonsense that we\u2019re throwing out pay equity. We are not doing that. I repeat, this is simply not true. The Government supports women, it supports gender equity, and it supports equal pay.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ba11b3f-65ea-4f86-92e4-fe78ea522647\u0022\u003EThe National Party began this journey in 2017 to introduce the legislation, and we are not turning our back on our commitment to pay equity. We support this bill and commend it to the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022 data-id=\u0022fd64aa6f392d4693a55112c8cb21f209\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000527\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fd64aa6f392d4693a55112c8cb21f209\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2014and I\u2019ll just say that this is a split call, too.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022 data-id=\u0022871053a2238d40688df96d814cdabc6d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000528\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022871053a2238d40688df96d814cdabc6d\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is incredibly concerning that we are seeing a bill of this nature being introduced under urgency with no preparation, no awareness, no select committee, and no way for the New Zealand public and the people of Aotearoa New Zealand to contribute on something that affects them in a significant way. It is shocking and appalling that this Government would like to take the form of an authoritarian Government and a dictatorship to allow something like this to go through without the proper democratic process\u2014shameful! The Green Party will not support this bill, because it will make it more difficult for groups of women workers to raise pay equity claims, and the fact that you\u2019re also halting all current claims\u2014it is absolutely shocking. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000529\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EThis legislation was introduced by\u2014our own\u2014the Hon Julie Anne Genter, as the Minister for Women. It was widely supported, and it was also supported by the National Party when it was introduced. We saw people who stood up and said how much they wanted it and who also actually criticised people for not raising this early enough, and now you are turning your backs on the very thing that you agreed to because the National Party, at the end of the day, is pandering to their coalition partners. This is not something that is needed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000530\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EWe hear members from the other side of the House talking about the fact that \u201COh, women are not being paid less in the workplace.\u201D We are seeing women being paid less in the workplace. In every scrutiny that we do\u2014everything we do\u2014when it comes to public services, we ask what their progress is towards pay equity, and you see all of them, consistently and shockingly, say that there is still a lack of pay equity. I can\u2019t think of anyone before the select committee, and also in the portfolio that I\u2019m involved with, who can actually confidently say that there is no gender pay gap in public services, and this is going to make it harder and harder for us to move towards that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000531\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EWe did see, like I said, the support that we had when the legislation was first introduced. We have heard today from the people of Aotearoa outside Parliament expressing themselves because, again, that was the only opportunity that the New Zealand public had to be able to express themselves when it comes to this legislation, and I think that we are going to be taking their voice into the committee stage coming up later today because, again, with this bill, there\u2019s no regulatory impact statement. There is nothing\u2014there is no work, there\u2019s no evidence. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EEverything in this entire bill is vibes\u2014they are hot takes. I don\u2019t even know where the source of this information is coming from. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EThere is no evidence that supports that this legislation is needed in the first place, and we would love\u2014love\u2014to scrutinise and also ask questions of the Minister during the committee stage on every part of this bill because, again, we have not given the people of Aotearoa New Zealand the opportunity to express themselves through the select committee stage. That is disgraceful. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EFinally, I want to say that in this week, this Sunday is Mother\u2019s Day. Well, happy Mother\u2019s Day to all of the mothers with this particular bill, which looks to further discriminate against women in the workplace. Despite the fact that they do similar work, comparable work, they are being paid at a lower rate. We know that it is happening, and we have seen other bills being introduced in the House that call for pay transparency, but those were also not supported by the governing parties. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000535\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003ESo the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand will not support this bill, because it is badly put together. It will put women workers at more risk of lower pay, and we would love to ask the Minister some more questions during the committee stage. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022153cf8d2f14244c493ebca4be351a6c8\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the Equal Pay Amendment Bill be read a second time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000536\u0022\u003EBill read a second time.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022 data-id=\u002267ee920c6cac48238e2fb9085354240d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000537\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002267ee920c6cac48238e2fb9085354240d\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000538\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022db36d1b3c4f4473db2e5c22fe0b33496\u0022\u003EIn Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000539\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00222d46ac68783b44aba3dd878a6be451f4\u0022\u003EPart 1  Amendments to Equal Pay Act 1972\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u00226e1f2e91e6084b20a54e36e825e76796\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226e1f2e91e6084b20a54e36e825e76796\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the House is in committee on the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. We start with the debate on Part 1, which is clauses 4 to 49, \u201CAmendments to Equal Pay Act 1972\u201D, and the Schedule. The question is that Part 1 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022 data-id=\u0022db5423fdc6e2497096bb3c62c8a5230b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022db5423fdc6e2497096bb3c62c8a5230b\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I wish it was a pleasure to take a call in this debate, but it is absolutely shocking to be in the position of being in a committee stage where the Government is looking at making significant changes repealing rights for women and the bill has only been available to us for less than a few hours. So absolutely shocking to be here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000542\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EI wanted to ask the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety why she decided to take away, through this legislation, the rights of women to be able to take equal pay claims. This is in relation to Part 1 because in Part 1 we have one of the most significant changes to the Equal Pay Act, as we know it, and that particular change is to change the workforce requirement to 70\u00A0percent. Now, we\u2019ve heard many comments in this House around the fact that allegedly this bill, according to the Government members, is not taking away the rights of women and is not making it harder for them to take pay equity claims. I ask the Minister: how does she reconcile that with this specific clause which requires 70\u00A0percent of the workforce, which is a higher number than previously required, in order to take a pay equity claim? Does she not think\u2014and if so, what evidence was provided to her\u2014that a workforce of 60 percent or a workforce, indeed, of 50\u00A0percent or 50 to 60 percent would not be predominantly female?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EThe other thing that I want to know is that there is a requirement here that this has been\u2014in clause 4(2)(b)(ii), that that \u201Chas been performed by a workforce described in [the immediately preceding paragraph] for at least 10 consecutive years immediately before the date on which the claim was raised\u201D. Now, I cannot see a reason for the inclusion of these restrictions, apart from to solicit fewer pay equity claims in New Zealand, and thus fewer low-paid women are able to take pay equity claims, and thus fewer low-paid women receive recognition from being in female-dominated work that has been historically undervalued. I can see no other reason for that. I would like the Minister to elucidate, if\u2014allegedly it is the case, which I do not believe for one second\u2014this bill is allowing pay equity claims to go ahead, why has she put in those two criteria that objectively make this much harder? I, in fact, intend to table an amendment on this which would remove the requirement for 10 consecutive years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003ESo I want to know from the Minister: what advice did she receive on that and what is the purpose of these two clauses which, on any objective basis, from any ideological perspective, make it harder for low-paid women in female-dominated work to take pay equity claims? I think I know the answer to that, but I\u2019m interested in the Minister\u2019s response to that. I think the answer is the reason they want to make it harder is because they don\u2019t want to pay out pay equity claims, and they want to have that money\u2014that was set aside for low-paid women who deserve to be paid what they\u2019re worth\u2014available to use for other matters which are not low-paid work of female employees.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000545\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EI want to ask the Minister, because we haven\u2019t had a select committee stage to be able to hear from members of the public on this bill, what does she say to a young mother that I met last week at the Maranga Ake protests who is a care and support worker who was seven months pregnant and is on the minimum wage? I would want to ask the Minister: what does she say to that woman who is on the minimum wage, who was speaking at that protest about how important it is for her to have her pay recognised as part of the equal pay claim that she\u2019s a part of? What does she say to her when, today, she is extinguishing that settlement and she is not allowing that to go ahead on the same basis? Only making that much harder and much less likely that that young mother, about to have a baby, on the minimum wage, is going to receive any pay equity settlement anywhere in the near future for her work. So what does the Minister say to that woman and many other people who have not had the opportunity to provide submissions to a select committee in this process?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u0022fa27a38b97e54a8e9f1c4278e1713d1b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000546\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fa27a38b97e54a8e9f1c4278e1713d1b\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank the member Camilla Belich for her contribution. One thing I do want to make clear right from the start is that we are not taking away a pay equity regime. We still maintain as a Government that we wish to not see discrimination based on sex. That is why the pay equity system will still remain in place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000547\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EHowever, there are some changes to be made, and the member touches on two: we are putting in place a threshold of 70 percent female-dominated occupation, and also that in order to take a claim you\u2019d need to have 10 years of being at 70 percent female domination in the workplace. This change provides greater confidence that the pay equity process is identifying situations where there may be sex-based differences in the pay of work predominantly performed by women. What we\u2019ve seen under the previous regime\u2019s pay equity system is that there has been a muddying of the waters between labour market forces, other things like inflation and Consumers Price Index, and some sort of conflation of collective agreements and pay equity and systematic discrimination based on sex.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000548\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EWhat we are aiming to do here is make a robust, workable bill that goes back to the original intention of pay equity: that it is genuinely about sex-based discrimination. Tightening that threshold will make sure that it is better to prove genuine sex-based discrimination.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000549\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EWhat I would say to the young mother\u2014and I thank you for bringing this example\u2014is I very much thank her for the work that she is doing. Caring and supporting people who need it is a wonderful thing to do with your life. What we want to ensure is that for everybody who wishes not to see discrimination for the work that they do based on their sex, they can genuinely say that the claim that they have received is to extinguish sex-based discrimination, and that is what this does. This Government is committed to extinguishing that sex-based discrimination in pay equity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022 data-id=\u00220ab194df51434902b7ebb8c16d3e4665\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000550\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220ab194df51434902b7ebb8c16d3e4665\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I have spent my afternoon\u2014since I have found out about this particular bill going through\u2014going through the different clauses of this bill. So before I ask my first question of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, I just want to outline how I intend my prosecution at this stage\u2014the committee of the whole House\u2014to proceed and then I will ask the Minister my first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003ESo what I\u2019ve done is I\u2019ve gone through the bill itself and gone through the different clauses and highlighted what I see are the most important parts to the different clauses, and then I have some questions for the Minister in the different clauses. Now, along the way, I know that I have some Amendment Papers that I want to talk to, but I know a lot of my colleagues here have Amendment Papers that they will want to talk to as well. So that\u2019s what we have done. The reason that I\u2019ve done it that particular way is because we haven\u2019t had the select committee process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003EI have to say that since this was announced, I haven\u2019t seen my email blow up like I\u2019ve seen it in the last few hours. That\u2019s from people who are incredibly disgruntled around the process that has happened here. So some of the questions that I am going to ask are on behalf of people who would have normally come in to submit to that select committee process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000553\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003EFirst off, I want to look at clause 4, and my colleague Camilla Belich did talk a bit about clause 4, because that is the clause that does talk about the relevant work that is performed by the workforce that is at least 70 percent female, so it\u2019s increased that threshold. But it also talks about the work that has been performed by a workforce of that kind for at least 10 consecutive years before a claim is raised. I have some real concerns around this. I feel like this is fundamental to the attack that was talked about in the first and second readings of this bill, around that of women\u2019s rights and workers\u2019 rights. As my colleague said, \u201CWomen that are in workforces that have 60 percent, does that not count as a female-dominated workforce anymore? Obviously it is.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000554\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003ESo my first question puts both of those areas together, the percentage of women in the workforce and also the consecutive years. That question is around: what happens to a workforce that is performed by 65 percent of women for nine years that has pay equity concerns in it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000555\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003ENow, this is the ridiculous situation we have here. Obviously, all of us in this Chamber would say there are concerns around that that need to be addressed\u201465 percent female-dominated workforces have been an issue for nine years with pay equity concerns. Do they not deserve a path to pay equity? Surely the answer isn\u2019t to say, \u201CWell, no, because they\u2019re 5 percent short of that 70 percent threshold.\u201D, or, \u201CNo, they have to wait a year.\u201D To me that seems ridiculous, Minister, and is that what you were aiming for, to make it so hard and so difficult to raise a claim that those workforces\u2014and they will exist\u2014would not have a pathway to a pay equity process?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s a very serious question that came through from a number of people today to me very, very concerned about the changes that have been made. They see themselves in a female-dominated workforce but suddenly they\u2019re looking at this legislation and not seeing a place for themselves and seeing themselves marginalised even further. If that\u2019s what you meant, Minister, then that is a massive concern for this country and an absolute change to labour law of the likes we haven\u2019t seen for many, many years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u0022c81def8f9315474a92c28ab1982f8ce0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000557\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c81def8f9315474a92c28ab1982f8ce0\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E I thank the member the Hon Jan Tinetti for her contribution. There\u2019s been a number of points made within her contribution about time periods and the threshold moving from 60 percent to 70\u00A0percent for female-dominated occupation. One thing I want to make clear is that part of the reason why we have made these changes is that we are moving away from having arguable claims, to claims that have merit, which means that there must be an evidential basis for sex-based discrimination. I think that\u2019s really important, because to make a claim\u2014which is a very serious claim\u2014that you\u2019ve been discriminated against on the grounds of your sex is quite serious. So there needs to be a justification for this claim. What we\u2019re saying is that there needs to be evidence that you work in a predominantly female workforce for 70 percent, that there needs to be a time period in which to justify or find a basis of evidence that you have been discriminated based on your sex.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EPart of what we\u2019ve done here is we\u2019ve also moved from having it as just a historic sex-based undervaluation, to suggesting that in order to bring a claim, you need to have historic sex-based undervaluation and current sex-based undervaluation. That\u2019s where this threshold for having 10 years makes sense, because if there is a justification and an evidential basis for sex-based discrimination, that needs to be able to be proved over a period of time, which means there is a time frame.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000559\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EIn terms of the 60 percent moving to 70 percent, there is always going to be arguments of where that threshold should be met. The National Party\u2019s original intention when they introduced the law had a threshold of, I believe, 66 percent, which was lowered by the Labour Government down to 60 percent. It is also the case that having a 70 percent threshold is not out of alignment with what we\u2019ve seen internationally. If you look at Manitoba, Canada, they also have a 70\u00A0percent threshold for sex-based discrimination.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003ESo this will make it a more clear, a more robust, and a more workable regime. But, more importantly, it will actually become easier to justify, to find evidence, and to make a basis for sex-based discrimination.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022 data-id=\u0022eb2cfb58498b4c0793e3ad25d4317cf9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022eb2cfb58498b4c0793e3ad25d4317cf9\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I\u2019d like to ask a very quick follow-up question to that. I didn\u2019t really get an understanding there from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety\u2019s answer about the time frame\u2014the 10-year time frame. There was a lot of talk about the percentage. So I\u2019d like that to be addressed. But I want to know: as a Minister, you get lots of advice. What other options were presented to you, Minister, and what were your reasonings for going with the 70\u00A0percent that you did? I\u2019m not convinced from what you\u2019ve said, because I don\u2019t know what else\u2014we haven\u2019t seen what else was presented to you. So I think it\u2019s only fair that we have an understanding of, and the people out there have an understanding of, the options that you were presented with and why you chose not to go with those options.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022 data-id=\u00226490edd92ed640e093d0cb4a38b86fd6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226490edd92ed640e093d0cb4a38b86fd6\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to first pick up some of the questions that have already been asked, and this is with regards to clause 4, subclause (2), in terms of the definition. But I just want to check: in terms of the \u201Cpredominantly performed by female employees\u201D, what the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety has done is added a second part of the requirement where both must be met, which means 70 percent and 10 years. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000563\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EI would also like to, I guess, push back on the Minister\u2019s response that there are no clear guidelines, where the current section in the legislation which is section 13F of the equal payment Act actually does have a definitions framework of how they work because, again, what we are seeing is that we shouldn\u2019t be using a blunt tool of 10 years. That\u2019s very restrictive whereas there are various mechanisms in the existing legislation that already allow for that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000564\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EBut I want to ask the Minister: what other evidence has she been presented with when determining the increase to 70 percent? The Minister made reference to Manitoba, Canada. That\u2019s one example, one area. The world is kind of big; what other regions has she explore in terms of that, rather than just one particular area? I also wanted to check: what is the evidence for having 10 years? Because, again, we have no regulatory impact statement\u2014there is no RIS. We have no idea what has been presented. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003ESo, I wanted to check in also then with the Minister on this point. Two things: number one is considering other bills\u2014again, no legislation operates in a silo\u2014some of the bills that are also introduced make it easier for employers to fire employees. What are the chances of making changes in year 10 to reset the timer, so in that way it takes another nine years, 10 years, before this claim can be made again, is my first question. What are the risks around if employers are able to fire employees easily and you have an incredibly high threshold at 70 percent for you to fire or to make voluntary redundancy or whatever mechanism that is used to bring it down below 70 percent to say, \u201COh look, it is no longer 70 percent anymore, it is 68 and 69.\u201D Therefore, you no longer meet the requirement for this claim. \u201CBut then after two years we\u2019ll bring it back up.\u201D So what are some of the risks for this and have those scenarios been considered? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003ESo those are the first questions I would like to ask the Minister for clause 4. Actually, I\u2019m going to stop there because there are quite a few questions there, but there are going to be further questions I would like to address under the Purpose section. But I think if the Minister could respond: What other evidence has she been presented with other than Manitoba, Canada? Why has she decided to use \u201Cand\u201D in (b)(i) and (ii)\u2014that both criteria must be met and not just one of them? What are the risks of employers using various manipulation tactics to reset the timer on that? Because, again, this is a blunt tool that the Minister has just introduced. Finally, when determining that new definition of \u201Cpredominantly performed by female employees\u201D, what employee organisations, workers\u2019 organisations, and unions has the Minister consulted with when determining that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u0022f2d746b2a9e944698743a69733acbdd7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000567\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f2d746b2a9e944698743a69733acbdd7\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E There\u2019s a lot in those contributions, so I\u2019ll just stick to one that I have heard from both sides of those parties, which is about the 10-year time frame and looking for more information. Look, the 10year time frame provides greater confidence that any differences in remuneration are due to sex-based discrimination rather than any differences that may present due to labour market conditions or the workforces.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022f441b360b0f64106b9af1e4b3e7d4948\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000568\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f441b360b0f64106b9af1e4b3e7d4948\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee will resume at 7.30.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000569\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u00220669b11d7e9f424491274fff34340d74\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220669b11d7e9f424491274fff34340d74\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the committee is resumed. When we rose for the dinner break, we were debating Part 1. Once again, the question is that Part 1 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022 data-id=\u002229fbc563d41749d29b18c0571dfb1c03\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000571\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002229fbc563d41749d29b18c0571dfb1c03\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019ve got some questions about some of the parts of the proposal which seem to go utterly against the intentions of something like the ACT Party. My understanding is that in that party, there is a value given to a freedom to contract, and yet here we seem to have a whole lot of agreements that have been settled by people and they have gone through a process that would\u2019ve been really expensive and would\u2019ve taken a lot of effort and it would\u2019ve been something that workers would\u2019ve relied upon. We\u2019re talking about people who can\u2019t necessarily afford a great deal, because the nature of the problem is that they\u2019ve been underpaid. They\u2019ve done all that work, they\u2019ve come to an agreement, and my understanding is that the proposal put forward by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is to jettison all that work, to basically break those contracts and agreements by overriding them in this piece of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000572\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EMy understanding is also that the Minister proposes to go on and say, \u201CIn these agreements that you make in the future, you will not be able to put a clause in the agreement which says, \u2018We\u2019ll settle this now, but we\u2019ll review it as time goes on so you never fall behind again.\u2019\u00A0\u201D Now, that, to me, seems like the most sensible thing you could possibly do as an employer. A good-faith employer says, \u201CWe\u2019re not going to let this happen to half or more of our workforce again\u2014never again, because, actually, people not being paid a decent amount is hurting them and it\u2019s unjust, and we are not that kind of employer.\u201D By making those agreements for regular review, that\u2019s what they\u2019re doing, and yet here I understand the proposal is that we\u2019re not going to do that anymore. We\u2019re not going to allow people even the freedom to make those kinds of decisions themselves about how they will manage a problem that\u2019s ingrained in our society, that we\u2019ve recognised as ingrained.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000573\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EI also wanted to ask the Minister about the history of this, because, again, the same issue is in play, I think, of understanding in the context why this is so devastating for people. I had a mother who worked as a teacher in the 1960s. She was paid a quarter what the male standing next to her was being paid for the same job because she was paid as a single person and the male was assumed to have a family of four, and the rate was set to actually be for the family of four. So along come the 1970s, where my mother has worked her socks off and not been paid; there is a piece of legislation put in place which says you must be paid equally. Nobody really does anything\u2014don\u2019t notice, don\u2019t actually act on that for quite some time. Then someone comes along with the bright idea of actually enforcing something in the law. They hard-won it\u2014they absolutely hard-won it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000574\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EWe come along as a legislature and we say, \u201CRight, we are going to look at this again. We\u2019re going to make sure this works in a different way\u2014trust us. Trust us\u2014this is what we\u2019re doing today. We\u2019re going to compromise your rights. We\u2019re not going to let you all just go through the courts and make your decisions and get the court to look at this objectively and decide if you\u2019ve been paid the right amount. But trust us: we\u2019re going to put in place a formula that works for you and works for us because it was already a compromise.\u201D My understanding today, Minister, is what you are doing is compromising on a compromise on a compromise, and you are again eroding the justice\u2014sorry, Madam Chair; the Minister and the Government are again looking at eroding a fraction of the rights of the people involved here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000575\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003ESo I would like to know: was there any kind of historical analysis of the loss that actually accrued to the people whose claims are now being compromised again? Was there any advice given to the Minister of the actual amount of money that those people are out of pocket because they\u2019ve been treated badly over years and years? And was there any analysis of what that did to the rest of us, who have to pick up the pieces, when women cannot save enough money for their retirement, because we know the stats\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u0022c23a6f829c2b42dabf6cda1c4209a6b1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c23a6f829c2b42dabf6cda1c4209a6b1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The member\u2019s time has expired.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022 data-id=\u0022f6223476e2924170b2ea9a05fb22c5bc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000577\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f6223476e2924170b2ea9a05fb22c5bc\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. Just before the dinner break\u2014and I am sure you know this, but I just want to remind people\u2014I\u2019d asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety a question around clause 4 and around the advice that was given that led to the 70 percent. What I really wanted to know was what other advice\u2014because, as a Minister, you do get alternative advice. What was the alternative advice that was given, and why didn\u2019t the Minister go with that? The reason I bring this back up is that we didn\u2019t get an answer to that. Because we have no idea what advice was given to the Minister, I have actually written a tabled amendment in my name, to clause 4, that goes back to the 60 percent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000578\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003EWhen we had that 60 percent threshold, we were successful in getting pay equity claims through, which tells me, in the absence of knowing the advice that the Minister saw, that things were working in this space, and are working. It reeks of ill winds, really, that the Minister has changed this purely\u2014and I want to be convinced here otherwise\u2014as a cost-saving measure, particularly when I see the comments that have been made today in the media, and I would think quite unfortunate comments for the Minister, on behalf of the Minister, saying this was all about saving billions of dollars. So I would really like to know what alternative advice was given to the Minister, other than that 70 percent threshold, and why did she not choose to go with that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003EAs I said, in the absence of that, I think we should be staying with the 60 percent, because we know that it has been successful to date. We know that we have seen successful claims go through. And I think, when you look at the successful claims of support staff in schools, of science technicians in schools, all of those claims that came through, we saw a change in those workforces. We saw that predominantly female workforce change for the better because of those successful pay equity claims. My concern is that raising it to 70 percent makes it much, much more difficult. I can\u2019t remember the place\u2014where was the place that the Minister had said\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224951a49585c14cac982f588c2acbf6d9\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Manitoba.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002237861fe16f9045c9a696e9fd990024a7\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI\u003C/span\u003E: In Canada\u2014Manitoba. That\u2019s right. All we\u2019ve been told is that they have it in Manitoba, in Canada, and I just don\u2019t think that\u2019s a strong enough case for the 70\u00A0percent. So, please, I really do want an answer as to why we haven\u2019t stuck with the 60 percent or other alternative percentages that the Minister would have got from her officials.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022 data-id=\u002223d4dc2609884965b3b433c6f443e55c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002223d4dc2609884965b3b433c6f443e55c\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to echo the sentiment of the previous speaker, the Hon Jan Tinetti. We did ask a number of questions to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety before the dinner break and did not receive an answer other than it would \u201Cgive confidence\u201D. I guess, from that, I want to ask the Minister: confidence for whom? It\u2019s certainly not for the workers, who were caught by surprise by this particular piece of legislation. So if the Minister wouldn\u2019t mind elucidating to the committee, what does she mean by confidence?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000583\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EBut just to remind the Minister again of the questions that we\u2019re asking and the fact that we are having to ask these questions because there\u2019s no information and no context for this bill and no analysis that we know of that\u2019s been done. So we really need to know from the Minister what analysis has been done for this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000584\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003ESo again, going back to my questions for clause 4(2), I asked the Minister questions around risk and around cost-benefit analysis, both in terms of the 70 percent threshold but also in terms of the 10 consecutive years. What confidence does she have that employers and corporates aren\u2019t going to manipulate the legislation in a way that will always not quite meet the threshold on year nine, for example? In year 10, they change the system a bit. Is the system going to be reset? It says 10 consecutive years, which means that a company could reasonably change the system in year 10 to reset the 10 consecutive years for them to start again from year one the next year, and there\u2019s nothing that employees can do about it. I can see the Minister smiling, but at the same time, I don\u2019t know. I genuinely don\u2019t know if that is something that has been considered because that could, in all likelihood, like anything else, be a scenario that could eventuate. So could the Minister respond if that has been considered or if any other analysis has been done from a risk perspective?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EI also asked the Minister who she consulted in terms of this particular legislation. Has she consulted with any workers\u2019 organisations or unions on this legislation before introducing it to the House? And like the previous speaker, the Hon Jan Tinetti, has also mentioned, what other areas has she modelled this legislation on other than Manitoba, Canada? But that\u2019s one part of my question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000586\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EI would like to ask a few questions, and this is more broadly around clause 6, under \u201CPurpose\u201D. Now, the purpose section has also fundamentally changed from the current purpose of the existing legislation, but I want to pick up on a few keywords in this new purpose section, and particularly I want to pick up on what the Minister means by \u201Cprocess\u201D. The current definition is actually very clear in terms of the fact that there needs to be a simple process, whereas there\u2019s nothing in here, there\u2019s no adjective that gives me confidence that this process isn\u2019t going to be increasing the blue tape and yellow tape of this Government and is going to make it a really complex and arduous process for people to claim pay equity or gender-based pay equity. I also wanted to check with the Minister\u2014in light of the definition in replacement section 2B, inserted by clause 5\u2014has she received any legal advice on whether the purpose section can potentially override the definition of clause 4(2) when it comes to the definition of \u201Csystemic\u201D and \u201Cpredominantly\u201D? Again, one of the things that we have been talking about is the fact that the \u201Csystemic\u201D has been presumed to mean 10 consecutive years and \u201Cpredominantly\u201D has been presumed to mean 70 percent, but has that been checked by legal to also suggest that people cannot challenge it? As the Minister would understand from statutory interpretation, the purpose may override other definitions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c46de55f-b9e4-4c64-9ac6-877bd89c2fc5\u0022 data-id=\u0022c33c6e10b3ac4342b4c2b4322baf4df2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000587\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c46de55f-b9e4-4c64-9ac6-877bd89c2fc5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c33c6e10b3ac4342b4c2b4322baf4df2\u0022\u003EDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. There are a few things that I was going to say I find confusing about this piece of legislation, but I\u2019m not personally confused. I worked for an organisation that championed pay equity and spent an awful lot of time working with comparators, working our way through a process that was very clearly laid out and was achievable at the end. But there\u2019s something about what the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety has responded to in questions so far that doesn\u2019t quite sit well with me. For those paying attention at home, or for those who have been listening to the two or three contributions that the Minister has made to date, she\u2019s talked about sex-based discrimination. She said things like \u201Cif you feel you\u2019ve been discriminated in your workplace\u201D. It kind of reeks of this classic libertarian kind of concept of the unit of analysis being the individual, and that is completely at odds with what the pay equity legislation was designed to do, because it was about rectifying historical undervaluation of what tends to be woman\u2019s work but is certainly not exclusively woman\u2019s work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c46de55f-b9e4-4c64-9ac6-877bd89c2fc5\u0022\u003EIf we look back at the history of that\u2014suffice to say, a history lesson\u2014there were two types of work in our economy, historically: the productive work that tended to be done by men and was therefore valued as such and paid accordingly, and reproductive work that tended almost exclusively to be done by women. Over the years, that work moved into types of occupations like nursing and caring and all of those things where women may have worked outside the home but were still involved in what was considered reproductive work, caring work. Throughout history, throughout the world, those forms of activity, those forms of genuine work, have always been undervalued. Hence the fact that in the same organisation in the 1960s or the 1970s, as Helen White has previously pointed out, two people could do the same work and if one was a man they would receive what was called a family wage, whilst the woman would receive tokenism, essentially, because she didn\u2019t \u201Cneed\u201D to be paid. It\u2019s the same sort of argument we hear when we talk about youth rates from this Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000589\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c46de55f-b9e4-4c64-9ac6-877bd89c2fc5\u0022\u003EBut as a modern society, as a contemporary society, we\u2019re supposed to redress that. Those are antiquated, old-fashioned ideas. It\u2019s taken years to try and address that. That\u2019s why some perfectly, incredibly valuable work that\u2019s skilled and has autonomy, that may have budget responsibilities, that may have life-and-death responsibilities, is still underpaid compared to what has been traditionally male-dominated work that doesn\u2019t have near as much responsibility, or, arguably, doesn\u2019t necessarily add as much value\u2014you know, even if we want to be cut and dry about it in a productive economic sense.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c46de55f-b9e4-4c64-9ac6-877bd89c2fc5\u0022\u003ESo when the Minister talks about this as if it\u2019s some sort of contemporary problem\u2014going forward, she wants to see this rectified to make it easier\u2014she\u2019s completely denying and completely overshadowing the fact that we\u2019ve still got a lot of work to do to even the playing field and to fix up that which has not been appropriately sorted. So to change the rules and to make the criteria so much more strict\u2014so much more not even very well-thought-out or practical solutions to a problem\u2014just defies belief, really.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c46de55f-b9e4-4c64-9ac6-877bd89c2fc5\u0022\u003EThinking about that and taking that into a contextual sort of background, I have several questions for the Minister. The first one, though, is that we have 33 current pay equity claims, so by virtue of the fact that we haven\u2019t been through a select committee process and we don\u2019t have a regulatory impact statement, can the Minister take us through all of those 33 existing cases? Can she talk us through the analysis and the advice that she\u2019s been given on each of those, individually\u2014about what the costs to the Government are, what savings the Government will make what workers and people\u2014not just women but men who are now currently working in traditionally women-dominated fields, who are also getting paid an undervalued wage? I want to know more details about that, because without a proper process we\u2019re flying blind, and it\u2019s up to the Minister to provide that information, tonight.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u0022ca7d1f4fc8dc459c9808f4d1566d0376\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000592\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ca7d1f4fc8dc459c9808f4d1566d0376\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to go through a few of the questions that we\u2019ve had so far. Firstly, in response to the member Helen White, about why the Government is overriding settlements that have been made, I want to make it very clear to anybody listening that that is not what the Government is doing. Settlements that have been made are still valid. It is only the review clause that is no longer enforceable, and then the follow-on question is: why are we not allowing those review clauses? In many of these settlements, the short review period made it difficult to determine whether any remuneration differences were actually due to pay equity issues having re-emerged in such short time frames or, simply, too short-term labour market dynamics. There\u2019s also the case that aligning the timing of reviews with collective-bargaining rounds risked conflating pay equity and collective-bargaining issues. They are distinct issues, and they address different issues, which is why we believe in having a 10-year review date.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000593\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EWe have been asked, also by Helen White, about the historical analysis of what women will be losing and why we\u2019re compromising the system. It\u2019s not the case. There is always going to be those settled claims\u2014they\u2019ll continue to be settled. There\u2019s still a process for raising and resolving pay equity issues. The current settlements stand; they don\u2019t lose any gains. But we are making changes to ensure that the pay equity process is workable and sustainable going forward, and that will be a better process, for all parties, to assess whether there is sex-based undervaluation when they\u2019re working through that claim. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003ETo the member Jan Tinetti, speaking to her tabled amendment, the changes that we proposed in the bill provide greater confidence that the process is identifying situations where sex-based differences in remuneration exist and remain. Of course, there is always going to be people who would want to change the threshold of 70 percent or 60 percent or 50 percent, 40 percent\u2014you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere, and I believe that having the higher threshold of 70\u00A0percent makes us have greater confidence that the analysis that we\u2019re seeing is based on genuine sex-based undervaluation. It makes sense that the higher the threshold is, the more likely it is based on genuine sex-based discrimination. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve been asked, by the member Lawrence Xu-Nan, what evidence we have for changing the 70 percent threshold and requiring the 10 years. Look, I have wanted to make it clear\u2014with the claims\u2014that they can only be raised when there is sex-based discrimination, rather than differences in labour market conditions. I think those two changes to the thresholds go hand in hand to achieve better outcomes and more confidence in the pay equity system overall, that they are focusing on genuine sex-based discrimination rather than labour market conditions. And that\u2019s going to be my same answer to that same question if we get it throughout the night. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EThere is also a question on risks of employers attempting to game the system for the new requirements. There is still an obligation under the law for good faith to apply, and dispute-resolution processes are available to all parties. If a union or an employee disagrees with a decision on whether or not the requirements are met, that\u2019s not changing. There is also a question on who was, ultimately, consulted. I think that\u2019s also quite clear today: that we have needed to move quickly to make the changes to the Act to ensure that it is workable and sustainable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000597\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EThere is another question as to who this is giving confidence to, and I think that the answer to that is very clear: it gives confidence to people bringing a claim. It\u2019s for employers, unions, and employees. We\u2019ve also got a question about which other countries I have looked into, in comparison to other jurisdictions, rather than just focusing on Manitoba. New Zealand\u2019s pay equity system is actually quite unique in terms of international comparisons. The UK and Ireland don\u2019t allow multi-employer claims. They also don\u2019t allow any claims to be made outside of a person\u2019s or the claimant\u2019s workforce\u2014so we are very unique in that regard. Australia does allow multi-employer claims, but they are usually progressed through a different system\u2014again, that we don\u2019t have in New Zealand\u2014which is the awards system. So it is actually quite difficult to compare ourselves internationally to what other jurisdictions do. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f7fc7ac3-5ce1-43ca-8cd6-dbb0941bf3ae\u0022 data-id=\u00228ad7d9414735401194f3493600b8b668\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f7fc7ac3-5ce1-43ca-8cd6-dbb0941bf3ae\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228ad7d9414735401194f3493600b8b668\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, I\u2019m gratified for that. And just aware that this bill has just been foisted on us recently, so I\u2019m wanting to make some relatively general comments, but largely around process. And the first thing I want to know from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is: where is the Attorney-General\u2019s report? Because the departmental disclosure statement, under the heading \u201CConsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act\u201D, indicates that there has been an assessment of the bill and whether it\u2019s consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. So that advice has been provided to the Attorney-General.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000599\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f7fc7ac3-5ce1-43ca-8cd6-dbb0941bf3ae\u0022\u003ENow, if you\u2019re going to introduce a bill with an hour\u2019s notice, then we should be seeing on the Table the advice on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. And it is shameful that the advice exists and yet it has not been tabled. I want to know what the expert advice of the Attorney-General and the Minister of Justice is on this, particularly because there are changes to offences in this piece of legislation and there are retrospective provisions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000600\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f7fc7ac3-5ce1-43ca-8cd6-dbb0941bf3ae\u0022\u003ENow, you are a member of a party which prides itself, or purports to pride itself on, its adherence to the rule of law. And, frankly, to come to this House in this kind of haphazard way is absolutely contrary to the rule of law, particularly when you\u2019re introducing retrospective provisions. I am appalled to see, when your leader is pushing a regulatory standards framework which talks about consultation, that there has been no Treaty analysis done whatsoever. It says here in the disclosure statement, \u201CDue to ministerial time constraints\u201D\u2014the Hon Brooke van Velden was busy\u2014\u201Cno analysis on whether the bill is consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi has been done.\u201D Why not? Because we know many of our lowest-paid workers are M\u0101ori, and in terms of doing right by M\u0101ori and ensuring that they are paid appropriately\u2014our wahine M\u0101ori are directly affected by this bill and the Treaty analysis was absolutely necessary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000601\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f7fc7ac3-5ce1-43ca-8cd6-dbb0941bf3ae\u0022\u003EI also note towards the end of the disclosure statement that this bill is retrospective, that is to say that under urgency\u2014and to be perfectly honest, on this side of the Chamber, we don\u2019t understand why it\u2019s so desperately urgent\u2014you are introducing a retrospective aspect, in particular\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f1c5d8b925a94b20ac6bd32a201dabc3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The Chair is not introducing it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f7fc7ac3-5ce1-43ca-8cd6-dbb0941bf3ae\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b12f74717e784920bfb25a771263c34c\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB\u003C/span\u003E: Pardon?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c3fe7d221a5f4fce823ae506d0813881\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The Chair is not introducing that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000605\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f7fc7ac3-5ce1-43ca-8cd6-dbb0941bf3ae\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d4a97b3cc985421d89c203825c522c37\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, Madam Chair. The Minister is introducing a bill with a retrospective aspect. In particular, there are clauses in contractual agreements which are being struck down, namely review clauses. These are clauses which parties in many cases have reached by agreement. They have negotiated these review agreements\u2014sanctity of contract is something that the ACT Party talks about all of the time, and yet here they are legislating away contracts that have been struck between the parties. The process here is appalling and I want to know why the Minister thinks it\u2019s appropriate to retrospectively change contractual agreements.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f7fc7ac3-5ce1-43ca-8cd6-dbb0941bf3ae\u0022\u003EAnd I guess the other thing in terms of that disclosure statement is: why was the Ministry of Justice not consulted around the criminal provisions? This is not a difficult thing to do. It is not difficult when developing policy\u2014I see other ministries: the Public Service Commission was consulted, Health New Zealand was consulted, the Ministry of Education was consulted, Treasury was consulted. But when you are changing criminal offences, it is absolutely appropriate and necessary to take the advice of the specialist ministry, which is the Ministry of Justice. Clause 3.4.1 of the disclosure statement says, \u201CNo\u201D, we didn\u2019t consult the Ministry of Justice about those offences.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000607\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f7fc7ac3-5ce1-43ca-8cd6-dbb0941bf3ae\u0022\u003EAnd then there\u2019s this: in terms of regulatory quality, the standard of our legislation, rule number one, which David Seymour and his Ministry for Regulation trumpets, is consult with the people affected. Who was consulted? Why are you so rushed that you didn\u2019t consult the people affected by this? We know that that Minister is allergic to unions, but why did you not talk to the Council of Trade Unions? Why did you not talk to the groups of workers who are currently negotiating these agreements? How is this good process? How can we pretend that legislation under urgency, with that shabby process, has any quality whatsoever?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022 data-id=\u002213e2d4b26b3640d2ab9c768ed1bd8018\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000608\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002213e2d4b26b3640d2ab9c768ed1bd8018\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Madam Chair, thank you. I do also have some questions to ask around the process. It\u2019s a little hard to pin it to a particular clause in the bill, but it is important that we discuss this, given that we didn\u2019t have a select committee process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022\u003ENow, in terms of the papers that were available to us when the bill was tabled, as the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety was beginning her speech introducing the bill this afternoon\u2014so, literally, we couldn\u2019t get our hands on the bill until after the Minister had started talking. But amongst them, we were able to come across this, or maybe I got it from a colleague. It\u2019s the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment\u2019s (MBIE\u2019s) paper Reviewing policy settings, from March 2025\u2014which is a pretty vague title, isn\u2019t it? But it is all about this bill, and, in particular, it\u2019s the Cabinet paper, or the MBIE paper, on the bill, and, in particular, I think we need to talk about the financial recommendations. We need to understand the costs and benefits of this bill that the Minister is bringing to us today, and it turns out that this particular report is just full of great big grey redacted paragraphs. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022\u003ESo I want to know what advice\u2014now, obviously, the Minister is not going to tell us exactly what the advice was, because it\u2019s all redacted. But I want to know what sources of advice the Minister asked for and consulted in terms of looking at the financial implications of this bill. We already know that the Prime Minister has said that it\u2019s going to save billions of dollars for the Government, so that\u2019s an interesting little bit of analysis we got from the Prime Minister and it\u2019s a shame that we haven\u2019t had any more elaboration on that yet. But in terms of the financial recommendations in the financial analysis, I want to know what financial analysis was done for the impact on workers. How much do we think that workers\u2019 wages are going to be affected by this bill? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022\u003EWe need to know whether perhaps some anticipated pay rises will now be foregone because of this bill. In particular, I\u2019m thinking of teachers, teacher-aides, and anyone who works in that space where there is a claim that is now being set aside and just abandoned. What\u2019s the impact on their future income? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000612\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022\u003ESo that\u2019s the first part of that question, and it\u2019s the direct financial implications for the workers who are affected by this bill. How much are they going to lose out of their back pockets? Of course, we\u2019re talking about future pay rises that will no longer occur now, but they had a reasonable prospect of getting pay rises because of the pay equity legislation and their claims. How much are they losing now because those claims have just been set aside? So that\u2019s the first question. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000613\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022\u003EBut there is some other really interesting information around in terms of wages for women, and I want to know whether the Minister has taken this into account, as well. I have here a briefing paper from the Institute for Women\u2019s Policy Research. It\u2019s an economic analysis of what happens when women\u2019s wages are increased, and the particular paper is entitled The Impact of Equal Pay on Poverty and the Economy. Very roughly\u2014very roughly\u2014what it shows is that increasing women\u2019s wages for every\u2014I think it was an 8 percent increase. No, it was a 4 percent increase in women\u2019s wages\u2014let me see if I can get the numbers exactly right. Providing equal pay to women cuts family poverty \u201Cin half,\u201D\u2014now, this is US numbers, and it might be different in New Zealand\u2014\u201Cfalling from 8.0 percent to 3.8 percent.\u201D So that\u2019s over half in terms of family poverty\u2014there was a cut of over half in family poverty when women get equal pay. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000614\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022\u003ESo I want to know in terms of the financial analysis that has been so blocked out in this report not just the impact on the workers but the impact on poverty in New Zealand. We know that pay equity tends to go to reward the lowest-paid workers. We know that that is money that would have flowed through to families. What is the impact in there? Did the Minister get advice on that as to how workers and their dependants, and broader issues like family policy are affected by the changes that she is bringing into effect? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u00225851b20b8b654debb717219fd9f20c45\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000615\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225851b20b8b654debb717219fd9f20c45\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish to take the time to answer a few of the questions received so far.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EIn response to Lawrence Xu-Nan, who asked about the legal advice I\u2019d received through this process, any legal advice I receive is legally privileged, as is normal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000617\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003ETo Dr Tracey McLellan, asking about what analysis has been done on the costs or savings associated with the current claims and the changes to this law, this is Budget-sensitive information, which I cannot disclose. What I can say, though, is that pay equity claims have been concentrated in the public sector, and costs to the Crown have become significant. My policy changes will have a significant reduction in costs to the Crown.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000618\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EThere has been a question from, I believe, Dr Duncan Webb about the Attorney-General\u2019s advice. I understand that the advice has actually been published on the Ministry of Justice website, as is normal. I understand it has been up for a little while this evening.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000619\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u201CWhy has there been no Treaty analysis?\u201D also asked Dr Duncan Webb. My understanding is that an improved pay equity system will still be available under this law, and I consider that it is consistent. Also from Dr Duncan Webb, there have been concerns about the retrospective impact of the bill. I consider that it\u2019s important that all of the claimants are on the same playing field, rather than allowing for two systems to operate at the same time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000620\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EThere is only, really, one element of the amendment Act that is retrospective. It is that the review clauses in existing settlements and employment agreements will become unenforceable. This is because the short three-year time frame in the review cycle does make it quite difficult to determine whether any differences in pay are due to pay equity issues having re-emerged over a short time frame or whether they are to short-term changes in the labour market.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000621\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve also got another question here from Dr Duncan Webb, on why we didn\u2019t consult Justice on changes in the penalties. The penalties in the Act are civil penalties, not criminal, and the new penalties are consistent with the existing penalties.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022 data-id=\u00222187b736c5b3492fb5b176f94f88d566\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000622\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222187b736c5b3492fb5b176f94f88d566\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green\u2014Rongotai):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Madam Chair. This is my first contribution in the committee of the whole House stage. I have a series of questions for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety that I\u2019m hoping she\u2019ll be able to answer, so rather than giving it as a speech, I\u2019d like to just be able to put the question: I\u2019ve seen a lot of reporting on the 33 claims that will be discontinued by this legislation but I haven\u2019t seen a list of the 33 claims and which workers are involved in those. Does the Minister have such a list of the 33 parties who are the claims and who it affects? If so, can she share it with the committee?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022 data-id=\u0022b00ec33771ec448bb380ef281b6ebadf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000623\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b00ec33771ec448bb380ef281b6ebadf\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m not wanting to step on what the previous member, the Hon Julie Anne Genter, was just asking; if the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety wants to answer, I think the previous member was wanting an exchange. I don\u2019t have my glasses on, so I can\u2019t quite see what the Minister\u2019s face is doing\u2014which is a terrible ageing thing! Would the Minister like to have the exchange with the previous member? Yep, I\u2019ll come back later. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u0022f7af8fceb8134a11a3fdd84b10d34549\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000624\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f7af8fceb8134a11a3fdd84b10d34549\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E I thank the Hon Julie Anne Genter for the question. Look, I don\u2019t have the specific 33 claims in front of me at this stage, but I\u2019m sure you can google a few and find them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EI will take the time also to answer Dr Deborah Russell. What financial impact will there be on workers? Look, I think it\u2019s really important for us here not to conflate the two issues of collective bargaining and pay equity. When we\u2019re talking about wages that people earn for the work that they are doing and whether or not that\u2019s keeping up with the cost of living, day to day, year to year, with inflation, those issues should be addressed through collective bargaining and through settlements with employees through that avenue. The pay equity system is not about that. It is about sex-based discrimination of a historic and current nature. That is a very different question than to whether or not people\u2019s wages year to year keep up with inflation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022 data-id=\u002278f617dfab3b4e76bfc333f6e4739216\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002278f617dfab3b4e76bfc333f6e4739216\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair, for that. Always good to have those interactions between questioners and Ministers in a committee stage. I\u2019ve got a couple of fairly short questions that I would like to put to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. The first one is in clause 6. There\u2019s a replacement section 13A, which is the new purpose. This is really just a drafting question that I have for the Minister. So it\u2019s a replacement purpose for this part of the primary legislation\u2014of the Act. It\u2019s gone from being a purpose that is to facilitate claims to one that is \u201CThe purpose of this Part is to provide a process that facilitates the resolution of pay equity claims\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000627\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003ESo the question is: is that language purposeful? Is it on purpose that it\u2019s important now that there\u2019s some sort of policy change that what this part of the Act is doing is all about process, rather than the final result, if that\u2019s why the drafting has changed? Because it did used to say that it was to facilitate\u2014\u201C(a) setting a low threshold to raise a claim\u201D, and some more words, and \u201Cproviding a simple and accessible process to progress a pay equity claim.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000628\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EI note why this caught my attention in particular is because in the recently passed Fast-track Approvals Act, the purpose of that Act, at section 3 of that Act, \u201Cis to facilitate the delivery of \u2026 projects\u201D. And when the Fast-track Approvals Bill was going through the House, there was this word \u201Cprocess\u201D in that purpose clause. Now, this piece of legislation is doing the exact opposite of that fast-track in terms of the purpose clause didn\u2019t used to be all about process, it used to be about an outcome, and now it\u2019s becoming about the process. So that\u2019s my question\u2014really a legislative drafting question\u2014for the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000629\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003ENext question, moving on to clause 11, which replaces section 13F. It\u2019s the \u201CMeaning of has merit\u201D. So \u201C(1) A pay equity claim has merit if\u201D\u2014all these different factors. And you cross the page, and at subclause (2) there is \u201CThe reasons for historical undervaluation of work \u2026 are as follows:\u201D, and there\u2019s a list at subclause (2). What I\u2019m interested in is at paragraph (d)(ii). That is that \u201C(d) the nature of the work requires an employee to use skills or qualities that have been\u2014(ii) regarded as not requiring monetary compensation.\u201D It\u2019s this phrase \u201Cregarded as not requiring monetary compensation\u201D that I am interested in. I\u2019m interested in this because that seems like quite a binary statement that something has never required monetary compensation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EI understand that in the context of the historical factors and how women\u2019s work has been seen, it might be that it hasn\u2019t been valued as much as other work, but there\u2019s still been some sort of monetary compensation. So it might be that cleaners have been undervalued and many people might say, \u201CWell, people do cleaning in their own households so it hasn\u2019t, perhaps, required much monetary compensation.\u201D\u2014but rather than no monetary compensation. This seems like a higher threshold than is necessary, given the policy explanations that we\u2019ve had during this debate so far. So could that subclause (2)(d)(ii) be regarded as not requiring very much monetary compensation or regarded as low value in terms of monetary compensation, or something to that effect, is my second question, and I\u2019ll leave those two questions there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022 data-id=\u0022dfa98402804a46dcb5e18ae363d4263c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000631\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dfa98402804a46dcb5e18ae363d4263c\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for allowing me to take this call. What I want to cover now is just, perhaps, to carry on from my colleague Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s questions around process. So, Madam Chair, you will note that the bill in front of us has two parts, and the Schedule is part of Part 1, and then Part 2 which is much smaller, and then, obviously, we have the title and commencement section. So there are relatively few parts for a bill of this magnitude. We have, as far as I can ascertain, only covered a few of the first initial clauses in the first part of this. I do have a lot of comments, and I know that other colleagues do as well, to make on Part 1, which is the substantive part. I also have nine tabled amendments in Part 1 and the Schedule, which I am hoping to be able to speak to as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000632\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EBut I also wanted to refer you to the Speakers\u2019 ruling 125/8, which, essentially, allows\u2014and this is what I\u2019m intending to do in this call\u2014to have wider questions in the instance that\u2014and this previous example that\u2019s in the Speakers\u2019 ruling was urgency when there hasn\u2019t been a select committee. So we\u2019ve got questions for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety that are relevant to the bill, of course\u2014because otherwise it would be out of order\u2014but may take into a few different sections, which I understand is permissible under this Speakers\u2019 ruling. So that\u2019s just flagging to you that it\u2019s my intention to make some wider comments; it doesn\u2019t mean I don\u2019t have specific comments, but I do have some bigger questions initially.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000633\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EAlso, we have been somewhat inundated with emails, following the surprise tabling of this bill, from people who would have commented and submitted to select committees but have been unable to do so. So, obviously, we would be quite keen to highlight some of those. I will do, if I have time, one of those emails today on this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000634\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EBut the question that I first wanted to ask the Minister, overall, is that I have seen, reported in the media, comments that have been made by the Hon David Seymour congratulating the Minister on this bill, and saying that she has saved the Budget and would save the Government billions. I wanted to ask the Minister to reflect on that statement and ask if she had any response to that, because, from reading that, I would say that it would be most New Zealanders\u2019 perception that the reason that the Minister is implementing this bill is to do exactly what David Seymour has suggested, which is to save the Budget and also to save billions. So we have had some questions around the advice that the Minister has received around the savings of the 33 claims. I also understand that we are also waiting for the Minister to go through those 33 claims as well. I\u2019d note from my own research that there are around three claims which are already settled. A question for the Minister is: how many of those claims have review clauses that will now not be able to be utilised because of the retrospective aspect of this particular bill? So I wonder if the Minister could follow up on those particular wider questions in relation to advice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000635\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EI also wanted to ask\u2014there are people in this country, many of them are low-paid workers, who have spent years and years and a lot of time working on pay equity claims which will be extinguished as a result of this legislation that the Minister has put forward. I wanted to know if there was any transitional support in place for those people with existing claims in the system\u2014those unions, those low-paid women workers. Has the Minister considered that? Has she been provided with advice on that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000636\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EAdditionally, she referred to legal advice and said that that was privileged. Legal professional privilege exists to the person who the advice is provided. So it is within the Minister\u2019s power to make that legal advice public. That is her prerogative as the Minister and as the person receiving the legal advice. I want to ask her: can she, please, make that legal advice public? We are doing the best we can to scrutinise a bill which is very detailed, which we have only had for a few hours, and we would very much appreciate to be able to do the best advocacy we can with the benefit of the advice that\u2019s been received. Currently, a lot of the advice has been redacted within the departmental disclosure statement and we\u2019re unable to comment on that. So, please, if she would make that advice available.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fe342415-6351-4072-a17e-19dab2ef184d\u0022 data-id=\u00224d33a2152f6a4c2f8614108f66e4ea30\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000637\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fe342415-6351-4072-a17e-19dab2ef184d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224d33a2152f6a4c2f8614108f66e4ea30\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to seek a quick call to ask the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety a couple of questions around the topic that my colleague Camilla Belich has already explored. I\u2019m really interested in the question around those low-paid workers with current claims in the system\u2014or, basically, anyone with a current claim in the system who the Government\u2019s currently in negotiations with. My question is: at what stage were they told that the legislation was going to change? I mean, I guess, from a natural justice perspective, I would have thought that they would have gotten a heads-up ahead of the Minister announcing it via press release. So my question is: when were the claimants to existing claims told, and when were the unions that were party to those claimants told? Was it just this morning? Did they find out via the media release? When did the Minister and the department inform them?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022 data-id=\u0022e85827a4e50d4f48854b458010815524\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000638\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e85827a4e50d4f48854b458010815524\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green\u2014Rongotai):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety previously said that I could google the 33 claims, but I just want to reflect on the fact that there\u2019s no select committee process for this bill. Every single worker involved or who could\u2019ve been party to one of those claims would have an interest, probably, in the legislation that we\u2019re debating right now in the committee stage, which was only brought to this House a matter of hours ago. The Minister has a number of officials behind her. Could the Minister ask the officials to provide a list of the 33 claims, if she cannot get them now, and table it so those of us in the Chamber can look at it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000639\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003ECould the Minister also give us any advice she\u2019s received about the number of workers in each of those sectors? It\u2019s really vitally important for the debate today, because, presumably, if we\u2019d gone through a normal process and there hadn\u2019t been a rushed, urgent process, probably a lot of the unions and the workers involved in these fields who are going to be directly impacted by these legislative changes would\u2019ve liked to come to the select committee and tell their stories and explain how this would affect them. They are being denied that opportunity because of the process the Government has chosen to take, so at the very least the Minister could turn to the officials behind her and get the information and provide it to us so we can talk about the real people who are affected by these legislative changes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000640\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EI also want to reflect on the fact that\u2014and other colleagues have raised this\u2014many of these claims had already been in process for years. Can the Minister tell us how many of the 33 claims that are being extinguished by this piece of legislation were close to being settled? Were they going to be settled in the coming financial year, in two years, in three years? How many of them, because we\u2019ve had 10 claims already settled; 33 now having to completely start over, if they\u2019re even able to. It makes it very clear in the legislative statement that they\u2019ll be extinguished and that they may have the opportunity to recommence, but only if they meet the new threshold. I just think it\u2019s worthwhile for the committee to be able to have this information in front of us.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000641\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EI did do a quick cursory google; it is not immediately available on the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) website or in any one place, a list of the 33 claims. We know that 75,000 primary teachers are affected. We know there\u2019s a large clerical and admin claim, and I believe the midwives have a claim. Thirty-three is a lot\u2014that\u2019s a lot of different workers. When we saw in the news today the Hon David Seymour and Prime Minister Chris Luxon saying this was going to save the Government billions of dollars, and David Seymour actually said this decision saved the Government\u2019s Budget, I just\u2014like, the reality is that the Government has chosen to deny probably tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of workers in female-dominated professions a pay settlement that they were due in order to save money, which means they will continue to be underpaid based on gender-based discrimination, or sex-based discrimination, as the Minister keeps saying. And for how long, because if it took four years to get to the point they\u2019re at now and now the claim\u2019s being reset\u2014how many years is it going to be till they can maybe access some of this historical underpay?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000642\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EIn the legislative statement, it also says that back-pay will no longer be able to be awarded by the ERA. So what is the rationale for that, Minister? Could you tell us what the rationale is for denying an ability for the Employment Relations Authority to award back-pay? We understand that the parties could decide to negotiate back-pay, but if the ERA is no longer able to award it, like, where is the justice in that? Let\u2019s say with your new process that people have gone through, it\u2019s been determined there was historical underpayment because of gender-based discrimination, because of sexism, and you\u2019re taking away a tool for people to receive compensation for the work that they\u2019ve done and been underpaid for\u2014just, please, I really, Minister, would love answers to all these questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022 data-id=\u0022116674c4eeff4829b10a9a0e993bb07b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000643\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022116674c4eeff4829b10a9a0e993bb07b\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert):\u003C/span\u003E Madam Chair, thank you. I just want to follow up on that first, and I\u2019ll come back to some of my other questions. The issue of back-pay is really interesting because there have been people waiting in the queue. There are a whole lot of people this has happened to, and I\u2019d like to know from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety whether she accepts that they have been injured and they have lost out and why it would be appropriate for them now no longer to get back-pay if they\u2019re found to have a legitimate claim in that situation, and what information she has been given about the actual money that we\u2019re talking about. This is a loss to ordinary New Zealanders. Has she been given financial information about the liability that it looks like, going forward in the kind of pipeline of back-pay? How much money are ordinary New Zealanders losing out on\u2014that the Minister is aware of\u2014and has she asked for that information?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000644\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003ERelated to that question is an issue, really, about\u2014we talked about the issue of the review clauses going. I understood from the Minister\u2019s answer that she was saying it was OK, because they could still bargain, and she didn\u2019t want those things to blend. Well, with respect, they already did, because people would have made a bargain based on that fact. Even in the pay equity space, they would have been negotiating\u2014and I did this for a job for a long time and negotiated things, and you\u2019ve got eggs in different baskets; you\u2019re making a deal which is a holistic deal. If you\u2019ve got a review clause in it that means that things are going to be different in a few years, you\u2019re not asking for the same basket of eggs. What has the Minister done or been advised with regard to the justice of the claims that have been made on the basis of a review that suddenly won\u2019t have a review in them? They are a very different settlement by nature, and that has been done ignorant of the fact. Is there an estoppel?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000645\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EI wanted also to ask about the opt-out clauses, because one of the things that\u2019s happening here is that usually, for the sake of the fact these are expensive claims and they\u2019re systemic in nature, they\u2019ve been wrapped up in an industry. You\u2019ve had a whole industry bargaining together, but now one of the proposals is that anyone can just opt out of them. Well, why wouldn\u2019t they? If there\u2019s been an expensive process go through and they\u2019re about to be liable for money to pay forward, etc., why wouldn\u2019t an individual employer just simply opt out? And will that render the entire process a complete waste of time for all those involved?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000646\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EI still haven\u2019t had an answer back about all of the cost to ordinary New Zealanders who have gone through this process so far. Is there an answer to that question? There would have been an enormous amount of money and resource spent in this situation. And then I\u2019d also like to know about\u2014and I did ask some questions about this, but I want to take you in a slightly different direction. I talked about the cost to women in terms of savings, and I asked for your figures\u2014and I haven\u2019t had an answer to that\u2014but has she spoken to the Retirement Commissioner about this move? My understanding in our last meeting in a select committee with the Retirement Commissioner was that she was very concerned about the level of savings. If women continue to not earn at this level, because they are hampered by this\u2014maybe they\u2019re in the 60 to 70 percent group; they\u2019re not even going to be seen as having merit anymore in their case, even though their wages are lower because they\u2019re in a systemic situation. So, in that situation, is there an extrapolation? Is there a cost-benefit analysis here in terms of what it\u2019s going to cost those women and the top taxpayer in terms of settlement?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EI\u2019d ask you also to consider this issue about the 10-year period. My understanding is that if you\u2019ve got a settlement, tough; you\u2019re out for 10 years. You can go back and review in 10 years\u2019 time. What is the provision\u2014and what is the way that the Minister has dealt with the fact\u2014that, during that time, there\u2019ll be no KiwiSaver contributions at the appropriate level? Say you\u2019ve got a scenario\u2014this is my scenario for the Minister. Madam Chair, I\u2019m about to come to the end of my 20 seconds and I\u2019d love to have another call to finish this. My scenario in this situation is that you have systemic discrimination going on and it\u2019s happening now, and somebody has settled and they have to wait 10 years to have another look at this situation, because you have got rid of the review period that they put in. And they did that, so that\u2019s probably impacted on the amount that they settled for, by the way. Then we come into the 10-year period and you find evidence that there has been systemic discrimination\u2014I call it \u201Cabuse\u201D\u2014in that period, and all that time they should have had a KiwiSaver at a much higher rate if they\u2019d been paid the right amount, if they hadn\u2019t been discriminated against. What happens with regard to all the savings that have been lost in that time, and is the Minister proposing that that is just tough? Or is the Minister saying, well, the taxpayer should be picking up the bill\u2014because they really do; if people have no savings at that point, or very little, it\u2019s actually the taxpayer who ends up paying it. Is that the way this is supposed to go here? That\u2019s what it seems, to me, to be doing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000648\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EThe biggest issue here is: what evidence is there that the Minister has sought with regard to this? It seems to me, when I go through this very new piece of legislation, that I keep on coming across \u201Ca narrowing\u201D, \u201Ca narrowing\u201D, \u201Ca narrowing\u201D, \u201Ca narrowing\u201D, making it more expensive, making it more expensive, making it more difficult. Now, we know civil litigation is one of the most expensive processes, and what you\u2019re dealing with is people who, by their very nature, are low-paid workers. If you do that process, if you have narrowed the gap so far, what do you intend to do about the low-paid women who, in fact, get lower paid as a result at the end of the period where they are working at all? Ten years is actually\u2014we only, really, have about four or five of those, maybe, in our lifetime. That\u2019s a long time to not have an accrual of the right kind of pay. And then you\u2019ve got the issue that you\u2019re not allowed to actually award back-pay anyway. So you\u2019ve got a gap where you\u2019re expecting people to be underpaid and then no back-pay. That just seems, to me, like having your cake and eating it too if you\u2019re the employer in the room, because you don\u2019t get the back-pay but you can\u2019t take a claim, in any kind of ongoing way, to stem the damage done. That seems very unfair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000649\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003ENow, I\u2019d just like to ask you, also, about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report that has come in. We\u2019ve only just seen this, and we\u2019ve only just started to go through it. I\u2019m sure my colleagues will have questions, but I can see that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report talks about the remedy for people being\u2014that is supposed to save this piece of legislation\u2014that they can go to the High Court for a breach of section 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It seems to me, and you can tell me if I\u2019m wrong\u2014I appreciate I\u2019m just whipping through this thing now, because that\u2019s what we\u2019ve got to do\u2014what it\u2019s saying is there might be a breach, but you can go to the High Court to sort that out. Is that the Minister\u2019s understanding of that? That\u2019s at paragraph 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report. Is that the way that things are supposed to be sorted out? And, if that\u2019s the case, is that an acceptance that there is a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act here? And, if that\u2019s the case, how extensive is that? How possible is that for the ordinary human being?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000650\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s been a lot of writing recently on how where we\u2019ve gone wrong in modern society is that we have loaded up processes. And I think I\u2019ve heard echoes of this from the Minister\u2019s parliamentary leader; that there\u2019s supposed to be an issue with red tape. This looks like red tape to me. If you have to go off to the High Court, who\u2019s going to do it? Only the rich. Your clinical psychologist might be able to do it, but your cleaners won\u2019t be able to. I would like to know from the Minister: is this really something that she has considered? How practical is this pathway for a low-paid worker? And is this really a breach that she\u2019s accepting happens but that that is the pathway for sorting out any breach? The same thing is true later. There\u2019s a suggestion that this is saved by the High Court\u2019s power of review. Does she accept that the High Court\u2019s power of review is much narrower? It\u2019s not a substantive right; it\u2019s a different kind of right. And what kind of advice has she had on that? Madam Chair, just to finish\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u002279bc93ca2c374d5c9c458e65ed2641fe\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000651\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002279bc93ca2c374d5c9c458e65ed2641fe\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The member\u2019s time has expired.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u0022bff507b9eea64700a810efeaa40479f4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000652\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bff507b9eea64700a810efeaa40479f4\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E I\u2019ll take the opportunity to answer quite a few substantive items. Rachel Brooking had a question on why the wording changed from \u201Cfacilitate\u201D to \u201Ca process to facilitate\u201D in the purpose clause. The word \u201Cprocess\u201D was not the substantive change in this clause; the substantive change to the purpose was to require evidence of systemic undervaluation, and I consider that the amended purpose statement more accurately reflects the purpose of the pay equity regime in this part of the Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EThe second question from Rachel Brooking I believe relates to clause 11 amending section 13F(2)(d)(ii). The text has not changed; it has been copied over from the current Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000654\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EWe had a question from Camilla Belich about whether or not the Government is passing this law to save money. That is not why I have brought this bill. It has always been clear that there have been errors within the current system, which I am here to clear up, and the changes are being made to ensure that the pay equity process is workable and sustainable and that there is a better process going forward for parties to use to assess whether there is sex-based undervaluation when working through a pay equity claim. When it comes to comments that David Seymour has made, I think they\u2019re very generous comments, but, ultimately, I guarantee that my reason, which is what I set out for the Prime Minister when I first came into this Government\u2014that I wanted to do work in this area\u2014still remains. I did want to do the work and I have done this work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000655\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EWhen it comes to the member Julie Anne Genter\u2019s question about the list of the claims, I have asked our officials and I would also refer you back to Google and then back to the parliamentary website\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000656\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002264e089309bae49ddb8bc94b58d2cebf5\u0022\u003EHon Dr Deborah Russell\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, for goodness\u2019 sake!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000657\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e2392299997b4503863519aed3bcec66\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN\u003C/span\u003E: Excuse me, I haven\u2019t finished my contribution\u2014back to Google to then find the parliamentary website, because I have answered the question in a written parliamentary question. So you need to find written parliamentary question No. 17121 (2025), and that, hopefully, should answer your question about having a list. I believe it is around 30 claims on there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000658\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003ETo the member Camilla Belich\u2014I believe she also asked about whether I\u2019d release the legal advice I had received\u2014no, I will not be waiving my legal privilege.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000659\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich also asked how many of the settled claims have review clauses. All of the claims would, as the Act currently requires them to include review clauses. However, the short review periods made it difficult to determine if remuneration differences were due to pay equity or other short-term labour market dynamics.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000660\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EJulie Anne Genter also asked how many claims were close to being settled. I actually don\u2019t have that information. The changes are being made to improve the system rather than in response to any one individual claim. That\u2019s why I\u2019m progressing quickly: so that the new system can be applied to all of those claims once re-raised.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000661\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EI believe Francisco Hernandez also asked a question about when existing claimants and the unions were told. I believe this happened today, by the agencies working on the claims.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EHelen White also asked a question about why we are not having back-pay. We do need to make it clear that employers and employees may still agree on whether to include back-pay in a settlement. What this bill removes is the ability of the authority to award back-pay to incentivise employers and employees to resolve claims between themselves, rather than seeking an authority determination.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000663\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EHelen White has also asked which parties agreed to settlement with review clauses, and whether or not it\u2019s fair that those ones have been removed. I think part of that previous answer reflects the same answer here, but it\u2019s also the case that the review clauses are not meant to be a way to bargain further increases. The settlements should only be reviewed and changed if pay equity and sex-based discrimination issues reemerge.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000664\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EI think Helen White may have also had\u2014Oh, I\u2019ve run out of time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000665\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226bd0e605b06b4c438556a80b23bc37d8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I call the Hon Brooke van Velden.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000666\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228c48dc6ebdf74583a6eee7d241ad2e58\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair\u2014I\u2019ve just got one further. Helen White also asked: why wouldn\u2019t an employer opt out of a pay equity claim? Employers may decide to bargain together if a multi-employer pay equity claim that was raised aligns with existing bargaining structures. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022 data-id=\u0022813d8b98f7d54ff6857079bab69ae04f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000667\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022813d8b98f7d54ff6857079bab69ae04f\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. A couple of things that I wish to pursue in this more general note. Firstly, we have asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety for the list of the 33 claimants. The Minister has said quite confidently that there are 33 claimants. One would expect that the Minister\u2019s officials would have that list of 33 claimants. And I\u2019m afraid it\u2019s not satisfactory to tell us to go google it on such a critical matter. So I\u2019m just deeply disappointed that that was the Minister\u2019s answer. I\u2019ll leave it at that, but, heavens, if that\u2019s the standard we\u2019ve come to with Ministers in this Government, they don\u2019t deserve to be there for all that much longer. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000668\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022\u003EI want to go back to the matter of the savings, and the money. We\u2019ve had this very interesting phrase from the Minister for Regulation, the Hon David Seymour, and the line that he actually said was \u201CI actually think that Brooke van Velden has saved the taxpayer billions\u201D. That\u2019s interesting, but then it\u2019s the next one that\u2019s really interesting: \u201CShe saved the Budget for the Government.\u201D Now, the only way this could be saving the Budget for the Government is if this legislative change goes through in time for the savings to be booked, if the decisions are made before the Budget moratorium. That\u2019s the only way it could happen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000669\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022\u003EAnd so that is why we are sitting here in urgency. It has nothing to do with outstanding claims that might need to have an overlapping period. That wouldn\u2019t have prevented, say, a three-week select committee process. That is the flimsiest excuse I have heard. We could have even had a three-day select committee process, at least something to go through this. We could have had time to have gotten that list of 33 claimants. But, instead, it\u2019s all being done, as far as we can tell, to Budget. That\u2019s what\u2019s been said by the Prime Minister, it\u2019s been said by the Minister for Regulation, and yet the Minister in the chair has said, \u201COh no\u2014oh no, I didn\u2019t bring it for those Budget reasons.\u201D Well, the evidence looks very suspicious on that one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000670\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022\u003ESo I would like to invite the Minister to come clean on that and admit that the reason that they are selling low-paid women out is to save the Government\u2019s Budget. They are saving the Government\u2019s Budget on the back of low-paid women.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u0022a9850efb22674a03be6e48daf592bd13\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000671\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a9850efb22674a03be6e48daf592bd13\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E I hadn\u2019t thought I would stand so quickly after giving my last contribution, but I did want to respond to Dr Deborah Russell, because it\u2019s very clear that she did not actually listen to my last response. I made it very clear in my last response that if she wanted to turn to Google, which she got very [Pauses] about, she could have found my written parliamentary question answer No. 17121 (2025) on Google. I ask the member to not continue to repeat that question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022 data-id=\u00220a219bcd96b5448c940e342aa4325f10\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000672\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220a219bcd96b5448c940e342aa4325f10\u0022\u003EHon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my first contribution, at this stage, on this disgraceful piece of legislation. I have a few comments, and I have a few broader questions and some specific questions for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety as well. I think it\u2019s pretty clear why the rush. My colleague Dr Deborah Russell has outlined why the rush. Basically, the Minister herself said that this will lead to significant benefits for the Government, when it comes to balancing their books. Although Minister Upston, of course, was at pains to say that this wasn\u2019t about saving the Government money, I think it\u2019s pretty clear, from various comments that Ministers and the Prime Minster have made in this House, that that is not the case\u2014it is about the savings; hence the rush.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000673\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EThe Minister has said in the House, in the media, and in her speeches that this process was brought about, really, to bring about a better systemic framework, a better process, a more robust process\u2014but for whom, Minister, I ask. I want to also include a quote, given that we are bypassing the select committee process. A number of people will be impacted\u2014150,000 people will be impacted by this change; a number of unions who\u2019ve been taking claims will be impacted by this change\u2014and I want to bring in some of their voices and ask their questions of the Minister. I quote a retired residential aged-care worker, who says, \u201CWe\u2019ve been fighting for 13 years. To have the rug pulled out from underneath us now is unbelievable. We thought we were going to get there\u2014this just removes our road to fairness.\u201D Then she talks about the impact on jobs in sectors like the aged-care sector. She says, \u201CThis will make it even harder to get people working in aged care. People won\u2019t go the extra mile anymore\u2014why would they, if they\u2019re not going to get paid fairly? This announcement is terrible for women and families now and in the future.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000674\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EMinister, I want to ask you: what advice have you received? What work, what modelling has been done in terms of the impact of this change which makes it harder for women, for low-paid workers, to access fair pay for their work? What impacts will this have on the sectors that were part of those 33 claims\u2014or those that were about to settle\u2014in terms of the job losses that we\u2019re going to see there? That\u2019s my first question to the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000675\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003ENow, when the Minister says, \u201CThis was better,\u201D again, I say, better for whom? Who was consulted? Who has the Minister spoken to? While I absolutely agree that this disproportionately impacts women, and I agree with my colleagues who have said that this is a Government that is waging war on women\u2014and low-paid women at that\u2014it also impacts, I know, many men as well, particularly from our M\u0101ori, Pacific, and ethnic communities. I know many from my own communities who are low paid and working in the sectors that we\u2019ve talked about, who will be done out of the claims that they have been working towards for many years. What analysis has the Minister done on the demographics? Who is going to be impacted disproportionately by this particular change?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EI also want to point to members opposite, many of whom got up when they had to speak, read off their lines, and basically said that this was going to make things better and not worse. I point them to section 27, paragraph 21(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet, which clearly says\u2014many of them said, \u201CThis doesn\u2019t stop anything; it doesn\u2019t stop pay equity claims.\u201D Section 27, paragraph 21(b): \u201Cdiscontinues existing pay equity claims as well as any proceedings relating to those claims that have been started but not been determined.\u201D So let\u2019s put that to bed. Let\u2019s not pretend that this is actually going to make things better when it\u2019s going to make things so much worse for those who do incredibly difficult but important work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000677\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EMy final question for now, Minister, is about the 65,000 care and support workers. Now, we don\u2019t have the list of 33 claims. We know that, since 2022, claims have been progressing, or work has been progressing, on this claim. Thousands of hours have gone into doing this work and putting the claim together, processes that were already established previously. Those who\u2019ve been part of this claim have messaged\u2014emailed\u2014us to say that they felt it was robust enough. So I\u2019d like to know, firstly: where\u2019s that claim at? Is that down the drain as well? Secondly, what was not robust about the previous process? Robust for whom, Minister? What changes in this\u2014given that we\u2019ve had the process laid out clearly, we\u2019ve had significant milestones that many have had to reach, the Government could ditch those claims because they weren\u2019t clear enough. What are you doing to make this more robust? Those are some of the questions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EI also do want to point out that those 65,000 care and support workers are across various sectors, like the mental health and addiction sectors, disability support services, the aged-care sectors I mentioned before\u2014incredibly difficult work. They are now, essentially, working on the minimum wage, because the minimum wage has caught up. Now, given the years that they\u2019ve been working\u2014more than three years that they\u2019ve been working towards this\u2014where are they at? Now, Minister, I googled where they had ended in terms of their claim proceedings, and what I have found out is that, basically, in June last year there was a claim that was filed with the Employment Relations Authority for a determination to be made. Is that also down the drain now? Do they have to start from scratch in terms of the work that they need to do?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000679\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EAnother question that I had for you, Minister, is one that has been asked before but that has not been addressed or answered at all, and that is: in consideration of the changes that have been made through this bill, what are the other options that were put to the Minister? What are some of the options that you were working with before you landed on this, on making it harder for low-paid workers to actually get a pay equity claim by changing the threshold and bringing in the 10 years as well? I\u2019d really like to know what some of those options were, and I will leave it at that for now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220ef5a38c-0ef7-4d68-8621-dcbb47077e6e\u0022 data-id=\u00226e4dd77606cd4df89663902d5594e7ea\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000680\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ef5a38c-0ef7-4d68-8621-dcbb47077e6e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226e4dd77606cd4df89663902d5594e7ea\u0022\u003EHANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori\u2014Hauraki-Waikato):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 r\u0101 koe e te P\u012Bka, otir\u0101 t\u0113n\u0101 r\u0101 t\u0101tou e te Whare. T\u0101ku patai\u2014my question\u2014to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is specifically around Treaty obligations and Te Tiriti o Waitangi in relation to this legislation, and particularly looking at some of the Wai claims that have come out of it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ef5a38c-0ef7-4d68-8621-dcbb47077e6e\u0022\u003EIn the departmental disclosure statement, it says that it had a question around: \u201CWhat steps have been taken to determine whether the policy to be given effect by this bill is consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi?\u201D, and it basically says that there\u2019s no analysis of whether this bill is consistent with that. That\u2019s a huge issue, because we have the Mana W\u0101hine claim, Wai 2864 and Wai 2700, which has been ongoing since 1993. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000682\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ef5a38c-0ef7-4d68-8621-dcbb47077e6e\u0022\u003EJust going back to the amendment bill, in new section 13E(6) in clause 10(4), it specifically says as to whether a pay equity claim can be \u201Craised within 10 years after the date of a pay equity settlement\u201D, when we\u2019ve already been waiting 32 years for this Mana W\u0101hine claim that 16 w\u0101hine have taken to account. So I\u2019m just wanting to know whether the Minister has had any engagement with this Wai claim specifically and with these w\u0101hine, and how the bill will affect this specific claim and w\u0101hine M\u0101ori, knowing that the data from 2018 in the Ministry for Women shows that the pay gap for M\u0101ori w\u0101hine is 18 percent higher, compared to the national pay gap of 9.4 percent, and the same figures show that M\u0101ori w\u0101hine face an unemployment rate of 11 percent compared to the national rate of 4.5 percent\u2014given that data. So has there been any engagement with this claim that\u2019s been ongoing for 32 years, and will this have any effect on the Mana W\u0101hine claim of Wai 2864 and Wai 2700? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000683\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ef5a38c-0ef7-4d68-8621-dcbb47077e6e\u0022\u003EThey\u2019ve also recently done a contemporary economic report that shows the evidence of what w\u0101hine M\u0101ori have faced economically since 1990 and 2020, and Dr Duncan Webb has also brought this up. The Minister also hasn\u2019t answered anything around other obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and I\u2019m specifically asking with regard to these Wai claims: has she taken any consideration of how this will affect these Wai claims and the data that\u2019s been presented? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022 data-id=\u0022f622bf0b2f54498b815c229f5b18412f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000684\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f622bf0b2f54498b815c229f5b18412f\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green\u2014Rongotai):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Mr Chair. Thank you, Minister, for giving us the correct answer to a written question so we can look at the list of the sectors that are affected by this decision today. What I feel compelled to stand up and note about this is we\u2019re talking about teachers, support workers, youth workers in residential schools, education service education advisers, psychologists and service managers employed by the Ministry of Education, early learning teachers, tertiary education library assistants, public service administration and clerical workers, Corrections psychologists, social service workers, care and support workers\u2014there\u2019s two different claims\u2014front-line managers and coordinators in the health system, Plunket admin and clerical workers, Plunket nurses and clinical workers, community midwives in primary birthing units, hospice nurses and healthcare assistants, primary care administration, primary care nurses, Access community nurses, lab tests\u2014so the people who draw our blood\u2014nurses in residential care.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000685\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EAnd pretty much of all of these\u2014and I haven\u2019t even listed them all, right\u2014the vast majority, according to the written answer that was provided, are overwhelmingly female. And all of their claims have just been cancelled or are about to be cancelled by this legislation. They\u2019ve gone through years of work to try to establish a case that was arguable. And it\u2019s very, very clear that they\u2019re definitely female dominated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000686\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003ESo when the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety comes and brings this legislation which in clause 4 says it\u2019s really important to change it to say that the work is performed by a workforce that is at least 70 percent female, that would apply to the vast majority. In these cases it\u2019s like 86 percent female, 97 percent female, 99 percent female\u2014early intervention teachers. It\u2019s 73 to 96 percent female across the universities, 83 percent female across all affected employees in clerical and admin, 71 percent female in social service workers, 96 percent female in Plunket nurses and clinical, community midwives 99 percent female. So all of these claims which are going to affect hundreds of thousands of people in New Zealand, the vast majority of them are women. The Minister could say, according to this legislation, \u201CWell, we had to change it to make it more workable, so we\u2019re going to change it to 70 percent.\u201D But the Minister is stopping\u2014the Government is stopping the claims. They\u2019re going to have to start over.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000687\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003ESo, effectively, the point of this is to delay access to pay equity for hundreds of thousands of people in this country in order to save this coalition Government billions of dollars in their Budget in two weeks. There is no other plausible reason for this legislation to be going through under urgency tonight, other than putting off the costs to the future. But the cost is real for those hundreds of thousands of women who are our teachers, our nurses, our midwives, our care and support workers\u2014the people looking after the elderly and dying. This Government is giving them the finger and saying, \u201CWe\u2019re going to make them wait and put years\u2014years\u2014more into waiting for a process to deliver pay equity.\u201D It is shameful. It is disgraceful. And then try to claim that this is just about making the process more sensible. If this Government had the courage, they would take it to a select committee, but they aren\u2019t, because the whole point of this is actually deferring the cost to save money in the Budget.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000688\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002201f0cf718d744016aa492c34ed893587\u0022\u003EHon David Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I\u2019m sure the very experienced member well knows that to accuse a member or a Government of lacking courage, and also to imply that they are misleading the House because their true motives are different from those stated, is out of order and disorderly. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000689\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227e89500bc7a94efa8a66e07f81e9ba67\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: Sit down\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000690\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229a47482051ec4b2b9b7521f57a0fc20d\u0022\u003EHon David Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: And rather than telling me to sit down, that member might like to hear points of order in silence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000691\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228348e1bebc434925bbe2d3d1c7e265fa\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to that point of order. I think that particular member has misheard the contribution that my colleague has made. There was no accusation of misleading and also no accusation of an individual member\u2019s integrity. Yes, you can actually criticise a Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000692\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022be2af7f4d2db4eafb4032f49c2ec5c1c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, just taking that point on note. I also didn\u2019t hear an individual reference in the one that was declared, but we can go through Hansard afterwards. I will call on the Hon Julie Anne Genter to finish her contribution. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000693\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225f218819e69944849c4890d067d1c6fe\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER\u003C/span\u003E: And thank you very much for the contribution from Minister David Seymour, who was very honest on the news and said that Brooke van Velden, the Minister, was saving the Government\u2019s Budget. The cost is borne by these women who\u2019ve spent years\u2014and it does affect men in these sectors, but predominantly women, overwhelmingly women, as is made clear by the information that we had to go dig around for to find out exactly who\u2019s affected. They are the people who are doing some of the hardest and most important work, looking after health, looking after education, looking after people at the end of their lives, looking after people with disabilities. And this Government is saying, \u201CWe\u2019re going to put more hurdles in place and just completely cancel the years of work that have been put in already to rectify gender-based discrimination that affects these workforces.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000694\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EThe real irony of all of this is that if the Government actually wanted to support the economy doing well, one of the easiest ways to do that is pay our lowest-paid workers more money, because they can spend more money. They immediately spend that money. If you give tax cuts to landlords, do they invest the money? No, they just use it on their yacht or their next overseas trip. But when you give care and support workers or nurses more money, it means that they can buy more food and they can actually spend money and maybe even go out to dinner once in a while. Maybe have the kind of nice meal that Mr Seymour has in his electorate while he slashes cuts by giving people disgusting, wasteful lunches\u2014corporate welfare but more waste. That Minister is the \u201CMinister responsible for more waste\u201D from school lunches. I think it is fantastic that he\u2019s been so honest in the media and made it so clear and transparent why we\u2019re debating this bill under urgency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000695\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EBut let\u2019s bring it back to the hundreds of thousands of workers doing important, valuable work, who\u2019ve put years into a process which now they\u2019re going to have to start over for. I think the Minister needs to stop pretending that this is about fixing a process up, because if it were about fixing a process up, it wouldn\u2019t be going through urgency two weeks before the Budget.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022 data-id=\u002240e85569388c4c3b90cbd47c7a257ce3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000696\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002240e85569388c4c3b90cbd47c7a257ce3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Just before I take the next call, I do want to refer members to Speakers\u2019 rulings on unparliamentary language, 55/1 down to 55/4, where it is possible to criticise the Government; that is the role of the Opposition. However, 55/4 states that \u201CA member may not (1) impute improper motives to the Government; (2) suggest that the Government has received orders to put a bill through; (3) impute dishonesty to the Government; (4) suggest domination by outside bodies.\u201D So it\u2019s about that outside influence, I think. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u00223bbcdd8c92c345c386390b13d31818da\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000697\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223bbcdd8c92c345c386390b13d31818da\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you. I\u2019ll make sure my contribution is brief. I wanted to take the chance to respond to some of the questions. To the member Helen White: we had a question about how practical it is that there is another pathway for resolving a breach\u2014e.g., going to the High Court. Employees still do have the ability to resolve issues under the Human Rights Act or through the Employment Relations Act. I would also note that the acting Attorney-General has considered the bill and has decided it appears consistent with the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000698\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EHelen White also asked, \u201CWhat if women become underpaid during the 10 years before they can re-raise a claim?\u201D There does have to be a period of time that has elapsed before determining whether a pay equity issue has re-emerged. I consider that applying a 10-year limit before a claim can be re-raised will better enable parties to determine whether any of their concerns about pay reflect the re-emergence of sex-based undervaluation or whether it\u2019s due to other market factors. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000699\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EWe had a question from Priyanca Radhakrishnan asking what wasn\u2019t robust about the previous process. The settings of the current Act have caused problems, particularly the low entry threshold, limited tools for employers to contest broadly scoped claims, and insufficient requirements for comparison choice and comparison methodology. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000700\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll just give you a couple of examples. With the DHB allied technical claim, it had over 90 different occupations which represented a very broad and diverse workforce. Another example is that quite often the same comparators have been used repeatedly, such as corrections officers and fisheries officers being used across many claims, even though those claims have substantial differences in their working environments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000701\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EPriyanca Radhakrishnan also asked who had been consulted. It\u2019s quite clear that we moved quickly to make the changes to the Act to ensure the system is workable and sustainable. Priyanca Radhakrishnan also asked if current proceedings are discontinued. Yes, I did answer this one before. Proceedings before the authority or the court will be discontinued if they commenced before the commencement date.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000702\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EHana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke asked if I have had any interaction with w\u0101hine involved in the Mana W\u0101hine Treaty of Waitangi claims. No, that is a very separate process to this bill and so that process continues unaffected by this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000703\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EJulie Anne Genter has also asked if all of the work and the effort on the claims to date will be lost and why. Not necessarily. If a claim is re-raised in the new system, the claimants can re-use some of the existing information where it is relevant. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022 data-id=\u002263e7f66857264e5b90b225d14a676b23\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000704\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002263e7f66857264e5b90b225d14a676b23\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I note that some colleagues on the other side are wanting to make contributions. I look forward to some substantive contributions because there is a lot more to go on in Part 1, boy oh boy! So much more stuff to go on in Part 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000705\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EI wanted to\u2014just because there is a different Chairperson in the Chair at the moment\u2014just remind the Chair that previously when there was a previous Chair, I did refer to Speakers\u2019 ruling 125/8. I also refer the Chair to\u2014[Interruption] Take a call, Mr Court, if you\u2019re interested. We\u2019ve got lots of energy to discuss this. It\u2019s a very important matter. So 127/1 is also a relevant Speaker\u2019s ruling because it looks at when the House is in urgency, when we haven\u2019t had the chance to view the bill, and there\u2019s no public submissions, there\u2019s a more fulsome debate. So I want to continue to make some overall comments on this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000706\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EI do have a very important question to start off with for the member. The care and support settlement was originally settled in 2017, and a lot of work was done by the previous National Government on this, and also the mental health support workers claim was settled in 2018. What happens to those claims? I\u2019ve heard her answer around the authority, but what I want to know is a very specific answer as to when those claims that may have an argument to say that they were settled in those years will be able to be introduced. Is it after Royal assent of this bill, or is it at 10 years past the date at which they\u2019re originally concluded? So that is a very genuine questions that I look forward to hearing the answer to, and I know there are a lot of care and support workers watching this debate who are interested as to what the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety\u2019s answer might be on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000707\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003ESpeaking of care and support workers, and in line with the Standing Orders that I have just mentioned, I have had people, as I mentioned before, email in comments. They\u2019ve been unable to attend a select committee. So I think I would like to ask the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety what she has to say to respond to these people who are directly affected by these claims.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003ESo the first person who I want to talk about is a woman called Marianne Bishop. She has been very active in the care and support world and has met a number of people in this House, I\u2019m sure, on this side and that side of the Chamber, to talk about that. This is what she has to say about what has happened today: \u201CI just can\u2019t believe it. I can\u2019t believe it could be done like this, I really can\u2019t. I\u2019m absolutely disgusted to hear about this announcement. It makes me angry as a woman and makes me feel like we\u2019re going backwards. I thought about how long we\u2019ve been fighting, 13 years; to have the rug pulled out from under us at this stage is unbelievable. It\u2019s always been a struggle, but we thought we were going to get there. This removes our road to fairness. I\u2019m frustrated. I\u2019m annoyed and angry. The delays in our claim are one thing; stopping claims is another thing all together. It\u2019s just demeaning to women. This announcement is terrible for women and families now and in the future. It devalues women workers. Apparently it\u2019s now OK to pay women less for doing work of equal value. Women won\u2019t have a leg to stand on. They\u2019re just saying, \u2018Shut up and do what you\u2019re told.\u2019 This is going to be terrible for the care sector. It\u2019s going to be harder to get people working in that sector. People aren\u2019t going to go the extra mile if they know they won\u2019t be paid for it. I don\u2019t think this Government values workers, full stop, but they definitely don\u2019t value women workers or our struggles. We are already devalued, this is going to make it even harder.\u201D I would like to know how the Minister would respond to Marianne.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000709\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve also received another comment from another care and support worker. Her name is Tamara, and she\u2019s also been active in this claim. She has said, \u201CThe announcement today makes the Government\u201D\u2014actually I won\u2019t say that bit! \u201CIt\u2019s 1,040 days since the care and support pay equity claim was filed. Why are we still waiting? We\u2019re already disillusioned as it is. This makes it 10 times worse. This is absolutely BS. It\u2019s going to completely screw the care sector. Why would you stay in a job when you get the minimum wage, if you\u2019re lucky. Why would you? Why do our employers get to keep the profits that are made off the back of people who work? I challenge every single one of them to come and work for us, on our pay, with our issues, and then say why it\u2019s a good idea that they can explain to us why we can\u2019t have these pay equity claims. I\u2019d like to see them live on our wages with the pittance we get for travel. I\u2019d like to see them cope with getting assaulted at work every day. I, for one, have never voted for the coalition and I never will.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000710\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EI would like to ask the Minister, especially on that challenge from a care and support worker that we\u2019ve just heard in the Chamber today, we actually did have the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner Judy McGregor when she was doing the study into the care and support sector, and she\u2019s done a lot of work and I want to acknowledge the work that she has done in this area\u2014she actually did go and work as a care and support worker and she did actually go and do those jobs, and she\u2019s written about that and it\u2019s been quoted in the Chamber earlier tonight. I want to ask the Minister: would she consider going and doing the work of a care and support worker for a day and then seeing how it would feel to be working on a claim to try and get pay equity when you\u2019re working on the minimum wage for 13 years, and then have your claim completely extinguished by this Government? So I have that question to ask the Minister, as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000711\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EI have another overall question to ask the Minister, which I do believe is very important. One of the first things she mentioned when she was talking about the changes in this bill is the change she is making to this legislation, to change it from \u201Carguable\u201D to \u201Cmerit\u201D. So instead of having the threshold of \u201Carguable\u201D, you have to have reached the threshold that there is \u201Cmerit\u201D within your claim. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000712\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EI want to ask the Minister\u2014because this is something that, when I have worked as a lawyer in pay equity claims, I thought was very important\u2014what advice has she been given? It is very difficult to prove that a case has merit at first glance of the facts. Actually going through the pay equity process of looking at the claimant, looking at the comparators, actually seeing if there is a systemic undervaluation of predominantly women\u2019s work is one of the major ways that you can establish merit. So what I want to know from her is: with this fundamental change\u2014and it does come up in a number of sections of the bill, but it definitely does come up in Part 1 as well\u2014what advice has she received on how it is going to be possible to determine if a claim has merit without going through the pay equity process? Because this merit is a hurdle which must be initially passed in order for people to take pay equity claims. So I want to know about that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000713\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EThe other question I have is around the international comparisons that she\u2019s made in relation to this particular piece of legislation. She\u2019s talked about the UK. In the UK, they have extremely big employers and that is why their pay equity system\u2014although there are a lot of people who will say that it\u2019s imperfect\u2014is able to have a system that only has one employer. For example, two types of employers that often have equal pay claims taken against them in the UK are National Health Service (NHS) trusts, which, if you\u2019re familiar with the UK, employ a large number of different people in lots of different jobs, and also things like councils, which also\u2014because they haven\u2019t had privatisation in many places to the same extent as New Zealand\u2014have a large number of directly employed people that can make those claims directly to their employer. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000714\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003ESo what I want to know is: with those international comparisons, did she take those types of factors into account? And because those overseas jurisdictions just have a single employer that you\u2019re able to make the claims against, does she think this is appropriate for the New Zealand context where we have a very different way of organising our public system? Many fewer people, of course, which means many fewer positions and fewer comparators, and what in fact the justification is for making people look, under the hierarchy of comparators, at their initial employer first and then afterwards the different layers of those, looking to similar employers and then further out from that. Because, in my view, that particular process is a quite limiting on the particular types of comparators it can use, and actually means that fewer claims will be able to be made because there is a much bigger limit on the types of claims that can be put forward, because it is just focused on one particular employer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000715\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003ESo quite a few questions there for the Minister. I do have some other emails\u2014I won\u2019t read them all out now\u2014but keen to hear from the Minister and how she responds to those particular individuals who are very adversely affected by the legislation that she\u2019s bringing to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022 data-id=\u0022eb293f16c66348a0ae3a356665a41de9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000716\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022eb293f16c66348a0ae3a356665a41de9\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u2019CONNOR (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Mr Chair, thank you very much for the opportunity, and I have a few questions for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety in relation to trade. Yesterday, the Prime Minister and his ministerial colleague Todd McClay got up in front\u2014post-Cabinet\u2014of the country and said, and I quote from Todd McClay: \u201CStrengthening ties with trading partners is crucial to growing this New Zealand economy and driving up incomes for Kiwis.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000717\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003ESo my questions to the Minister in the chair are: what advice has she received from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) when it comes to lifting\u2014to use her colleague\u2019s words\u2014incomes for Kiwis? And, indeed, was it just for men, or was it for men and women? Because the other thing that both the Prime Minister and Todd McClay mentioned yesterday was the value and the benefits to the New Zealand economy from the EU - New Zealand free-trade agreement. Now, while it has been a year since ratification\u2014actually the Labour Government, thankfully, negotiated this agreement, because probably if it wasn\u2019t us negotiating it, there may not have been provisions in that trade agreement for gender equality. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000718\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003ECan I refer the Minister to, and the question for her is: what advice has she received regarding article 19.3 of that trade agreement, which states, \u201CMultilateral labour standards and agreements\u201D? There are many provisions in that, but I\u2019ll go to subclause 3(d), which, without going through the whole lot, really back up the determination of both parties, that\u2019s the EU and New Zealand. And we\u2019ve heard over a billion dollars of additional trade in the last 12 months\u2014great. But of course, the commitment to \u201Cthe elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000719\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003ESo my question is: has the Minister received any advice from MFAT saying that this move by her and this Government to eliminate the ability of women to apply for pay equity has contravened a core objective of the EU - New Zealand free-trade agreement? Because if it has, then the opportunity that that agreement provides New Zealand exporters could indeed be withdrawn. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000720\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003EI know the EU\u2014we\u2019re very proud of the trade agreement on the basis of shared values, the shared values between the 27 member states of the EU and New Zealand, and equity and equality of opportunity for M\u0101ori, for women, for small-medium enterprises was a cornerstone of the value objectives of that free-trade agreement. So I\u2019ll ask the Minister on that issue alone: has she received any advice relating to article 19.3 of that trade agreement as to whether she thinks that this may contravene \u201Cthe elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022 data-id=\u002267d10152eca74df1aadd9522350f9359\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002267d10152eca74df1aadd9522350f9359\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to just address a couple of things the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety mentioned before. I had a look at the written question that the Minister referred to as well, written question No. 17121. It is a very comprehensive list. My first question to the Minister is: does the Minister know, based on that written question, exactly how many workers would be affected by this legislation? We know that some of those are in massive industries and sectors in education and health. So can the Minister give us the number of workers who would be affected by this piece of legislation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000722\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EOn that, I also wanted to check\u2014we haven\u2019t really yet received any clarifications from the Minister regarding what alternative options were considered as a part of this. Now, the Minister said that this is something that she cares deeply about and also that this is something she would really like to address. But the timing of it\u2014again, we have talked about the timing of it\u2014and what we have seen now in the public and in the media suggests that this is done as a Budget consideration. If that is the case\u2014and that is something that is in mind, for example, when we\u2019re looking at the aged-care sector; when we\u2019re looking at Bupa, to give a brief example. In 2023, Bupa made $12 million in profit, but only paid $11k, in corporate tax, whereas the corporate tax rate is 28 percent. So immediately, if they had actually paid the proper level of corporate tax, there would be a different shift here. Is this something where, potentially, other options would be that there is more scrutiny and requirement for companies to actually pay\u2014international corporations to pay\u2014the proper level of corporate tax, instead of punishing your everyday, average Kiwis? That\u2019s one of the questions, the second question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EMy third question is to do with clause 6 amending section 13A, the purpose clause. Now, one of the things that the Minister mentioned previously is that the key difference in terms of the wording is \u201Cevidence\u201D. That was interesting for me, because evidence of systemic sex-based undervaluation of work seems to suggest that the onus of the burden of proof is now being placed on the claimant and not being placed on the employer to prove that there is going to be discrimination. So I want to check with the Minister on whether the Minister has received any advice on a potential shift in the burden of proof as a result of including the word \u201Cevidence\u201D. If so, who does the burden of proof now fall on: the claimant or the employer?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000724\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EI think this ties in really nicely to the question that Camilla Belich asked as well, in terms of arguable merit, because, again, a lot of these\u2014where they go through negotiation, where they go through court or they go through claims\u2014those definitions seem benign but actually are incredibly important and, again, may provide additional burden and require a higher threshold for the employee to make.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000725\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003ENow, my next question is around clause 10(4) replacing section 13E(6). Over here, it says that \u201Ca pay equity claim may not be raised within 10 years \u2026 unless the Authority or the court determines, under section 13ZY(1)(b), that the claim may be raised.\u201D I had a look\u2014and we can discuss the nuance of section 13ZY(1)(b) later on. But in the context of this, particularly when you\u2019re looking at \u201Cunless the Authority or the court determines\u201D\u2014now, this is a variation of the currently existing section 13E(6). When we are looking at this particular part, what evidence or what advice has the Minister received on the potential increase in terms of the workload that will be placed on the authority as a result of an increasing number of cases that may be claimed within that 10 years? Because of the fact that\u2014again, I mentioned that the 10 years is a really blunt instrument. That\u2019s my fourth question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000726\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EMy final question, my fifth question, comes back to the question that a previous member, from Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori, asked, but it wasn\u2019t answered by the Minister. I acknowledge that the Minister has responded to the question around claims going through the Waitangi Tribunal, but the Minister hasn\u2019t responded to what Te Tiriti analysis has been done for this legislation. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u00229458f5cb584344bbae4d9baedc57d99f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000727\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229458f5cb584344bbae4d9baedc57d99f\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you. I just want to respond firstly to Camilla Belich\u2019s question about how it is possible to provide evidence that a claim has merit. Under the current law, the threshold is low. Claims only need to be arguable and there only needs to be historical or current sex-based undervaluation, not both. The low entry threshold enables claims to go through the assessment process even when there is not strong evidence of undervaluation. This can result in significant administrative costs, which will be avoided with a more robust entry threshold. This bill does set out a number of factors that can be used to provide evidence that the claim has merit, and those can be found in new section 13F, inserted by clause 11.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000728\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich also asked how I would respond to people who are concerned about changes that would make it harder to make a claim. Quite simply, this is about finding genuine sex-based undervaluation. I think everybody should be supporting the fact that we do want to have a pay equity system that actually resolves genuine sex-based discrimination. If a new claim can be raised under the amended Act, if they meet the threshold, that is a good thing and that should help stamp out sex-based undervaluation. However, the current threshold is too low, it\u2019s not robust, and it\u2019s less workable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000729\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich also asked: would the Minister be a care and support worker for the day? I love that suggestion; it\u2019s a fantastic suggestion. However, I don\u2019t think it\u2019s practical. My job in here, in Government, is to look after legislation, to be an advocate for the people. If we look at all the different types of claims that we have, I\u2019d be spending possibly well over a month out in the community doing other people\u2019s jobs, which I don\u2019t think would overall benefit the legislative process. So I\u2019d like to focus on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000730\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EAlthough I would say to people like Marianne, who Camilla Belich has named, and other care and support workers, that I very much thank them for the role that they do actually play in our society. I think it\u2019s a wonderful thing that people want to become care and support workers and support people in our community, so thank you, but we are ultimately here to discuss this bill rather than individual claims.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000731\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve also been asked, in the case of that very individual claim of the care and support workers, in so far as whether or not they can re-raise a claim. Yes, this is the case: that can be re-raised in 2027, but, like all other claims, if it meets the thresholds of the new law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000732\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EDamien O\u2019Connor has asked: what advice have I received from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade regarding the EU free-trade agreement? Well, look, in the process of developing this legislation, the Government has a range of international obligations that we have considered, and we have taken those obligations into account in our decision making.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000733\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve also had a question from Damien O\u2019Connor about whether or not I\u2019ve received advice about lifting wages in trade. This bill is focused on a policy for pay equity issues. Lifting wages in general would be a different matter, but the bill does not stop women or unions from raising pay equity claims, which was suggested in that contribution, which is incorrect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000734\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003ELawrence Xu-Nan asked: do I know the number of workers affected by all those claims? No, I don\u2019t have that information in front of me, but, once again, I\u2019m not here to address individual claims; I\u2019m here to discuss the legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229634e377-7e76-4353-9662-fb444eb2ec9d\u0022 data-id=\u00227b7a087d4cf9444383a971aab8f5dee8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000735\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229634e377-7e76-4353-9662-fb444eb2ec9d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227b7a087d4cf9444383a971aab8f5dee8\u0022\u003ECARL BATES (National\u2014Whanganui):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That debate on this question now close.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002296f5f6b7-c116-477e-88a9-ea17aa616886\u0022 data-id=\u0022f7c82600fe754544a78c47d328b4bb6f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000736\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002296f5f6b7-c116-477e-88a9-ea17aa616886\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f7c82600fe754544a78c47d328b4bb6f\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. What a surreal day this has been, watching the clock that was ticking back slowly under this National Government suddenly go into freefall as this shocking, despicable, backward announcement was made that puts the rights of women in this country back into the dark ages.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000737\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002296f5f6b7-c116-477e-88a9-ea17aa616886\u0022\u003EI have questions for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety about what questions and conversations she had with Ministers from other sectors, including the Ministers for mental health and for seniors. Those sectors are very much affected by this legislation, and also immigration.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000738\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002296f5f6b7-c116-477e-88a9-ea17aa616886\u0022\u003ENow, we\u2019ve heard other people ask questions about modelling, but these are very serious questions that should have been considered from a policy perspective, given the massive impact that the changes will make on the sectors that I have mentioned.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000739\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002296f5f6b7-c116-477e-88a9-ea17aa616886\u0022\u003EWe heard, revealed yesterday for the first time, although the Minister tried to conceal it for a long time, that 1,485 front-line workers are currently needed in the mental health sector\u20141,485. Now, that had been removed out of the final draft of the Mental Health and Addiction Workforce Plan, but yesterday it was revealed that was there. Let\u2019s look at what that is made up of: 470 special nurses, 455 support workers, 70 addiction workers, 10 nurse practitioners, 20 associate psychologists, 145 clinical psychologists. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000740\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002296f5f6b7-c116-477e-88a9-ea17aa616886\u0022\u003ENow, what do they all have in common? They all are feminised sectors. They are all sectors that are predominantly served by the women\u2019s workforce. Isn\u2019t it a strange coincidence that under this Government we have a mental health front-line crisis with psychologists in burnout and leaving in droves, leaving the sector. The Minister has said he will create a new associate psychologist role\u2014presumably for more women\u2014because instead of thinking about paying properly, the magic bullet is just to try and create lower-paid, lower-skilled roles to try and fill the gap.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000741\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002296f5f6b7-c116-477e-88a9-ea17aa616886\u0022\u003ESo the question I have is, when we look across over at the senior sector, the aged-care sector\u2014very, very reliant as well on the 65,000 care and support workers that we\u2019ve been talking about tonight. In Australia, where I\u2019ve just come back from, one of the amazing things that happened on a cross-party group trip that we had to look at the aged-care sector\u2014which is facing very similar issues in terms of the tsunami of need that is coming into the sector through the aging of the baby boomers and subsequent generations\u2014is that every employer we spoke to spoke about how valuable the uplift was to the allied workforce of something close to 30 percent, because it meant that they didn\u2019t have to rely on foreign workers and they had been desperate to get foreign workers into the sector.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000742\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002296f5f6b7-c116-477e-88a9-ea17aa616886\u0022\u003ESo what they had been doing as a stopgap measure\u2014and actually will still go on to be a permanent measure because there is no silver bullet and because the need is so big\u2014is they\u2019ve been recruiting from foreign jurisdictions such as Singapore, Malaysia, and Fiji. That brings with it opportunity, but it also brings a whole lot of issues around immigration policy settings, about gouging workforces from other sectors and countries, about how long those workers can come into New Zealand, what the pay rates should be, how they can assimilate into the work, what kind of training is offered to them, what kind of career pathways. Those are all in the immigration settings\u2014and, actually, right through these sectors that currently haven\u2019t really been addressed by this Government, that would make a difference to their workforce plans.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000743\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002296f5f6b7-c116-477e-88a9-ea17aa616886\u0022\u003ESo my question to the Minister is: has she done some modelling around the immigration settings, given that we will have in the retirement villages alone, for example, currently 42,000 people\u2014that by the year 2040 will be around 85,000 new residents who will all need care and support workers, and nursing and other allied staff. Has she considered that modelling? Has she spoken to Minister Doocey about how he is now going to fill an even bigger workforce vacuum that he hasn\u2019t been able to crack yet and that has got him into a little bit of trouble because of some of the crazy suggestions like creating associate roles where clinical psychologists have said they won\u2019t even oversee them?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000744\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002296f5f6b7-c116-477e-88a9-ea17aa616886\u0022\u003ESo the final question that I had for the Minister is also from somebody who I\u2019d really like the Minister to respond to. She is well known in the sector advocating for workers and that is the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions president Melissa Ansell-Bridges, who did a magnificent job today, leading workers, gathering, convening at great haste onto the forecourt with an absolute vibrancy and determination to bring workers together to challenge this Government on what they are doing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000745\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002296f5f6b7-c116-477e-88a9-ea17aa616886\u0022\u003EMelissa Ansell-Bridges has written to the Labour Party saying, \u201CEvery single one of the changes being made will make it harder to initiate and progress claims. Our early analysis suggests the new requirements may be nigh on impossible to meet. Far fewer, if any, women will be able to successfully progress claims under the new scheme. If they are successful, they will be paid equitably for a moment in time and then not again for 10 years because the drivers of inequality still exist. The Government is happy to accept this for the sake of tax cuts. We do not.\u201D She goes on to say, \u201CWe pay tribute to every single one of those workers who have fought tirelessly for years to be paid what they are owed. Teachers, nurses, librarians, care and support workers, teacher aides\u201D\u2014the list does go on and on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000746\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002296f5f6b7-c116-477e-88a9-ea17aa616886\u0022\u003EOver on this side, we are receiving their text messages and their emails as I speak, who have proven time and time again they are not paid what they are worth. It is because they work in industries historically undervalued, because they are women. Thank you to every single one of those workers. The fight for equity, for fairness doesn\u2019t stop here. We have fought for over 100 years. We will keep on fighting. Minister, do you really mean that care and support workers will not be able to contest their claim at the earliest until 2027?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u0022b3512e43cd624efc933dcfd7f7e71a4d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000747\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b3512e43cd624efc933dcfd7f7e71a4d\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I wish to answer firstly Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s question: which other options did I consider in the process of creating this bill? Look, the Government wanted to design a system that maintained a process to raise and resolve pay equity claims while providing a better framework for assessing whether there is sex-based undervaluation. I consider that the design of this pay equity system in the bill does achieve this stated purpose.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000748\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003ELawrence Xu-Nan also asked what advice I\u2019ve received that potentially we could see an increase in the workload of the authority due to a union seeking a determination to re-raise their claim before the 10 years. Look, the bill does allow a claim to be re-raised within 10 years if there are exceptional circumstances, but I don\u2019t consider that this will occur often and therefore would not affect that workload.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000749\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EIngrid Leary asked what consultation have I done with the Minister for Mental Health and the Minister of Immigration. Look, it\u2019s fairly clear that those Ministers are part of Cabinet, which did approve this policy that I put forward in the bill, and so therefore we did have consultation with those Ministers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c46de55f-b9e4-4c64-9ac6-877bd89c2fc5\u0022 data-id=\u0022758992d43e4b4cb291970e75e346ef46\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000750\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c46de55f-b9e4-4c64-9ac6-877bd89c2fc5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022758992d43e4b4cb291970e75e346ef46\u0022\u003EDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I\u2019m going to ask a couple of quick questions, because, like my colleagues have said tonight, I too have been inundated with emails and texts and various other messages. Quite frankly, there\u2019s a whole lot of other people I\u2019d rather be speaking to tonight about their genuine concerns and about what we should do next. If I was to channel my colleague the Hon Phil Twyford, I might sort of pose it in so far as I can just imagine the conversation that\u2019s going to be happening in the National caucus room tomorrow when they reflect on the fact that whilst it\u2019s an ACT Minister bringing this bill to the House, it\u2019s actually their MPs, and their backbench MPs in particular, who will probably face the brunt of this. I know in my electorate alone, there\u2019s at least three or four protests being organised between now and Sunday. I can assure you that that will be replicated throughout the country, because if there\u2019s one thing that galvanises people in this country\u2014in particular, women, and, in particular, people who are used to battling and used to working hard and used to fighting hard\u2014it is basic, basic unfairness, and particularly at the hands of someone who doesn\u2019t seem to care.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000751\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c46de55f-b9e4-4c64-9ac6-877bd89c2fc5\u0022\u003ESo my very quick question is that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety has said on more than one occasion tonight that the impetus for this bill is that she wants to ensure that only genuine cases of sex-based discrimination get through across the threshold. So that, by definition, means that she is worried about cases that are not genuine. Can the Minister, please, explicitly specify to us tonight, given we\u2019ve got no other avenue to discuss this, which particular cases on that list of existing cases she regards as being not genuine and give us some reasons as to why?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000752\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c46de55f-b9e4-4c64-9ac6-877bd89c2fc5\u0022\u003EAlso, the Minister has mentioned several times tonight about how she needs to make sure that this process is being used to remedy issues of pay equity, rather than other labour market dynamics. Can the Minister, please, give us an exhaustive example, every example, of what other labour dynamics are at play here and attribute those to any of the cases that she has before her, which is her remit to try and resolve?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000753\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c46de55f-b9e4-4c64-9ac6-877bd89c2fc5\u0022\u003EThe final comment I want to make is that the Minister, and the Government in general\u2014the Government, in particular, has made quite a big deal over the last few weeks about a focus on primary health; a laser focus, I think we\u2019ve heard from the Minister of Health. I want to ask the Minister: what advice or what conversations she\u2019s had with the Minister of Health, given that scrapping their pay equity claim\u2014as I just check my messages from people working in that sector\u2014will really help us with our recruitment and our retention? There\u2019s some little emoticons there that I won\u2019t describe, because they\u2019re all a little bit uncouth!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000754\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c46de55f-b9e4-4c64-9ac6-877bd89c2fc5\u0022\u003EIf the Minister could answer those three specific questions, given that during the course of tonight we have been continuously asking for what advice she has received\u2014I don\u2019t think she\u2019s given very robust answers to that, but these are three specific questions that she should be able to answer off the top of her head, given that she\u2019s stated these as being her primary concerns.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002257c0c650-e6a0-4475-b66d-5281ede8b1e3\u0022 data-id=\u00222b4d2705df5c46aa971ef78813292113\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000755\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257c0c650-e6a0-4475-b66d-5281ede8b1e3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222b4d2705df5c46aa971ef78813292113\u0022\u003ESUZE REDMAYNE (Junior Whip\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That debate on this question now close.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022 data-id=\u002254a844702cda4414b5418d95a3d1cb33\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000756\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002254a844702cda4414b5418d95a3d1cb33\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u2019CONNOR (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and I tried to keep my interventions short and to the point and I\u2019ll do it again. As I said, there are a number of questions that are serious questions relating to trade issues. We have a number of international conventions, one of them being the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). These are developed and negotiated through the United Nations and they probably go along with little, I guess, up-to-date knowledge on what that means. But when they are brought into a trade agreement\u2014a trade agreement that the Minister of Trade and the Prime Minister yesterday highlighted once again, the EU - New Zealand trade agreement\u2014it is really important that the Minister has had advice on this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000757\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003EShe says, \u201CWell, we\u2019ve considered it.\u201D, but the absence of a proper select committee process means that this side of the committee and, indeed, the wider New Zealand public\u2014particularly, you know, the just over 50 percent of the population who will be adversely affected by this\u2014want to know that it has been considered and it does meet our international obligations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000758\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003EAside from being what we would say is morally wrong, if we are then undermined in our trade position, that undermines the economy, and the growth strategy that we hear from the Government all the time will in fact be less credible than it already is. Can I refer to article 19.4? It is specifically \u2018Trade and gender equality\u2019; that is the title of it. Clause 1; I won\u2019t go through the whole thing but I will say, at the end of it, it says, \u201CAccordingly, the Parties emphasise their intention to implement this Agreement in a manner that promotes and enhances gender equality.\u201D The elimination or the scrapping of pay equity claims\u2014an attempt to bring that equality and equity together\u2014may indeed be seen in the eyes of our trade partners as a backward step, and I said that first off. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000759\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003ECan I then go to another part of it? This is subclause 6, which, as I say, refers to CEDAW, and I\u2019ll once again go down to the end of this saying, \u201CIn this respect, the Parties reiterate their respective commitments under Article 19.3 (Multilateral labour standards and agreements), including those regarding effective implementation of the ILO conventions related to gender equality and the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.\u201D It\u2019s there in black and white. We negotiated in a trade agreement with the EU. The Prime Minister and the Minister of trade have just been shouting about the values of this\u2014and we agree, the potential\u2014and the next day in the House, this Minister brings in a bill that will undermine the objectives of a written agreement through a trade agreement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000760\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003ESo the question is: if the Government or she has considered it, what advice did she get? And, indeed, does it leave us exposed? I\u2019ve seen much advice over the years from Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT). It\u2019s very good advice, it usually does highlight the potential risks of passing legislation like this. There is flexibility in trade agreements, I accept, but it seems to me in reading through this, what the Minister and the Government are doing in passing this piece of legislation under urgency is flying in the face of the objectives of the EU and New Zealand and trying to bring in\u2014where it isn\u2019t in place\u2014gender equality through pay and conditions. The Minister should explain in detail to the committee, or reassure us, that this is not going to put us at risk of trade challenge.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000761\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003EAside from the points raised by all my colleagues\u2014I\u2019m not going to raise those again\u2014this is a real issue of economic opportunity, not just economic equality, and the Minister, I\u2019m sure, can take an opportunity to answer. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261725fea-7d5e-4d1f-8fd3-e5779bb7a14d\u0022 data-id=\u0022092391e5b1e444a0888bd260203352e2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000762\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261725fea-7d5e-4d1f-8fd3-e5779bb7a14d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022092391e5b1e444a0888bd260203352e2\u0022\u003EHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour\u2014Mana):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair, for the call. This is the first call I\u2019ve taken on the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, and I just want to quote something, because members on this side of the Chamber have been quoting a number of emails, pieces of correspondence, and texts that they have received in the last six hours from members of the public who have been affected by this, but, actually, I want to backtrack a bit and I want to quote for the committee a particular quote from the third reading of this particular Act when it was first enacted in 2020. \u201CThe dreams I have for my daughter and my grandchildren\u2014one day, when I have them, hopefully\u2014is that they will grow up in a country where the work that they do is equally valued and compensated equally to that of their male counterparts. This bill sets out the framework that we will achieve that outcome. I want to acknowledge tonight the Minister, Julie Anne Genter, who has done an exceptional job. She did an exceptional job earlier answering our questions and has done a great job shepherding this bill through the House, and I commend her for that. She\u2019s been outstanding.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000763\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261725fea-7d5e-4d1f-8fd3-e5779bb7a14d\u0022\u003EI\u2019m not going to name who that member was, because it\u2019s quite clear the member, who\u2019s here in the House, understands who she was in her comments at the time. The reason why I raise that particular quote\u2014and it\u2019s the reason why I want to ask a question to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety about the Pacific pay gap, knowing that the Pacific pay gap in the Public Service, for example, was 17.2 percent in 2024 whereas the overall Public Service pay gap is 6.1\u00A0percent. The reason why I use that particular quote is because I am a daughter of an agedcare sector worker. So, therefore, if my mother\u2019s dream was for me to be equally treated, fortunately for myself, I was able to be supported by a Government who supported my family when she died, when my family had to go on the benefit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000764\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261725fea-7d5e-4d1f-8fd3-e5779bb7a14d\u0022\u003EBut what I wanted to ask the Minister is, because I\u2019m here standing on behalf of my daughters, who are Pacific women, who are Pacific and M\u0101ori women, and knowing that there is a pay gap between Pacific and M\u0101ori women as to what they\u2019re paid compared to their counterparts\u2014what advice has the Minister received around these groups who have disproportionately been, basically, discriminated against already within the current environment? What has she done in this legislation? What advice has she received in order to address that? I would assume, given the large number of aged-care sector workers who are Pacific, who are within that workforce, that the Minister at least would\u2019ve got some advice, some human rights implications, some population group implication analysis from her officials for those particular groups where there is very, very clear evidence that they are disproportionately impacted. I want to hear that advice from the Minister, on behalf of every other Pacific and M\u0101ori woman and their children and their grandchildren, as to what implications and what advice she has received about them, because we\u2019re standing in here tonight in the Chamber to address the implications for them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000765\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261725fea-7d5e-4d1f-8fd3-e5779bb7a14d\u0022\u003EIn the same way that another member in the House in 2020 talked about the hopes and dreams for her children, her grandchildren, I\u2019m standing here for the same hopes and dreams for the M\u0101ori and Pacific children and grandchildren and for all those children and grandchildren of low-income workers who will be affected by this. So what advice has she received on the implications on population groups as a result of this particular bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u00228425bafeb24043ac894cf8deabc1924c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000766\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228425bafeb24043ac894cf8deabc1924c\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E Mr Chair, thank you. I\u2019ll just answer two of the contributions so far. Firstly, from Tracey McLellan, asking which examples of claims that should not have gone through I would give to the member, I\u2019m not going to do that. I\u2019m not going to single out any particular claims. I will look at the legislation in general. The current thresholds are low. The claims only need to be arguable, and there only needs to be historical and current sex-based undervaluation\u2014not both. We are here to make the legislation more robust for all of the claims, for the businesses, the unions, the workers\u2014everybody involved in those negotiations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000767\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EI also wish to answer a question that has been given by Ingrid Leary, asking if I can confirm that the care and support worker claim won\u2019t be able to be re-raised until 2027. In similar respect to the previous question\u2014I\u2019d already answered that in a previous answer\u2014I\u2019ve already answered this one in a previous answer, too: that is true. That won\u2019t be able to come back until 2027. However, the care and support workers claim was settled in 2017, and the Government funded $2 billion to assist the employers to settle. I want to reassure people that the Government is committed to a process to raise and resolve those claims.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000768\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EOn top of that, I\u2019ll also answer Damien O\u2019Connor\u2019s question, which I would say I have already answered as well, which is about advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade on article 19.3, regarding the EU free-trade agreement (FTA). Once again, the Government has a range of international obligations concerning labour issues, including conventions and other agreements in our FTAs. We have taken those obligations into account in our decision making. I had already answered all three of those questions prior.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022 data-id=\u00221d32812fefbf4060bd4248dce3e37c39\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000769\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221d32812fefbf4060bd4248dce3e37c39\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair, and also I thank the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety for her responses to my previous questions. One of the things the Minister responded to was the advice and the question around the options that she was given. The Minister gave me a response, which was: \u201CI have been presented with the options and I think this is the best way.\u201D, which is a fair response, but my question is: what are the other options? So if the Minister wouldn\u2019t mind elucidating for the committee on the other options that were presented and say why this is the one that she landed on, that would be great. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000770\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EI just want to go to a few specific clauses, and I want to start with clause 12, which is the amendments to section 13H, with clause 12(4) and (5) being the first one. I just want some clarification from the Minister around the definition for certain clauses, because it\u2019s not linked to any other clauses and, unfortunately, I can\u2019t find this bill on the New Zealand Legislation website at present, as well\u2014unless it is there, and I just haven\u2019t been able to find it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000771\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EIn subclause (4), it provides that new paragraph (aa) is to be inserted after section 13H(a), and the new section mentions \u201Cany information about the work prescribed by regulations;\u201D\u2014and I\u2019m only going to touch on things that are different from the existing legislation. I want to check with the Minister: if this is the case, what about the work that people do that, potentially, is outside the requirement of the regulations but that they are somehow required to do? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000772\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EThe reason I want to ask that question is that we have also heard in some of the sectors, with aged care being one of them. We have heard from managers and directors who have said, \u201COh well, do you know what? These people\u201D\u2014with it predominantly being a female workforce, but\u2014\u201Cthese workers, they care a lot about these people, and they\u2019re going to do the work regardless.\u201D So I am concerned that if you\u2019re only looking at things that are within regulations, what we are forgetting is all of the work that workers are doing outside of what they\u2019re required to do, out of the goodness of their hearts, particularly\u2014as other people have mentioned\u2014in the particular sectors that are dominated by women. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000773\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EOn to subclause (5): \u201CReplace section 13H(b)\u201D. Now, the Minister mentioned in terms of what that evidence could be, but I want to focus on the words \u201Celements required\u201D, and I have not seen a definition of \u201Celement\u201D. So will the Minister point to a particular section of this bill that will elucidate what those elements could be, and that would be really helpful for us, should we have any further questions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000774\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EMoving on to my final question, which is around clause 15, \u201CSection 13L amended (Opting out of multi-employer pay equity claim)\u201D, this is, again, a new section, and I find this particular section quite peculiar. In subclause (2), it says, \u201CReplace section 13L(9) with:\u201D and there is a new subsection (10): \u201CA party may not apply to the Authority \u2026 for a determination concerning an employer\u2019s decision under this section to opt out of a multi-employer claim.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000775\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003ENow, this is a new thing, and I want to really check with the Minister on what is the rationale for a party not being able to apply for clarification as to why an employer decided to opt out, and whether that would still be upheld under the Official Information Act (OIA), as in: does that mean that although a party may not apply to the authority for that determination, they can still apply under the OIA for that? But in that case, what happens then if that information doesn\u2019t exist and the OIA request is rejected because that information doesn\u2019t exist because an employer doesn\u2019t actually have any valid reasons for the decision made to opt out? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000776\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003ESo those are my three questions. They are on clause 12, subclause (4) on regulations, and the work outside of regulations that a worker has to do; clause 12, subclause (5), on the definition of \u201Celement\u201D, linked to one other section of this bill; and clause 15, subclause (2) on the application to the authority for a determination concerning opting out of multi-employer claims. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u002210a060a2f3834d0e9ab74172aa4426cb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000777\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002210a060a2f3834d0e9ab74172aa4426cb\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E I\u2019ll just briefly make one contribution, in response to Barbara Edmonds, who raised concerns about impacts on particular groups, in particular Pasifika women. Look, the bill is intended to ensure that a pay equity system does provide for a better framework for assessing whether or not there is sex-based undervaluation. This system will enable women, including Pasifika women, to raise a pay equity issue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022 data-id=\u0022acf5490ad7c4485e9835b50c580cfeda\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000778\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022acf5490ad7c4485e9835b50c580cfeda\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, before we suspend, I just want to assure members that the bill is on the legislation website. We\u2019ve just checked it out up here as well, so it is there. The time has come for me to leave the Chair. Sitting will resume at 9 a.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000779\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022\u003EDebate interrupted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506479901986009472ca006ff19f61379b2000780\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 9.55p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002269fdf99a726d4c669b742a4d01ce4a27\u0022\u003ETUESDAY, 6 MAY 2025\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000002\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022700175c2aac148e8b0b48409bbc93cc4\u0022\u003E(continued on 7 May 2025)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b41eefa673614c669246957edee4baa1\u0022\u003EEqual Pay Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002237d2d17d93d74d699afd9dd05cfebc97\u0022\u003EIn Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000005\u0022\u003EDebate resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022478639650ec4455f835925ff0e175645\u0022\u003EPart 1  Amendments to Equal Pay Act 1972\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022 data-id=\u00224c1304862d444a16834ea6f47e442838\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224c1304862d444a16834ea6f47e442838\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, when we suspended last evening, we were considering the Equal Pay Amendment Bill and we were debating Part 1\u2014Part 1 is the debate on clauses 4 to 49, \u201CAmendments to Equal Pay Act 1972\u201D\u2014and the Schedule. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003EBefore I call the question again, I just want to ask this morning: we\u2019ve had a lot of debate on this, and it\u2019s a very important bill and it is under urgency, but what I would request this morning is that as people are asking questions of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, please refer to the clauses or the Amendment Paper or the particular area that you\u2019ll be speaking to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003EThe question is, again, that Part 1 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u0022a7a6af90c2b44377b08a1642119271b6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a7a6af90c2b44377b08a1642119271b6\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wish to pick up a couple of questions that were made right at the end of last night and then I believe I\u2019ve sufficiently answered nearly all questions from the previous segment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EWe had questions from Lawrence Xu-Nan about the rationale for not being able to challenge an opt out, and that\u2019s about the employers being able to opt out of multi-employer claims. Employers will still need to progress with a single-employer pay equity claim if they\u2019ve opted out of that multi-employer claim. So it\u2019s not the case that no claim is brought; it\u2019s just that the employer has the ability to opt out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EThe second question was also about how the Official Information Act (OIA) applies. The OIA does still apply, and this bill doesn\u2019t change the OIA.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EAnother question from Lawrence was about the elements referred to in section 13H(b), in clause\u00A012. These are the elements required for the pay equity claim to have merit, which are specified in section 13F, inserted by clause 11, which I also referred to last night.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022 data-id=\u002240ee9539fef244f6a5ac024294a6c9fc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002240ee9539fef244f6a5ac024294a6c9fc\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair\u2014and I\u2019m pleased with that direction you\u2019ve given us this morning, as I don\u2019t feel that we have had enough time looking at the clauses specifically. We\u2019ve asked, according to Speakers\u2019 rulings, more general questions, but I do think there is time now to actually prosecute into the different clauses, and I do think\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b8ac37696d114241971976354ad5382c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: As long as it\u2019s not repetitive.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002260174c4247134b77bef08dca3152322d\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I totally agree with you, Madam Chair, and I think that is really important because, as we keep saying, this bill has not gone to a select committee, and, as you have rightly said this morning, it is a really important piece of legislation. It has created a lot of anger and a lot of feeling out in the community. As I said yesterday, my email has blown up like it\u2019s never blown up in the eight years that I\u2019ve been in Parliament because of people wanting to know more about this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003EI want to take members to clause 9, so I direct the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety to clause 9. I want to ask a couple of questions about that, but I just want to go through and see if the interpretation is correct in terms of how I\u2019ve been seeing it and interpreting it and if what I\u2019ve discussed with colleagues is correct.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003EClause 9 is about threshold evidence\u2014the way that I\u2019m reading it\u2014and it inserts new section\u00A013DA before section 13E. The new section prefaces section 13E by providing that \u201CA pay equity claim may be raised if\u2014(a) it meets all requirements set out in section 13E; and (b) there is evidence that the claim has merit.\u201D The effective changes are that the change of threshold is arguable to have merit, the bill contains consequential changes to several other provisions if the principal Act, and the change from the subjective test based on what the claimant considers to be an objective requirement that there be evidence that the new threshold is met. I\u2019m just hoping that that is a correct and accurate reading of what that clause is actually saying.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003EWhen I was reading through this\u2014and, again, we only got this very late in the piece yesterday, so that\u2019s why it\u2019s really important that we do have an understanding of exactly what is meant by these different clauses\u2014it seemed to me that it is designed to make it as hard as possible to file a pay equity claim. That is quite the change that has been made to the primary legislation. That threshold of evidence has changed quite significantly with this one small insertion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003EIs that what the Minister is aiming for here\u2014to make it hard to file a pay equity claim? I suspect that, Minister, you\u2019re going to say no, but this is what\u2019s coming through from people in the community at the moment. They can\u2019t see that this has been on an equal footing to what was before and they see that, actually, their pathways have been closed off to them, and I think that they, in terms of this particular clause, need some understanding of how they can actually find a pathway going forward to make these pay equity claims.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003ESo I ask that question again: has it been designed to make this as hard as possible to file a pay equity claim, and, if not, what is the pathway for them at the moment? As I\u2019ve said, what is in this piece of legislation seems to have changed the whole landscape incredibly and dramatically. So I\u2019d really like some clarity around that, please.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022 data-id=\u00223c790f00de9b40fc8b8e8ea6804b9a55\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223c790f00de9b40fc8b8e8ea6804b9a55\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I was listening really carefully last night. The frustrations of these debates is that, often, we don\u2019t take the discussion forward, so I want to do a little bit of that today, but I want to make sure that I\u2019m mindful of what you\u2019ve talked about in terms of bringing up new issues.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EOne thing that came up last night is the issue of exceptional circumstances on the length of time that people are unable to take a claim. What we haven\u2019t really heard is what is envisaged as exceptional circumstances and where it will apply. So I\u2019ve been thinking about some of the cases I had where I was concerned about inequity and how it would apply in those circumstances. So I\u2019ve got a couple of questions\u2014I might take you through a few scenarios and ask you to explain how the new legislation will work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EFor example, I had one woman\u2014the case has always haunted me. She was on very low pay and she had been a caregiver her entire career. She had actually worn herself out in the job by lifting, and her employer frustrated her employment because she could no longer lift patients. She would have been in her early 60s. So she was basically just given a termination notice over a time. A person like that\u2014are they a person where they might be able to reopen for that group of people who are of that age? So they\u2019re not going to be able to take a case in their late 60s, because they\u2019re going to be terminated from their employment for a long time\u2014are they a person who might have exceptional circumstances applied to them, because their career is ending, and it might end at a time which isn\u2019t necessarily retirement time, even?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003ESo how flexible is the rule going to be in terms of who can reopen the issue? Because, in fact, their personal circumstances are going to be affected. I heard a lot from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety about how we always had to think about the big systems and we weren\u2019t concerned about the individuals. But obviously there\u2019s a real balancing act, and when it comes to something like exceptional circumstances, that is where I\u2019d expect the balancing act to take place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003ENow, a similar issue is one about opt-out provisions, because what I heard the Minister talk about was a system\u2014I think this is clause 15\u2014and this is an issue about who can opt out from a multi-employer claim. So take my woman that I\u2019ve just given you\u2014a real human, a multi-employer claim\u2014with her particular provider of care services. Is that employer able to, halfway through a claim, think, \u201COK, I want to opt out of this claim.\u201D? So she\u2019s relying upon a claim that\u2019s being made by many employers at once, or going through a process with that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EThe employer that was employing her\u2014are they allowed, under this, to actually leave, and, if so, my understanding is they don\u2019t have to provide reasons as to why they leave, but they leave her high and dry because she\u2019s no longer covered by the claim. It says that they\u2019re allowed to leave without providing reasons, but it\u2019s got to be based on reasonable grounds. Well, sorry, how do we know what grounds it\u2019s based on if they never have to provide any reason? What\u2019s the balance, what\u2019s the check in place that means that her employer can\u2019t just walk away in the middle of something where that is the only process that she\u2019s got, and not have reasonable grounds? How do we know that there are reasonable grounds?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EThen, it says\u2014my understanding is that the employer\u2019s decision to opt out cannot be challenged by another party. So is that right? Are we saying that nobody can challenge\u2014[Time expired] Sorry, Madam Chair?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222d1ff53081bf4aafb79cce7b9d513f6f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Helen White. I\u2019ll let Helen White finish her question, but please can you\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022073908ea9f914277a97498152c0e528b\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll move on to one other point\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d9c9df531dc547cd896c498476c06b17\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, short call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ec76d89b2bd441b9b8af09a0da10721\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE\u003C/span\u003E: I hope that you\u2019ve understood that point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EI\u2019d also just like to talk about\u2014and I really, really, would genuinely like an answer over the issue of back-pay. What I got didn\u2019t go far enough into the logic of the situation here. If you\u2019ve got an embargo on the authority awarding back-pay, when that happens and somebody can\u2019t award at the end\u2014and my understanding from the Minister\u2019s answer last night is you can still negotiate back-pay\u2014isn\u2019t the reality that we\u2019re going to see more back-pay claims because there\u2019s no stick, there\u2019s nothing where somebody can award it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003ESo we\u2019re going to have these people who have 10 years to go for their claim and they\u2019re being discriminated against every one of those years, and it\u2019s an accumulation of harm to them\u2014they\u2019re missing out on all the interest, they\u2019re missing out on all the wages over that time, their KiwiSaver\u2019s being affected, etc. And their employer\u2019s going to go, \u201CWell, what is in it for me? Because I do not have to give you any form of back-pay and you\u2019ve missed out for a 10-year period, and all I have to do is commit on the last possible time I can in that process to something that doesn\u2019t discriminate going forward, and then we\u2019re locking in for another 10-year period before you can go for it again, so I can discriminate for the next 10 years.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EIsn\u2019t that the impact of what is happening, and what I\u2019d like to know from the Minister is: if I\u2019m right\u2014because I\u2019m pretty sure I am\u2014then how is the Minister going to monitor the failure? I suspect what we\u2019ll see is our equity claim change entirely. We\u2019re going to see a wider gap. We\u2019re going to see a wider Pasifika gap, we\u2019re going to see a wider gap in pay. What is going to happen to make sure that if she\u2019s so confident that this isn\u2019t going to cause a problem\u2014what is going to happen in two years? Are we going to see a monitoring of this situation by the Minister to see whether that gap\u2019s growing again, because I\u2019m pretty sure we are going to see a gap growing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EI appreciate the Minister saying it\u2019s very confusing at the moment because we do deal with this in bargaining, as if it\u2019s illegitimate to deal with in bargaining, but we\u2019re not going to necessarily know. Well, what\u2019s the other side of that coin? What processes are being put in place to look at this gap and measure the gap in other ways so that there can be an intervention, and I\u2019m going to go right back and say, \u201CIs this an exceptional circumstance, where we see the gap?\u201D\u2014where somebody like the woman from AUT, who\u2019s the academic in this area and is measuring the gap, sees the gap grow and says to the Minister, \u201CActually, it\u2019s happening in this sector.\u201D Is that an exceptional circumstance where we might open again, because it seems to me that New Zealand women are going to pay the price for 10 years and then they\u2019re never going to be able to claim back? And this is going to happen. So there\u2019s going to be an adjustment every 10 years, with weak bargaining power, not strong bargaining power\u2014actually, artificially weakened bargaining power, because under the old law, under the 1970s law, they could\u2019ve claimed the lot. They could have actually gone out and claimed the lot, and what we\u2019ve done is we\u2019ve robbed them today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003ESo can I please have an answer to those various questions? I appreciate the time that I\u2019ve been given. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022 data-id=\u00227cde871450974939a80646dd79fcb2b5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227cde871450974939a80646dd79fcb2b5\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to remind the Chair, but also the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, that one of the questions I asked yesterday or last night around this bill was clause 15(2), inserting new section 13L(10), around \u201Cmay not apply to the Authority \u2026 for a determination\u201D and whether that is still Official Information Act - able (OIA). So if that could be clarified, that would be great. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EI\u2019m going to move on to\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228d4e48b56e574a9682e0f4c613bed387\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I believe the OIA-able has been clarified.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022da8c8efb69e345dd8ce022ed816a9909\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, it has been. Thank you so much.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EI\u2019m actually going to move on just a little bit further and I know that there are many other sections that my colleagues would like to discuss, but I think one of the things\u2014and I know that there are many other sections that my colleagues would like to discuss\u2014I would like to address is Schedule 1. I would like to mention a number of amendments under my colleague the Hon Marama Davidson\u2019s name, around the amendments that she has submitted. This is particularly with regard to the Schedule, \u201CNew Part 2 inserted into Schedule 1\u201D and this is inserting new Part 2, section 8, of Schedule 1, around existing pay equity claims. As we have heard yesterday from the public, there has been a number of concerns being raised by people who have to spend decades going through the process of getting pay equity. But, again, I think the concern that a lot of people had was in new section 8(1) of new Part 2 that is saying that the \u201Cexisting pay equity claim is discontinued on the commencement date.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003ESo the amendments that we have here\u2014and I particularly want to speak to those within my portfolio, which are the tabled amendments which are around care and support workers as well as education, is that they be exempted from this particular Schedule. So when we\u2019re looking at the tabled amendments, what we\u2019re proposing is, in new Part 2 inserted into Schedule 1, a new section 8(1) to insert a number of new subclauses which then would exempt care and support workers from this particular decision and also include residential school workers and various other workers from this particular one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003ENow, the reason for that\u2014again, like I mentioned\u2014is there\u2019s been a number of concerns around the way that their efforts would be diminished but also removed or wiped clean as a result of this bill. Also, as a result of this, we are also trying to address a concern from the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA) perspective because, again, one of the few things that we do have evidence of and that we do have access to, despite the fact there\u2019s no regulatory impact statement etc., is the NZBORA consistency report. But one of the things that we didn\u2019t see in the report, that it did touch on, is around section 26 in terms of retrospectivity. I think the amendment here would also be a move towards some of the concerns and some of the potential challenges when it comes to NZBORA around retrospectivity and around punishment as a result of retrospectivity, whether it is criminal or not. I think, in this case, one could argue that removing existing pay equity claims would be considered a punishment under retrospectivity of NZBORA.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003ESo I wanted to check with the Minister if she would consider the amendments that we have put forward as an addition to new section 8 of new Part 2 in Schedule 1, inserted by the Schedule. That is just simply bringing in consistence within the NZBORA, but also alleviate some of the concerns that the communities and existing pay claimants have.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u00229c8cd64ad7e44eeda3534a1696a17ee0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229c8cd64ad7e44eeda3534a1696a17ee0\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I will answer some of the questions that we\u2019ve had this morning, starting firstly with Jan Tinetti\u2019s questions talking about \u201Cwhat was the issue with the claims system which has led us to making the change?\u201D Well, the current thresholds are very low. Claims only need to be arguable and there only needs to be historic or current sex-based undervaluation, not both of them. The low entry threshold enables claims to go through the assessment process even where there is not strong evidence of undervaluation and this can result in significant administrative costs, which will be avoided with a more robust entry threshold.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EThere is also a second as to whether or not my goal here is to make it as hard as possible. You\u2019re right, my answer is: no, that is not the case. My goal here is so that we can have more confidence in the pay equity system, that the settlements are about genuine sex-based discrimination\u2014no conflation with the Consumers Price Index or collective bargaining or other labour market conditions\u2014and this bill goes to provide more confidence to all parties that what we are rectifying is genuine sex-based discrimination.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EHelen White talked about \u201Cwhat are the exceptional circumstances?\u201D The bill itself doesn\u2019t define what the exceptional circumstances are, but that is for the authority and the courts to assess whether the claimants are able to raise a claim within that 10-year time frame. I can\u2019t comment on any specific cases that may or may not go through that sort of process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EHelen White also asked are they able to lead multi-employer claims for an employer. Yes, that is the process. However, employers still do need to progress with a single employer pay equity claim.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EHelen White also asked, \u201CIs it right that no one can challenge an employee\u2019s decision to opt out?\u201D. Yes, that cannot be challenged, but the employer still does need to progress with a single-employer claim. So we are not suggesting that pay equity does not exist. The Government wants to make it very clear that a pay equity system does remain; we are simply changing those thresholds.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EHelen White also asked, \u201CWon\u2019t we see no back-pay in claims if the authority cannot award it?\u201D No, that is not true\u2014employers and employees may still agree on whether to include back-pay in a settlement. This bill simply removes the ability of the authority to award back-pay to incentivise the employers and employees to resolve claims between themselves rather than seeking an authority determination.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EHelen White also asked whether there\u2019ll be reporting on the gender pay gap. I can confirm that the Government already publishes information about the gender pay gap, but that is separate to this bill. That\u2019s through the Stats NZ and the Public Service Commission.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003ELawrence Xu-Nan asked questions on behalf of Marama Davidson in her paper about having some exemptions for specific claims. No, that is not something the Government will be progressing with. We did consider that having one system for all claims to go through is clearer about what requirements will apply once the bill passes. This will avoid having two systems operating at the same time, which would be messier for all people involved.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022 data-id=\u002284c6135e63eb41df9067fba981988b27\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002284c6135e63eb41df9067fba981988b27\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. There\u2019s a lot to go through, obviously, in this Part 1, so I\u2019m pleased to be able to make a contribution here today. I acknowledge your points around speaking to specific clauses. I\u2019d also acknowledge that there are a number of themes within this bill that are repeated in quite a few of the clauses in the substantive part, which is Part 1, which is\u2014essentially, Part 2 is actually looking at other Acts, so really Part 1 is where\u2014and it has the Schedule so\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a415e0e413464e038652212a11d9bbd2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s correct.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022676103d644c648a5aec074d69496da34\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014Part 1 is very substantive. I do have a number of amendments in Part 1, and I think I\u2019ve only spoken to one of those so far. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EI did want to take the opportunity to speak to another one, which is, I think it\u2019s clause 6 which amends section 13A, which is the purpose clause. The reason I have put forward this amendment is because I don\u2019t think that this purpose clause represents the true purpose of this Act. The reason that I think that is because of what has been said publicly about this particular bill, and also what the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety and her colleagues have said about this particular bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EThe current purpose clause states that it\u2019s to provide and facilitate \u201Cthe resolution of pay equity claims where there is evidence of systemic sex-based undervaluation of work that is predominantly performed by females\u201D. Now, I don\u2019t think that is actually the purpose of this bill; I think the purpose of this bill is to make making those claims harder. I think the purpose of this bill is to make the system more complex. I think the purpose of this bill is to make sure that fewer low-paid women receive their pay equity claim. I think the purpose of this bill is to delay the justice that they so need after decades and decades and years and years of systemic undervaluation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s why I have proposed this amendment to clause 6, which actually outlines the purpose of this bill, which I think is much more accurate. I would love the Minister and her colleagues to consider this because I think, actually, to say that this bill is brought to make the process easier is just disingenuous. How is putting in a hierarchy of comparators, which makes selecting a comparator more difficult, consistent with facilitating the resolution? How is limiting the time period that a claim can be made to 10 years consistent with the facilitation of resolution of pay equity claims? How is the absolute unilateral taking away of back-pay, which was a common law right established under the Equal Pay Act 1972, established by Kristine Bartlett\u2014taking that totally away\u2014facilitating the resolution of pay equity claims where there\u2019s evidence of systemic sex-based undervaluation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EIt is simply not true. The purpose clause as proposed in this bill is simply not accurate. It does not reflect the fact that the main reason that this bill has been brought to the House, under urgency, just before the Budget is to save the Government money. Those savings are coming from working women. They\u2019re coming not only just from working women but from low-paid working women who have had their hearts and minds set on equal pay for such a long time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EI do think it is relevant because we haven\u2019t had a select committee process to be able to make sure the opportunities that we didn\u2019t have last night to read out some of the messages that we\u2019ve been getting, because this is specifically relevant to the purpose cause. I did have one of those messages last night from someone who\u2019s been involved in the teachers\u2019 claim, who did message me. She said that she is deeply disappointed by this Government\u2019s decision, that was announced just yesterday, to put through these changes. She said that her claim, which is a claim for teachers\u2014something that all New Zealanders value highly\u2014has followed a robust process between all parties. More than 300 interviews with teacher and comparator roles across the sector have been conducted using a consistent, agreed-upon tool to gather data. That evidence has been through thorough consultation with both teachers and principals, and to have the Government walk away from that now is nothing short of disgraceful. That is from Christie. She has been involved in the teachers\u2019 claim. She sees that this purpose clause does not reflect the actual reality of the situation. She has been involved in a robust pay equity process. They\u2019ve done 300 interviews, and this Government, through this particular bill, is binning all of that work, all of that effort.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EJust think of all of those women who have thought about their days and gone through every single aspect that they do\u2014and that\u2019s what a pay equity assessment is. It\u2019s when you talk about the social skills that you have to use in your job; it\u2019s when you talk about the dangers that you might have\u2014and teachers do sometimes face aggressive students\u2014some of those things have never been valued. We\u2019ve seen traditional women\u2019s work as caring only; we haven\u2019t valued the true nature of it. To go into that is truly a very, very difficult experience, but one that makes many women feel their own value. I\u2019ve heard from so many people that have said they never really realised how important their job was until they went through a pay equity process, and they understood that, actually, they did do skilled work, that the messages that they\u2019ve been told by society that the work that they did was not valued or not highly skilled was not true. They felt mana, they felt self-esteem. This bill takes that away.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EI don\u2019t think this purpose clause reflects what this Government is trying to do. I would like the Minister to respond to why she isn\u2019t honest with New Zealanders and actually putting the real purpose of this bill\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ab16d473833143d6917c4d6b292f1ee5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Just be careful how you phrase that question, please. I\u2019ll just give you a chance to rephrase that question about honesty.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022179c76dec1964d14b27a53337cec43b1\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH\u003C/span\u003E: I would like the Minister to reflect on why there isn\u2019t a more accurate description of what this bill is actually doing, so New Zealanders have a clear reason as to why the Government is implementing this particular bill, because I don\u2019t believe this purpose reflects the true intentions of why this bill should be put into place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fe342415-6351-4072-a17e-19dab2ef184d\u0022 data-id=\u0022b5ab70851e6f4a41af262346c3fc793f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fe342415-6351-4072-a17e-19dab2ef184d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b5ab70851e6f4a41af262346c3fc793f\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for allowing me to make a brief contribution to this debate. I\u2019d like to ask specifically about clause 17, which amends section 13O of the original Equal Pay Act; section 130(4)(a) and (b) specifically. I\u2019ll just read that clause, just for context, so that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety understands what I\u2019m talking about. The original section 13O says: \u201CA request to consolidate must be made in writing and must include\u2014(a) a brief description of the work performed by the employees who are covered by each of the claims; and (b) a brief explanation of how the work performed by the employees who are covered by each of the claims is considered to be the same or substantially similar.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fe342415-6351-4072-a17e-19dab2ef184d\u0022\u003EMy question is: why has the word \u201Cbrief\u201D been deleted and the words \u201Ca brief explanation\u201D have been replaced with \u201Can explanation\u201D? Is that in response to ministerial advice that perhaps the brevity of the request to consolidate wasn\u2019t working? Was the Minister requesting it herself? What was the genesis of that piece of amendment?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fe342415-6351-4072-a17e-19dab2ef184d\u0022\u003EMy second question is in response to the Minister\u2019s answer to my question last night\u2014and thank you for the answer. I asked the Minister when the existing claimants and existing unions to the existing pay claims were informed, and she said \u201CToday.\u201D That was yesterday. I\u2019d like to know a specific time, if possible, because the media release went out at 11.19 a.m., according to the Scoop Parliament website. So I guess my question is: did this Government give enough time for the people who are currently undergoing the pay equity process to actually find out about this news, not via the media? Exactly what time were the existing claimants and existing unions told that this legislation would be going through and that their existing claims would have to be scrapped and go back to square one again?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022 data-id=\u0022ca4d71d3e5444fde94c4f26fe6ece63f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ca4d71d3e5444fde94c4f26fe6ece63f\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. Yesterday, I spoke about an amendment that I\u2019d put up for clause 4, and now I\u2019d like to speak to one that I have put around clause\u00A010. Now, as my colleague Camilla Belich said\u2014because this is a substantive part in Part 1 that you\u2019re going to see\u2014in this bill, there are a number of metrics that are being used across the bill that are similar. So in clause 10, which we haven\u2019t discussed before but it does talk about that 10year metric\u2014but it is talked about in a different way in this particular clause. One of the areas that I asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety yesterday and I didn\u2019t get an answer to, in relation to clause 4, was: what alternate advice did she get, which I know that\u2014being a former Minister\u2014officials do give you a range of advice around different metrics and what that would mean. So, in this particular case, in clause 10, just for clarity, amends section 13E by replacing subsection\u00A0(6), with the effect that there is now an amended test to meet before a person who is covered by a previous pay equity claim settlement may raise a new claim in relation to the same work. It must be at least 10 years since the past settlement. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003ESo one of the things that has come through loud and clear in the past not even 24 hours, yet, is that people are feeling really disheartened by the fact that that 10-year metric has been used. We\u2019ve heard it through different forms of media; I\u2019ve seen it coming through via social media\u2014that the 10-year seems to be very dispiriting to people, and not understanding where that has come from. So a couple of my other colleagues and I have put amendments forward that give alternate timelines for this particular clause because we don\u2019t know what other advice the Minister got here, and I\u2019m asking the Minister to be transparent around that: what was the other advice around metrics that was given to her in this particular case? What were those reasons that the Minister didn\u2019t go with the alternative advice that would have been provided to her?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s the whole reason as to why we\u2019ve come up with these amendments for clause 10 because we just don\u2019t know why the 10-year (a)\u2014and the Minister did say that it was about, \u201COh, it gives it time.\u201D But we don\u2019t know why that was superior to alternate advice because we haven\u2019t had an answer to what that alternate advice was, and why it was rejected. So, in our minds, the 10 years does not stand up because we can make equally valid and stronger arguments for different metrics. So, therefore, I want the Minister to be transparent around the advice that she has been given, but I also want to know and be convinced that 10 years that she settled upon is valid by evidence, researched, thorough; what is happening elsewhere in the world, that they have got 10 years as their metrics anywhere else in the world. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003EI just don\u2019t know; we do not know because we haven\u2019t had the opportunity to take this to select committee. We haven\u2019t had the opportunity, which we would have had at a select committee, to ask officials these questions. And even when I ask questions on other clauses like clause 4 last night, this was not answered, and yet this is central to the whole argument of why people are being so impacted emotionally and feeling so dispirited around what is being presented to them because they have no understanding of where the Minister\u2019s advice has landed because she has not been transparent around what alternates were given to her and why she rejected them. So I would very much like to know that and know exactly why we have landed on this part, and the evidence that supports it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d64de4c1-ef68-477e-9c50-db5cbdf99404\u0022 data-id=\u0022c6e6373a5e424405b25a55f23caf0360\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d64de4c1-ef68-477e-9c50-db5cbdf99404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c6e6373a5e424405b25a55f23caf0360\u0022\u003ETOM RUTHERFORD (National\u2014Bay of Plenty):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That debate on this question now close.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022 data-id=\u0022d32b53a670964851b115b28b3d259a07\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d32b53a670964851b115b28b3d259a07\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m going to take some more calls, but I am starting to hear arguments against the bill that we heard yesterday. I understand that to the people that are making those arguments, they\u2019re relevant arguments for them, but I really want specific questions rather than five-minute speeches.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221cd33f16-add4-4363-a2d4-f457841a5c4c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f58ed68b8ebc48ca82bbe11dc4547451\u0022\u003EGlen Bennett\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Madam Chair. Just to clarify, because I have been listening very closely last night and this morning and I know Camilla Belich has made clear in terms of Speakers\u2019 rulings\u2014I just want your guidance, because I hear what you say. Just to understand that, in fact, there\u2019s very little we\u2019ve actually traversed in terms of this section.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f882b75267164655879ad59fd2b92464\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: My point is that we\u2019ve heard the arguments against, loud and clear. I\u2019m looking for specific questions that clarify what the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety\u2019s doing, so that\u2019s what I\u2019m looking for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221cd33f16-add4-4363-a2d4-f457841a5c4c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227e76f7604a9c4df49097bf582f258c36\u0022\u003EGlen Bennett\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order. So the fact that we can just continue to prosecute clause by clause by clause\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ec65ae48496b47e9910d1bf12256aac3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, we\u2019ve kind of gone out of that range. You haven\u2019t built a system in this case where\u2014you know, normally in other cases you\u2019ve run through, so I\u2019m taking questions on clauses. I\u2019m not running a clause by clause system, because that\u2019s what I haven\u2019t seen, but I want questions on clauses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002274db7667da3d436ba70b4925b1146de0\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Madam Chair. Just in terms of this system, I appreciate there being a number of Chairs because of the duration of the debate, but my understanding from our side was that due to the fact that there was no select committee process and relying on two Speakers\u2019 rulings that I mentioned last night, speaking in general terms, initially\u2014and I think you\u2019ve had an indication this morning that we\u2019re now going in a clause by clause manner. My understanding\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022677cd636aa434629bb84a9ba82f9c4e5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: No, I haven\u2019t said clause by clause; I said I want questions related to specific clauses. We\u2019re not ranking the clauses. [Interruption] This is a point of order, so I\u2019d ask for points of order to be heard in silence. I just want to clarify that I\u2019m not going numerically clause by clause, but I am asking for the questions to be related to a clause number.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d5f352fd26e9481bb9f29e1ded929a7a\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just clarifying that it is now our intention to go more clause by clause\u2014maybe not cover every clause, but my understanding is we\u2019re on page 5 of the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c54d35b99bb24ed69b12ed0b3ff4fc8f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: And it has to be new as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002283fd8e07e1194d37ba57dd7051fbd1fa\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I understand that. But one final point that I would make in my point of order would be to draw your attention to the fact that when you look at the clauses, a number of the clauses have slightly different ways of implementing the policy intent of this. For example, \u201Cmerit\u201D and \u201Carguable\u201D are mentioned slightly differently.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aa37bdd55bc948aaad5093ae2523ec4f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Yep. I understand that. So, yeah, I\u2019ll take a call from Camilla Belich now to ask those questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022 data-id=\u0022c6cae0158ed54f86a7374ee1e00694d7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c6cae0158ed54f86a7374ee1e00694d7\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you\u2014thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to go through this in detail; obviously there is a lot of concern around this bill because of the way it\u2019s been brought to the House, and so it is important that we do, and, in the opportunities that we do have to scrutinise this, to make sure that we do it thoroughly. That\u2019s our intention here: to work with the Chair to make sure that we\u2019re able to do that. So I do appreciate the ability to clarify that and also to take this call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003ESo the question that I\u2014I do have a number of amendments, and if I have time I\u2019ll speak to my amendment to clause 10. But before I get to clause 10, I wanted to ask the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety\u2014in relation to clause 9, which implements new section 13DA\u2014in relation to this particular requirement, how is this consistent with the purpose of the bill? My understanding of the new section that has been implemented in this particular clause is that it means that people have to go through quite long, different areas that are outlined in section 13E to ensure that the claim has merit or is considered to be consistent with what she believes a pay equity claim could be.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003ESo what I want to ask the Minister is: how did she arrive at this particular list, as outlined in 13E, which is implemented in 13DA, and why and how is that consistent with the purpose of facilitating the resolution of pay equity claims? Because I don\u2019t\u2014and I hadn\u2019t heard yet from the Minister and I would be interested to hear that. So that is my first question to the Minister in relation to that particular clause.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EMoving on now to clause 10\u2014and I\u2019ll just double check here\u2014I think that I have one amendment on this particular clause, and that amendment is in clause 10, to delete clause 10 and 6. The reason that I\u2019ve suggested that is because I had particular issue, and this did come up last night, but I think it\u2019s hasn\u2019t been followed through in terms of the implications of it to the Minister, and that\u2019s why I\u2019ve suggested deleting it in my amendment that I\u2019m speaking to\u2014the \u201Cclaim may not be raised within 10 years [after the date] of a pay equity [claim] settlement\u201D being reached. So last night, the Minister clarified that for two of the most significant claims that had been brought into effect in New Zealand\u2014with the support of many, or if not everyone, in the House\u2014those, because they were settled in 2017 and 2018, will have to wait for 10 years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003ENow, this is retrospective, so this is, essentially, taking away the right of those people. So we currently have claim in the Employment Relations Authority for care and support workers, and they will not be able to pursue that claim until at least 2027; 2028 for mental health workers. Did the Minister consider having the bill the way that she wants it to be, which of course we disagree with strongly, but not having a retrospective element to existing claims?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EI know she says that she wants to have a new system, and she doesn\u2019t want to have two different types of claims. I don\u2019t actually see how a claim\u2014if care and support workers and mental health workers were able to bring a claim after Royal assent in this bill, I don\u2019t see how that would be something that creates two different systems. The Minister may, and I\u2019m interested to hear a response to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EShe may say, \u201CWell, the Government invested millions of dollars in the pay equity settlement when it was first implemented in 2017/2018.\u201D Well, time has moved on. The effect of that pay equity settlement is now that most care and support workers are on the minimum wage. So there clearly isn\u2019t an argument to say that they\u2019ve received a benefit and therefore they should wait for another 10 years, because they\u2019re on the minimum wage. I mean, anyone working has to be paid that amount. There is clearly no benefit from having that pay equity settlement, at all. So I suggest that that is deleted. I mean, there may have to be subsequent amendments too, if the Minister agrees with what I\u2019m putting forward. But this seems to be a terrible injustice, and I don\u2019t think the Minister\u2019s answers to date justify making those care and support workers and those mental health workers wait another few years before they\u2019re even able to file their claim. And, of course, settlement for some of these claims\u2014but Kristine Bartlett\u2019s claim took her five years. Are we really asking care and support workers to wait that long before they can raise their claim?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u0022ec8c35cdee574790a8e06a8ab8ef4dcf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ec8c35cdee574790a8e06a8ab8ef4dcf\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019d like to respond to a few of the questions raised this morning, firstly, to Lawrence Xu-Nan, asking whether or not I would consider changing Schedule 1 with the element of retrospectivity. I just wanted to clarify that the only part of the bill that is retrospective is the clauses that make the existing review clauses unenforceable. The reason behind this is because the short three-year time frame in the review does make it difficult to determine whether or not genuine sex-based discrimination has reemerged after such a short period of time in comparison to other short-term labour market conditions. I do actually think having an extended time frame makes the bill more robust. So, no, I won\u2019t be considering changes to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich did ask whether or not we would agree with her tabled amendment to change the purpose of the Act. No, that is not something that I will consider. The member\u2019s proposed amendment does not reflect the purpose of Part 4 of the Equal Pay Act and the amendments proposed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EJan Tinetti has also asked what alternative advice I was given about the time frame before a claim can be raised. I\u2019d just like the member to note that I also considered whether to not allow claims to be re-raised at all, so claims would be full and final, but I decided against that in recognition that sex-based discrimination could re-arise. So this is why we have ended up with a claim being able to be re-raised after a 10-year time frame.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EFrancisco Hernandez asked why the word \u201Cbrief\u201D had been deleted in relation to a request to consolidate in section 13O. We believe that this change to the section will assist other parties to assess whether or not it\u2019s appropriate to agree to consolidate a claim. This will help to ensure that claims are appropriately scoped, and that will support a more workable pay equity process. The change requires a more detailed description of what the work is and how it is the same or substantially similar, and that is a benefit for all parties involved.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich then went on to ask whether or not we would remove the 10-year time frame limit. I believe I\u2019ve discussed this one at length. The answer to that is: no, we won\u2019t be agreeing to her tabled amendment. The 10-year time frame, I believe, builds confidence and more robustness into the system, that we can see genuine sex-based discrimination re-emerge. A very short time frame means that that could be conflated with short-term labour market conditions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EThen Jan Tinetti asked whether or not we would agree to her tabled amendment to reduce the time frames for the re-raising of a claim. Once again, that\u2019s a no. This does not provide sufficient time to correctly identify whether or not sex-based undervaluation has reemerged.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022 data-id=\u0022ccc79803bcf544dc9acba07c1e1b62eb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ccc79803bcf544dc9acba07c1e1b62eb\u0022\u003ERACHEL BOYACK (Labour\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I just note that this is the first opportunity I\u2019ve had to take a call in the committee of the whole House stage of this bill, and I do have a number of questions for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety and a number of tabled amendments that I\u2019d like to be able to speak to. So I just want to note that\u2019s my intention; this is the first opportunity I\u2019ve had to take a call. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003EI want to speak to my tabled amendment on clause 11, and ask some questions of the Minister regarding this. Just to note from the explanatory note in the bill that clause 11 changes one of the sections\u2014changes, first of all, the threshold to be met. But the piece I want to talk to specifically is the part which says \u201CBesides this change of threshold, new section 13F requires that the claimed undervaluation of work must be based on reasonable grounds and must be both historical and continuing (rather than either historical or current).\u201D I just want to make some commentary around that. My comment around that is we see examples of historic pay inequity that can go back decades, and, in many cases, goes back years and decades, but we also will see examples where it goes forwards, so we can see that that particular issue hasn\u2019t been resolved, or it has potential to be unresolved. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003EWhat concerns us in the Labour Party is that the Minister is basically making this harder to reach the threshold, and I\u2019d like to know from the Minister why it is\u2014so that\u2019s my question to the Minister\u2014that\u2019s she\u2019s made this harder, why she wouldn\u2019t look at a particular occupation that may, looking right now, have some of that inequality addressed, but still have those historic elements. Because one of the issues around pay equity\u2014and this does come up in other clauses\u2014is around that retrospective approach. So one of the reasons why we believe, on this side, that it\u2019s important to look at historic or current is that there are times when a claim can and should be made, in our view, to address some of those historic injustices. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003ESo I do just want to talk to my amendment, just noting that this is one of a number of amendments that I have. I also have one on clause 10 and a few on Part 2, as well, so I\u2019m going to talk to those as the morning continues. But my amendment\u2014in clause 11, new section\u00A013F(1)(b)(ii) replace \u201Ctaking into account all relevant matters (\u2026 set out in subsection (3))\u201D, with \u201Cfor one or more of the reasons set out in subsection (3).\u201D Also\u2014and I\u2019ll wait for a separate call to ask questions on other clauses because I\u2019d like to hear from the minister on that specific question that I have\u2014I\u2019ll take a shorter call now just by noting that I would like to come back to some further clauses later.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022 data-id=\u002278dc2bd330964e928f83c0f406da51a9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002278dc2bd330964e928f83c0f406da51a9\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask some questions around the definition of \u201Cappropriate comparator\u201D in clause 7. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety made a number of comments and there have been a number of comments made around the appropriateness of comparators and how that works in a pay equity process, using some examples like why would you\u2014I can\u2019t remember the exact example\u2014compare an air traffic controller to a nurse, or something of that ilk.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EI think it would be worthwhile to hear from the Minister the reasoning behind her decision making on comparators, because with the selection of the appropriate comparator in clause 7, she is, essentially\u2014with the new system of comparators she\u2019s introducing\u2014assuming and giving extra weight to people who work for the same employer in terms of the similarity of their roles, and I wanted to ask why that was. There is actually no particular magic, for a pay equity claim, in having the same employer to compare two different job roles. The best thing is obviously to try and get the most similar comparator that you would ever possibly get, and my view is that you should be able to look widely for that in order to be the most accurate. The Minister is making a policy decision here to make people look to the employers in similar industries first.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003ESo I wanted to ask why she decided to do that, and I wanted to ask a few technical questions around the use of comparators, because, essentially, when you\u2019re looking for a comparator, you will never find someone who has the exact same skills or job description, and I think there is a little bit of a misconception\u2014and certainly from some of the comments the Minister has made it appears that there is a misconception\u2014around how these types of job evaluations go. So it\u2019s not looking necessarily at the job description; it\u2019s looking at what you actually do in your role.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EMost jobs, for example, even if we look at jobs that appear to be very different, will have an element of human interaction in them. They\u2019ll have an element of having to deal with people\u2019s complex emotions, having to deal with stress. These can be common to different jobs even though they appear on the outside to be very different. That is how we understand the historic undervaluation\u2014we look towards skills that have often been undervalued by society, like taking care of children, and we realise that, actually, when you take care of children you have to be a well-organised manager, you have to manage emotions, you have to do lots of complex things that may not have been appreciated by society.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003ESo I wanted to ask a technical question. I think I might know what the answer to this might be, but I\u2019d be interested to hear the Minister\u2019s thoughts. When she is looking at comparators, she seems to be moving towards appearing to say that the current system does not allow the choice of appropriate comparators. Is that correct? I\u2019d like to know the answer to that. Secondly, there is a concept in pay equity negotiations which is to look at composite comparators. For example, instead of looking at one job role, as we do now, we can look at a few different job roles that might be male-dominated and there might be an aspect in security that is more similar to a care and support worker\u2019s role because of the nature of some of the people they\u2019re dealing with. There may be an element in relation to stress which is more likely related to an air traffic controller. Those are just examples\u2014not necessarily the best ones. But, essentially, a composite comparator would be taking a job role and looking to see if maybe three or four different male-dominated roles were more accurately compared to a female-dominated role.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EI don\u2019t see that idea reflected in this legislation, but I want to genuinely ask if this is something that is possible\u2014probably not, is my guess, but I\u2019d like to hear that from the Minister as well as whether she\u2019d consider something like that. The reason I think that\u2019s important in relation to this appropriate comparator definition that has been brought in is that it seems to me that if you\u2019re looking at\u2014and the Minister says this is very important\u2014the most appropriate comparators, it would be more flexible and more likely to produce an accurate comparator if you\u2019re able to look at several different job roles and not say it\u2019s one individual. In the UK, for example, it is one individual. You have to find a particular human being, person, to do that. We don\u2019t necessarily do that in New Zealand today. We look at job roles. But this kind of composite aspect of it would possibly lead to more accuracy, which is what the Minister seems to be desiring from this process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003ESo I genuinely want to know whether she has received advice on this, whether she\u2019s turned her mind to it, and whether it\u2019s something that\u2019s possible under this particular piece of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022 data-id=\u0022293fa48d5bf042fa93ce77c93a954698\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022293fa48d5bf042fa93ce77c93a954698\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask you specifically, Minister, about clause 7. That means that I need to flick to section 13, because I actually want to ask you about\u2014it\u2019s page 16\u2014section 13ZE(8). It talks about, when selecting comparators, the parties having to take into account additional matters prescribed in the regulations. What I want to know is: this is in the exclusions\u2014so there\u2019s an exclusion to your rule\u2014but then it seems to be very open season here as to what could be an exclusion beyond it. I wondered\u2014because we\u2019re going through urgency in the way we are\u2014whether this has been before the regulatory standards people. What it seems to be doing is suggesting that anything can be added, even though the prerogative of the legislature is to create those rules. So I wanted to know what the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety had in mind would be included by way of regulation and whether that had been appropriately scrutinised in this process, and, if not, whether the Minister would undertake that it would be.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EI would also like to know about clause 8, which is section 13D amended. It says, \u201CUnion right to represent members\u201D. I\u2019m always looking for what\u2019s different about it. There is a difference in clause 10 here, which is that we replace \u201CUnions\u201D with \u201CCircumstances in which unions\u201D. I would really, genuinely like to know what the intention is there. Why would we do that, and what has she got in mind there? What\u2019s the point of the change? I\u2019d really like an explanation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EFinally, I want to ask about the issue over \u201Cexceptional circumstances\u201D. Now, I understood the Minister, when I asked about what an exceptional circumstance was, was answering by question by saying, \u201CI don\u2019t know what an exceptional circumstance is. We\u2019re just writing that down, and the courts will sort that out later.\u201D That worries me, because an exceptional circumstance has got to be something out of the normal, and my concern is: what about all the cases where the normal is manifestly unjust?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EI gave the Minister an example of a woman who is worn out. She\u2019s not going to be there in 10 years\u2019 time. She needs an answer now, and she needs her claim to be heard, because she has been discriminated against. Is that going to be \u201Cexceptional circumstances\u201D? The Minister said that she couldn\u2019t tell me whether it was or not. What I wondered was whether she had considered that the trouble with that is that an exceptional circumstance has to be something that isn\u2019t normal, and that might be quite normal for that to happen\u2014that people do age out or wear out and that\u2019s normal. I wondered whether she would consider replacing the phrase with one which was more directive as to what the courts should look at, because that doesn\u2019t direct in the right way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EI have just used the example of \u201Cmanifestly unjust\u201D. Now, I\u2019m not thrilled with \u201Cmanifestly unjust\u201D, because I think \u201Cunjust\u201D is bad enough, really, in these circumstances. We\u2019re trying to deal with a systemic justice issue and discrimination, and so any discrimination should be looked at, but \u201Cmanifestly unjust\u201D is one that we\u2019ve adopted quite recently in other legislation to make sure that people weren\u2019t harmed in a way that was outrageous. So I wondered whether she\u2019d considered using a term which actually did the job of looking at the injustice. Thank you, Mr Chair, I look forward to your answers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022afa1190eed9a4f59b67bc41be2a383f1\u0022\u003EHon Dr Deborah Russell\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chair?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u002295dacce2b6cc4dfe95835589ab844247\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002295dacce2b6cc4dfe95835589ab844247\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: I call Helen White.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022 data-id=\u00222755d409b9184bd6bcde04c7c555bcda\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222755d409b9184bd6bcde04c7c555bcda\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert):\u003C/span\u003E Sorry, I will actually cede to my colleague. I know that she\u2019s got another question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229cbcee916b1b4706b082c3aa3a9618cc\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: No, I\u2019ve given you the call. The call is yours.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228bd03f15a8244ce097cd6ad4d6c862ae\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, thank you. But, as long as I get an answer to those questions, I\u2019d rather follow up once I have.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022 data-id=\u0022834e8036c2fc4071a9d064a881951e27\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022834e8036c2fc4071a9d064a881951e27\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you for this call, Mr Chair. We\u2019ve got a long way to go in this debate. It\u2019s a substantial change for our employment legislation, and it\u2019s a change that really creates tremendous difficulty for women. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022\u003EI want to talk about a tabled amendment in my name, and it amends clause 15. Now, clause 15 allows employers to opt out of multi-employer pay equity claims, and a new section 13L(9) has come into this. It enables an employer to opt out of a claim, and then new section 13L(10) says that \u201CA party may not apply to the Authority\u201D\u2014the Employment Relations Authority\u2014\u201Cunder section\u00A013ZY for a determination concerning an employer\u2019s decision under this section to opt out of a multi-employer claim.\u201D What that means in plain language is that a pay equity claim across multi-employers can go in, but a single employer can opt out of that claim, and, more to the point, they can do it without there being any appeal\u2014without there being any way for the employees affected by that to actually appeal the employer\u2019s decision to find a way to get a separate judgment on it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022\u003ESo this is a very, very simple amendment, and what I have suggested is that we go to amend clause\u00A015(2), which is the one that specifically has in it the new section 13L(10), just to take the word \u201Cnot\u201D out so that a party may apply to the Employment Relations Authority for a determination concerning an employer\u2019s decision. Now, it seems to me to be entirely reasonable that if an employer can unilaterally opt out of a pay equity process, then, at the very least, the reasonableness of that decision should be considered by the Employment Relations Authority. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022\u003EThe reason that this one particularly caught my eye was that after the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety told us last night to google the people whose pay equity claims had just been unilaterally struck out by this legislation; we managed to get the information\u2014because she didn\u2019t have it at hand herself. So we found the information, and sitting in here are the tertiary education library assistants. Now, this is really interesting, because in the Minister\u2019s new legislation, the threshold for taking a pay equity claim is 70 percent\u201470 percent of the workforce must be female over a period of 10 years. That\u2019s an \u201Cand, and\u201D, isn\u2019t it\u201470 percent, and 10 years\u2014as far as I understand it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022\u003EBut the information we have about tertiary education library assistants is that across the universities\u2014and I don\u2019t know about the polytechnics; I\u2019d like the Minister to clarify that, because, surely, she would have done the work on this\u201468 to 85 percent of tertiary education library assistants are female, across the universities. Some universities are down at 68 percent females in terms of tertiary education library assistants, and some are up at 85 percent female, so what this gives is a very clear case of a pay equity claim that was under way where, overall, across a multi-employer workforce, the workforce is going to be at well above 70 percent, given that 68 to 85 percent range, but particular universities might be down at 68 percent. So what\u2019s happened here is that because an employer can opt out at their own will with no appeal in place\u2014with no appeal in place\u2014those universities sitting at 68 percent have got every incentive just to drop out. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022\u003EThis amendment is a very straightforward one, and I think it\u2019s an entirely reasonable one. I think it\u2019s one on which the Minister could give way quite easily because it\u2019s a very simple amendment, and there should be no reason why that decision of one employer to opt out of a multi-employer pay equity claim should not be subject to at least some kind of review. So let\u2019s take that word \u201Cnot\u201D out. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u00221b19e4b0de80490b9f692fa52b26d4b7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221b19e4b0de80490b9f692fa52b26d4b7\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019ll take the time to consider some of these questions. Firstly, in the name of Camilla Belich, we had a question regarding clause 9: how is this consistent with the purposes of the bill, especially in relation to section 13E of the principal Act? The requirements in section 13E are already in the Act. The changes are intended to ensure that employers consider them appropriately when making a decision on a claim.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EWe had an amendment by Rachel Boyack which is seeking to lower the threshold on merit. I don\u2019t believe that this is something the Government will be supporting. It\u2019s not considering all relevant matters that may contribute to sex-based discrimination. It would not ensure that genuine claims are progressed, so the Government will not be supporting that amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EWe had a question from Francisco Hernandez about whether or not the Government gave enough time for claimants and exactly what time they were told. I\u2019ve been informed that the New Zealand Public Service Association and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions were informed about an announcement coming before it was made yesterday morning. There were further calls throughout the day to the New Zealand Educational Institute Te Riu Roa and the New Zealand Post Primary Teachers\u2019 Association, and the Primary Principals\u2019 Collective Bargaining Union were notified by phone at some point after 11\u2014between that and 11.30; then, the Secondary Principals\u2019 Association of New Zealand was notified shortly after that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich had a query about whether or not the system is allowing for a correct appropriate selection of comparators. The current system does allow for multi-comparators to be used, but it also allows comparators to be selected that are from quite different industries and very different sectors, and so why are we requiring comparators to be in close proximity to be selected? Well, at large, I believe this builds in confidence and robustness to the system. The change will ensure that comparators perform comparable work and that the comparators selected are more closely related to the employer, which I believe will reduce secondary noise\u2014things like the Consumers Price Index and other labour market conditions which are quite varied. The closer you get to the workforce that you are in, the closer we can make any resolutions of sex-based discrimination.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich also then asked if the bill allows parties to use composite comparators. The bill still does allow parties to select more than one comparator where they\u2019re available at the relevant level of the hierarchy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EHelen White then asked what regulations I intend to make regarding the selection of comparators. The ability to make regulations regarding the selection of comparators is already within the Act. This bill is simply reapplying it and at this stage I don\u2019t have intentions to make regulations in this area.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EHelen White then also asks why we are not defining the exceptional circumstances. That\u2019s the whole point of exceptional circumstances; the nature of them is that they are quite difficult to predict because they are exceptional. This is a common kind of provision to give a judiciary the role of a determination.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EDeborah Russell then also asked if we can delete the word \u201Cnot\u201D in section 13L. No, that is not what the Government will be doing. We don\u2019t support this. Requiring reasons to allow legal challenge would limit the ability of employers to ensure that pay equity bargaining is aligned with existing bargaining structures in employment bargaining.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022d7d9ac1429864a658ac556c91d42dfb5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d7d9ac1429864a658ac556c91d42dfb5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Right, just before I take the next call, I\u2019ve been watching this all morning. I note the observations and the comments by the previous Chair around the need for specific references to Amendment Papers and to sections. We\u2019ve pretty much covered the general tenor of the bill, so that\u2019s where the debate will need to continue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022 data-id=\u002234d5099cbebf40e28f687f931bbd6953\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002234d5099cbebf40e28f687f931bbd6953\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to take this call. I do have quite a few amendments that I haven\u2019t spoken to, and I will jump forward a little bit in the bill, which I\u2019m sure the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety will be pleased to hear. I\u2019ll also note that the Schedule is in Part 1, and the reason I mention that is that we\u2019ve recently just tabled a number of amendments relating to that Schedule that haven\u2019t been touched on at all, and they\u2019re relating to the specific claims. So I\u2019m sure the members who have those amendments in their name will wish to speak to that, so just flagging that once we go through the clauses, there are a number of amendments to that Schedule.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003ESo the first one that I wanted to raise with the Minister in the chair, Brooke van Velden\u2014and I might go through some of these amendments at pace, which I\u2019m sure you\u2019ll be pleased to hear, Mr Chair. So the first one I wanted to raise is an amendment that I had put forward around 13PA, that\u2019s in clause 20. This particular amendment looks at the requirement for the employer to give notice of their decisions to the union or the workers that are taking the claim. So, at the moment, the particular clause 13PA(2)(a) has 60 working days after the employer receives the pay equity claim. Now, I have suggested an amendment to reduce that to 20 days. The reason that I have done that is because I think 60 working days is a very long time for the employer to, effectively, give a decision. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EOf course, with these things, we know one of the legitimate criticisms of the system is the fact that it does take a long time. I think where there are efficiencies to be made, it should be in order to allow the claims to proceed as quickly as possible. That\u2019s why I have suggested that particular amendment, and I\u2019m interested to know from the Minister why 60 days was selected. I haven\u2019t actually had the time to check if that\u2019s the current number of days in the existing Act. Obviously, she\u2019s changing this and saying she wants to make it more effective. So why has she arrived at that particular day?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EBut I do think one of the things we can all agree on is that women should be a\u2014well, maybe we don\u2019t all agree on it. I think, in general, it is a difficult principle to disagree with, that women who are entitled to equal pay should have that as soon as possible. So I want to know from the Minister: does she accept my amendment? What was the reasoning for choosing that particular number of days?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EI also have an amendment, and I appreciate other members may have some other things that they wish to discuss in the intervening clauses, but the next one that I wanted to specifically raise was in relation to 13ZE, which is \u201CSelecting appropriate comparators\u201D. Now, we haven\u2019t specifically talked about this particular clause, although we have talked about the fact that one of the major policy changes in this bill is the way that the Minister has decided to change the way that comparators are selected. I believe that the substantive nature of that is in 13ZE, which has not been discussed in detail.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EThis is an incredibly detailed section\u2014or clause, as it is now\u2014and it, essentially, puts into practice what we have talked about: the policy intent of the hierarchy of comparators. I would like the Minister to reflect on\u2014she has said to us in her answer that the reason that she has decided that there is a good policy reason to make sure the comparator is closely connected to the claimant\u2019s employer is because that is more likely to determine sex-based discrimination. Now, I don\u2019t understand why that is. I don\u2019t understand why, when you\u2019re looking at undervaluation by society, the proximity to an employer is more likely to show sex-based discrimination. Because, of course, when we\u2019re talking about pay equity claims, which we are here, we are talking about the undervaluation of skills by society. This is not something like an equal pay claim where you may be looking at the exact actions of a particular employer. Often, there are reasons within the society that have led to the undervaluation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003ESo my suggestion is that you get rid of that particular clause. That was actually the main reason that there was a different bill that was brought in by Labour than the one suggested by National. So this is the significant clause. This is the reason that the legislation was substantively changed from what was suggested by the previous National Government. So I want to know why.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022 data-id=\u0022ecee0191fa134c7293912f96596affad\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ecee0191fa134c7293912f96596affad\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I want to take the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, please, to the Schedule and to clause 8 of the Schedule. I\u2019ve got a practical question that is concerning me at the moment, from the list that the Minister said to google yesterday\u2014and we got that list overnight and we\u2019ve got that in front of us now. My question is around the fact that on this list, it seems to clump some of the claims together. It clumps the teachers\u2019 claim together. I am presuming, when I add all of this up, that we get to the 33 by separating the teachers\u2019 claims.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003ENow, my question, and wondering here, goes back to clause 4 and the interaction between clause\u00A04 of Part 1 of the Schedule. In clause 4, it talks about raising that threshold to 70 percent. In the claims on the answer to the written questions that the Minister gave that she highlighted last night, in those teachers\u2019 claims it talks about the percentage of female teachers across all sectors as 82.4 percent. But when you break that down, the percentage of secondary teachers in State integrated schools sits at 63.6 percent. Considering that as a different teacher union, is the Minister then saying that secondary teachers, through their PPTA union, would not be able to put a pay equity claim in here because they are sitting under that 70 percent? If that is the case, does that not, then, create an unintended consequence of a differentiation that is going to be huge if the primary teachers and the early childhood teachers were successful in a pay equity claim\u2014that they would go well above the secondary teachers?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003ENow, I say that because the two collective agreements are inherently linked or legislatively linked through the pay parity agreement. While pay equity claims are not about the collective agreements, this is going to have a huge impact on the collective agreement and on the teaching profession as a whole.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003ESo my question is: are there two separate claims there, or is the Minister ensuring in that Schedule that those current claims that were in place that are getting dropped\u2014but knowing that they\u2019re going to come forward again\u2014that secondary teachers would be seen as part of teachers as a whole and would have that pathway to a pay equity process? If they don\u2019t, there is a huge, huge issue that is coming that Government\u2019s way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003ESo that is my question\u2014I want to leave it at that. I don\u2019t want to take up any further time, but I\u2019m really concerned about the unintended consequences going forward in that space.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u0022da1992d684e0456fa89063ee9d129fa3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022da1992d684e0456fa89063ee9d129fa3\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. Firstly to Deborah Russell, who asked about the tertiary education library assistants having a range across universities and does that mean if an employer opts out, some won\u2019t meet the 70\u00A0percent requirement? No, the 70 percent requirement does apply to the workforce; it doesn\u2019t apply to the workforce of a particular employer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve got a question from Helen White: what change is intended in clause 8? Under clause 8, the bill simply separates out the requirement to raise a claim, in order to be clear what claimants need to provide and what employers need to decide.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve got a tabled amendment which Camilla Belich discussed in new section 13PA inserted by clause 20 replacing \u201C60 working days\u201D with \u201C20 working days\u201D. That would not provide sufficient time to assess if claims are eligible to be raised and whether or not they have merit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EAnother question from Camilla Belich about why the bill introduces a hierarchy. Well, that\u2019s because, under the current Act, it doesn\u2019t provide enough rules on how to choose an appropriate comparator. The current process requires the parties to exercise a significant amount of judgment, which can lead to comparators being chosen even when the comparator\u2019s work is very different to the claimant. An example is that under our current system, we have fishery officers and corrections officers being used repeatedly in claims as varied as administrative and clerical staff, nurses, and school library staff.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EAnother question, then, in relation to Camilla\u2019s next tabled amendment to delete new section\u00A013ZE, essentially around the hierarchy of comparators\u2014I won\u2019t be doing that. I believe the hierarchy of comparators means that parties can choose comparators in closer proximity to the employee and that, in effect, reduces the level of judgment that\u2019s required to compare the complaint and the comparator\u2019s work and remuneration, which is better and makes our system more robust.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EI then had a question from Jan Tinetti about whether or not this change means that some teachers can\u2019t raise a claim as they may not reach a 70 percent requirement. Ultimately, it is up to unions to raise claims that meet the new thresholds and requirements.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022 data-id=\u0022e4e2795c88674a8eb6c9e060d271f034\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e4e2795c88674a8eb6c9e060d271f034\u0022\u003EHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you very much, Mr Chair. My question\u2014I\u2019ve been trying a while, Mr Chair, but thank you for choosing me\u2014is in relation to 13DA, under that. It goes into the point around, and it\u2019s under clause 10(4) of that section, the point that the pay equity claim may not be raised within 10 years after the date. My question on this is\u2014I have received advice that this may cause problems with our international obligations under CEDAW. So CEDAW is the Convention of Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which New Zealand signed up to in 1985. So we have obligations to regularly report on how we are complying with those conventions that we have signed up to. It is important to note that the purpose of the three principles in that convention, that UN convention that we have actually signed up to, is non-discrimination against women. But the second point is the State\u2019s obligation under that. So we have an international convention that we are party to and that we regularly report on that requires us to show the State\u2019s obligation to how we are complying with that agreement, and also to demonstrate how we are striving to promote equality for women and girls.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003EThe issue I have is that because there is no regulatory impact statement for this particular piece of legislation, and also for the fact that the Cabinet paper that we\u2019re able to see has had the human rights section completely withheld, that now we are receiving information that there is potentially a problem with what we\u2019ve signed up to under CEDAW with that particular provision. There are other provisions, too, that we are also concerned about, how that would cause problems for New Zealand internationally for the Convention of Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003EBut my question to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is, specifically: did she receive advice that we would be contravening our international obligations with that provision that \u201Ca pay equity claim may not be raised within 10 years after the date of a pay equity claim settlement if the claim would relate to any or all of the employees covered by the settlement and the work to which the settlement relates\u201D? So that is the particular point. There are others as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003EThe reason I raised this point is because it puts the ability to scrutinise these types of things, international obligations to prevent the discrimination of women and girls, that we potentially are contravening our UN obligations. We are unable to have a verified answer on this because there is no regulatory impact statement, and that part of the Cabinet paper has been withheld. I think it is important to highlight that if we look at that, it was April 2024 that this went to Cabinet\u2014April 2024. That is a year ago that this paper went to Cabinet. Subsequently, Cabinet committee signed off that Cabinet agreement on 24 December in December 2024.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003ESo why do we not\u2014not only the Opposition but members of the public\u2014have the ability to understand why that information is not being made available for us to fully comprehend whether we\u2019re complying with our international obligations for discrimination against women and girls? If this has been to Cabinet a year ago, and subsequently to Cabinet committee, there needs to be additional information provided to us in order to fully understand whether we are in fact complying with CEDAW. We need to be reporting on this annually, and there is some pretty strong advice coming into us that when we need to report back in 2025, we will not be complying with our obligations under a strong international convention that has been ratified since 1985. This is a long period of time. We need to have some clear answers from the Minister whether she\u2019s received advice on whether we have breached the ratification of that international agreement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022a14200ca475743d48aba0c49df0540dd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a14200ca475743d48aba0c49df0540dd\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019d just note at the moment that a lot of the questions are going on for the full five minutes. Under requirement\u2014or it\u2019s necessity now, to be a little bit more specific. I just will invite members to wonder whether they need to have quite as much context into those questions as they currently do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022 data-id=\u00229aca0904346748e89dc222ce317085cd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229aca0904346748e89dc222ce317085cd\u0022\u003ERACHEL BOYACK (Labour\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair\u2014I appreciate the opportunity to take a second call, and, as I did indicate in my earlier call, I do have a number of amendments and a number of questions. I will seek to keep my call concise and just stick to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003EI do note, just one important point is that we haven\u2019t had a select committee process, and so as we are going through this process and as the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety answers questions and as we obtain more documents, we do have more questions that come along. So that is one of the reasons why we are taking the time to ask this level of questions. We also didn\u2019t have a regulatory impact statement (RIS), and so there are a whole lot of questions that would normally be answered through a regulatory impact statement that we aren\u2019t able to find. So that means that, as we are going through this process, the Opposition is taking the level of time that we need. So I just want to make that point, because these are the kinds of questions we would normally have answered through a RIS, but also be able to engage with officials for, often, three or four hours every couple of weeks during a select committee process. This is what we have instead of that, so I just want to note that that\u2019s why we\u2019re going to prosecute this for a very long period of time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003EMy specific question is in relation to my tabled amendment to the Schedule. I\u2019ll just note that in the Schedule, paragraphs 8(1) and (2) around existing pay equity claims\u2014this is the piece in the Schedule that says that all existing pay equity claims are discontinued on the commencement date.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a2b1bf4f98eb48fa9a53f763a09d5be5\u0022\u003EHon Damien O\u2019Connor\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s just outrageous.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ce409d19601e4303b0f061012d4f4817\u0022\u003ERACHEL BOYACK\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah\u2014just reflecting on the comments from my colleague Damien O\u2019Connor, it is outrageous. The question I have for the Minister, just before I speak to my amendment, is: did she consider transition and savings clauses around this? Because to ultimately just cut off all of those claims that are in existence\u2014and for some of them they\u2019ll have to wait, and all them will have to start again and redo the whole process. First of all, did the Minister consider putting in place a transition plan for those 33 causes? Again, I come back to the fact there isn\u2019t a RIS. This is the type of information that would have been included in a RIS, but we don\u2019t have access to the Minister\u2019s advice that she received and the decision making around that, and I\u2019d like to know in detail whether she did consider a transition plan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003EThe second piece I just want to raise is to speak to my tabled amendment, which is actually to delete that part, which means that those claims would continue to be live. The view of the Labour Party is very clear: that all of those existing claims that are in the process now\u2014it is bad faith, it is not good faith, to just dismiss them immediately, and so we have an amendment in my name that would mean that that cancellation of those claims doesn\u2019t happen. Given how serious it is for hundreds of thousands of workers, will the Minister consider supporting that amendment?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u002226eb2c9f07c14838abb073de53540dbc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002226eb2c9f07c14838abb073de53540dbc\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I will respond to the question by Ginny Andersen, asking about whether or not this bill will comply with international obligations, and questions around the date this went through Cabinet. The Government has a range of international obligations, and the Government took these obligations into account in its decision making. I can assure the member that Cabinet made these policy decisions in March of this year.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EIn relation to Rachel Boyack\u2019s questions about her tabled amendment, the Government will not be supporting this paper. I deem it necessary for the claims to be going through the same system, as it will be messier having two different systems set up at the same time for claims to be reviewed underneath that. That\u2019s why the Government has moved to draw a distinct line in the sand and have all claims go through one process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022 data-id=\u0022b98ed005a2a34ab1b4d53914d11bf608\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b98ed005a2a34ab1b4d53914d11bf608\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to move on and ask the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety some specific questions around clause 29, replacing sections 13ZD and 13ZE. I think the first question I have is around section 13ZD(3), around making these sorts of assessments. Specifically I want to check with the Minister in terms of understanding new subsection (3)(b) and the term \u201Crecognise\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003ENow, in new subsection (3)(a), it used the term \u201Cconsider\u201D, but (3)(b) just says \u201Crecognise\u201D. One of the issues that we have when we\u2019re looking at the way that the assessments are made\u2014because, again, it says in (3)(a) \u201C[considered] matters objectively and without assumptions based on sex, taking the following into account:\u201D, but often we do find that in the type of work that we\u2019re talking about, it is as expressed in (3)(b); they\u2019re commonly overlooked or undervalued in work that is performed by our workforce, such as social and communication skills.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EMy concern is that \u201Crecognise\u201D just means \u201COh, we know it\u2019s there.\u201D, but it may not necessarily mean considering them in making an assessment. Can I just check that, even though the term is \u201Crecognise\u201D, when making the assessment the parties to a pay equity claim still need to take seriously the importance of skills, responsibility, efforts, and conditions that have been commonly overlooked and undervalued. That\u2019s my first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003ENow, in terms of section 13ZE, I thank the Minister for her response on the matter of selection and hierarchy. But one of the questions I have is around the fact that in section 13ZE(8), what we are seeing is the tie-in to section 19 of the existing legislation, which is what the current legislation states, which talks about the way the regulations are made. I just want to check: just because it doesn\u2019t refer to section 19 when it says \u201Cprescribed by regulations\u201D, as prescribed by section 19, that it\u2019s still the intention that we\u2019re talking about the definition of regulations under section 19. So that\u2019s my second question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EMy third question is around section 13ZEA(1), \u201CEmployer decides no appropriate comparators available\u201D. Now, we have heard, before, the explanation from the Minister on comparators, but I wanted to check\u2014because it says \u201CIf the employer decides that no appropriate comparators are available\u201D, they can just, essentially, stop the claim from there. It seems like it\u2019s not a consideration that is being made by both parties. In that case, when it\u2019s just the employer who determines that there\u2019s no appropriate comparator available, how would the employer make those kinds of decisions, and does it need to be based on evidence? Because it\u2019s not specified in this section. Can I just check that the only recourse for the claimant in that case is laid out in section 13ZEA, where the only way for the claimant to move this forward is by applying to the authority for the determination of that decision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003ESo those are, I guess, four questions that I have. The first one is around the definition of the term \u201Crecognise\u201D in section 13ZD(3)(b), and whether \u201Crecognise\u201D has the same meaning as \u201Cconsider\u201D, and, if not, what are the mechanisms needed for it to be considered seriously. My second question is around consistency of section 13ZE(8)\u2014whether the regulations there will still be consistent with the existing section 19 of the Act. My third and fourth questions are around section 13ZEA on whether the employer has the sole mandate or determination to decide if there is an appropriate comparator and, if it is, is the only recourse for the claimant in that case to apply to the authority.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229c069cdb-968c-4f11-b126-92f9c655148b\u0022 data-id=\u0022ac21e0c31c2441dea19f685984d9d58c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c069cdb-968c-4f11-b126-92f9c655148b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ac21e0c31c2441dea19f685984d9d58c\u0022\u003ESHANAN HALBERT (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair, and I appreciate the call this morning. This is my first opportunity to speak on this legislation. Can I just open by saying shame on those men in the National Party that are standing to put a closure motion forward to an equity claim that affects women the most. But, Mr Chair, I\u2019ll get on with it. I appreciate that opportunity just to acknowledge that and to speak to my amendment to the Equal Pay Amendment Bill\u2014the amendment here to the Schedule: new clause 8(5). That amendment is that none of the provisions in the Schedule affect the existing claim by tertiary education, administration, and clerical workers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c069cdb-968c-4f11-b126-92f9c655148b\u0022\u003EOf course, I started my career in this particular area, at the University of Auckland, and have actively supported kaimahi and workers in this particular place. The Tertiary Education Union has been working through what has been a very slow process of a pay equity claim for administrators and clerical workers, and we have had the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety respond to the library staff. Can I just note in the Hansard record that most library staff actually have Master\u2019s degrees as a requirement of their job. This is why we use different comparators, because there are few sectors that have the same requirement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c069cdb-968c-4f11-b126-92f9c655148b\u0022\u003EThis particular amendment is because the group of workers for whom, in this instance, this is considered feminised work\u2014for the administrators and clerical workers\u2014also has the highest percentage of women workers here. We know that the role that they play is important. I think of student support workers, who have an administrative function in their role; they are affected in these particular areas, across the eight universities in this country. It has been a large topic of discussion at Waipapa Taumata Rau - University of Auckland. This would, effectively, halt that. Given the reaction in the last 24 hours on this, I really would appreciate the Minister considering my amendment that would, effectively, remove this from the legislation that she has put forward, giving administration and clerical workers a chance to negotiate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c069cdb-968c-4f11-b126-92f9c655148b\u0022\u003ESecond to that, on a new subject area, I do acknowledge that, in this legislation, the ministry does refer particularly to the term \u201Csex\u201D rather than \u201Cgender\u201D, and I\u2019d appreciate if the Minister could speak to that and the reason why she has used that language rather than \u201Cgender\u201D, because, obviously, this does affect a number of our rainbow communities as well, working in and being represented in these claims.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c069cdb-968c-4f11-b126-92f9c655148b\u0022\u003EMy last point there, going back to my amendment, is that a lot of the workers in this area not only are women but also play a functional role in supporting M\u0101ori and Pasifika. While this isn\u2019t a priority for the ACT Party, I do expect the Minister to be able to play a role in ensuring that this work is continued and that we have a workforce that is able to play the role that we need them to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c069cdb-968c-4f11-b126-92f9c655148b\u0022\u003EMinister, those three things\u2014I would appreciate it if you would consider my amendment. I would appreciate it if you could put an explanation forward for the language used, around \u201Csex\u201D versus \u201Cgender\u201D. We do appreciate more inclusive language in this House and in legislation and, largely, the impact on rainbow, M\u0101ori, and Pasifika communities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u0022a88991837f4f4f2c80fee121e4a04a69\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a88991837f4f4f2c80fee121e4a04a69\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wish to respond to a couple of the questions, especially in relation to Lawrence Xu-Nan. We\u2019ve had a question in relation to clause 13ZE(8) which is still tied to section 19 and regulations. Yes, this is the case. \u201CPrescribed\u201D under section 13ZE(8) means prescribed by regulations as in section 19. This is also a provision that hasn\u2019t changed from the original Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EThe next question is about clause 13ZD, which is a change in language from \u201Crecognise\u201D to \u201Cconsider\u201D and does that mean that these factors won\u2019t get the same consideration. These matters will still need to be taken into consideration in the assessment process. This is not a substantive change to the Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EThere was a question in relation to 13ZEA: does the employer have a sole mandate to decide on the appropriate comparator? As is the case currently, parties can identify and select appropriate comparators for the assessment process. If they disagree, then they can work together to resolve the dispute, if needed, by mediation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EI then move to Shanan Halbert, asking for a claim carve-out in his tabled amendment. No, the Government will not be considering that. We\u2019ve made it very clear that this is about getting the legislative framework correct. It is not about any one particular single claim.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EThere is also a question there in relation to why we have used the words \u201Csex-based\u201D discrimination, not \u201Cgender-based\u201D discrimination. I just want to make it clear that this is not something that this Government has chosen. That was the language that was used by the Labour Government when it passed the legislation. So that question is possibly better asked of the Labour Government that put it in place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f7fc7ac3-5ce1-43ca-8cd6-dbb0941bf3ae\u0022 data-id=\u00229441d85d5750489e8f167e046904e21a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f7fc7ac3-5ce1-43ca-8cd6-dbb0941bf3ae\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229441d85d5750489e8f167e046904e21a\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. There are just two things I wanted to talk about. One related to comments made by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety around comparators. We know that new section 13ZE in clause 29 is adjusting the framing of the comparators, and there\u2019s a concern that there\u2019s a narrowing of the ability to compare across industries. The Minister has made some comments sort of suggesting\u2014or I think they were\u2014that air traffic controllers were more deserving of their higher pay than, say, social workers, and that no comparison could be made across them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f7fc7ac3-5ce1-43ca-8cd6-dbb0941bf3ae\u0022\u003EI did just want to point out that this is a really good example of exactly where the problem lies, because, in fact, if you look at the careers.govt.nz website, there\u2019s actually a useful framing of the qualifications needed for various roles and what the pay expectations might be. Whereas social workers are required to be a registered social worker under the current regime, which requires a professional Bachelor\u2019s degree, which I understand is actually four years in social work, for an air traffic controller it may require\u2014so it\u2019s not even compulsory, but it \u201Cmay\u201D require\u2014a level 6 qualification. The pay indications are $52,000 to $92,000 for a social worker, and if you go over to an air traffic controller, it is, in fact, $140,000 to $228,000 for an occupation which doesn\u2019t actually require\u2014although some of them will have it\u2014a degree-level qualification. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f7fc7ac3-5ce1-43ca-8cd6-dbb0941bf3ae\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s the example the Minister used to suggest that those disparities are in some way justifiable, and, to be perfectly honest, it beggars belief that she could think that, where there are clear comparators where you can say, \u201CThere\u2019s a mismatch here and something needs to be addressed.\u201D So that\u2019s my first point. I\u2019d appreciate it if the Minister could address that point, because it is her own point. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f7fc7ac3-5ce1-43ca-8cd6-dbb0941bf3ae\u0022\u003EThe second point relates to clause 30 of the bill and the amendments to section 13ZH, which is around how pay equity claims are settled. Now, the whole concept of a pay equity claim is that there has been an unjustifiable underpayment in the subject profession across many years. Some members of the Government say that this isn\u2019t about the money, and other members of the Government say that it is and they frame it as sustainability. But I\u2019m interested in this idea that you can phase in fair pay or equitable pay, and I want to know: if we have reached a conclusion that in these women-dominated sectors, these women are being underpaid as a matter of fact and law, then how is it justifiable to defer fixing the problem? How is it possible? How can it be justified to say in the clauses that the parties can agree or the authority can determine that there is a pay equity settlement in agreed phases over a maximum of three years, or that there are three annual phases in equal amounts, if it\u2019s a determination\u2014as I understand it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f7fc7ac3-5ce1-43ca-8cd6-dbb0941bf3ae\u0022\u003ESo what we\u2019ve got is that we are, essentially, saying to these underpaid women, \u201CYes, you\u2019re underpaid. We\u2019ve gone through a long and arduous process to reach that conclusion, but we\u2019ll let you get your appropriate pay\u2014your pay which is equivalent to your male counterparts in the male-dominated industries\u2014not today, not tomorrow, not this year, not next year, but the year after that.\u201D Can you, Minister, tell the underpaid women of New Zealand how it is appropriate or fair or good government or inconsistent with your party\u2019s claimed equal rights framework to underpay women knowingly for three years after they have reached their equity claim? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221cd33f16-add4-4363-a2d4-f457841a5c4c\u0022 data-id=\u00223ac8d02719da41c4863b6132cdccadf2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221cd33f16-add4-4363-a2d4-f457841a5c4c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223ac8d02719da41c4863b6132cdccadf2\u0022\u003EGLEN BENNETT (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I have a really short question for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety on clause 20, \u201CNew sections 13PA and 13PB inserted\u201D. Before section 13Q, there is now section 13PA , \u201CTime limit for employer\u2019s decision about pay equity claim\u201D. Now, my question is just around language. Can I just ask the Minister this question. It says here in section 13PA that \u201C(1) An employer who receives a pay equity claim must, as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving it,\u2014\u201D. Now, is this traditional language in the crafting of legislation, because my question really is: what is reasonably practicable?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221cd33f16-add4-4363-a2d4-f457841a5c4c\u0022\u003EThe second thing is that in subsection (1)(b) it talks about equity claims that have merit. Now, in terms of the definition of \u201Cmerit\u201D\u2014again, just on language for the committee\u2014is that traditionally how it\u2019s done? So subsection (1)(b) talks about the pay equity claim having merit. What actually defines \u201Cmerit\u201D in legislation? Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022d7a453b6726547648aa3a5fb0ceb3c60\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d7a453b6726547648aa3a5fb0ceb3c60\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: I must say to members that a new member bringing a point up doesn\u2019t mean that it\u2019s a new point. There has been quite a number of Amendment Papers that have landed here, which I\u2019m working through, and I would expect that most of the contributions from here on in would be at least referencing those Amendment Papers. At this stage, it\u2019s hard to see many points that haven\u2019t been raised already. With that, I call Camilla Belich.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022 data-id=\u00223842ca29a1bb45939771e153285514b4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223842ca29a1bb45939771e153285514b4\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I have here two points that haven\u2019t been raised, relating to my amendments, and close but not exactly beside the preceding section to the one that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan was talking about, and it\u2019s 13ZE(6), (7). Now, this particular section, essentially, says that the parties may not select a comparator if a workforce is too small to allow a meaningful comparison between its work and the work to which the claim relates, which I don\u2019t believe we\u2019ve touched on at all. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003ESo this amendment which I have put forward would change that section, delete the current section, and insert that \u201CParties may select an appropriate comparator if that workforce is large or small providing there is an evidential basis to do so.\u201D Now, the reason that I suggested that amendment is I think that if there is an evidential basis which is arguable\u2014even with a small number of employees\u2014then you should be able to make that argument.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EEssentially, it\u2019s giving people who would utilise this Act more tools to be able to make solid arguments. Of course, if it\u2019s so small that you wouldn\u2019t be able to have any evidential basis to utilise then, of course, it\u2019s not appropriate that it should be used. But this particular amendment would give those utilising the Act a much greater ability to be able to argue if there was a case for that. Also, I see that there are inherent problems and I know that a lot of this has been taken from the existing Act but we\u2019re looking at a new Act. Of course, I would expect the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety to consider the Act and how it could be improved upon, and when you\u2019re looking at large or small workforces, there is not a lot of detail on that. We know that every aspect of these can be litigated so some clarity around that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EI think my amendment is preferable to what is put in the bill, in terms of making the decision based on evidence rather than on what\u2019s small, what\u2019s large. So that\u2019s my first amendment, which is a point which I don\u2019t think has been made at all\u2014I\u2019d like to hear the Minister\u2019s response to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EThe second thing that I want to raise is in relation to clause 31 and that replaces section\u00A013ZH(1)(b)(ii) with what is written in that particular clause, and, essentially, that states that the maximum period that an equal pay claim can provide incremental instalments is to a maximum of three years. I have a question in relation to this. The Minister has, on many occasions in this bill, put in 10 years as a time limitation for when claims cannot be brought. So, for example, because of this legislation\u2014we\u2019ve talked about this particular point\u2014you are unable to, if you\u2019ve got a settled claim, bring another claim for 10 years. Now, it appears to me from this section that you are only able to utilise the agreed phases over a maximum of three years. I don\u2019t understand why that is and I would like the Minister to explain why three years is a maximum period where you\u2019re allowed a phased settlement, but 10 years is the time before you can bring a claim. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003ESurely there should be consistency with these and you should be able to bring phased payments up to the 10-year limit if that\u2019s what you agree, and this is all available to the parties to agree if they want to, that means you go into an equal pay claim, you settle the claim, you have agreed instalments up to 10 years\u2014if you want to, if that\u2019s appropriate for your workforce\u2014and then at the 10-year point, you are then able to raise a new claim, if that\u2019s not appropriate. Why is the maximum period so low? I don\u2019t believe that\u2019s been addressed at all. I\u2019d be really interested to hear the Minister\u2019s response to that in relation to consistency, and it just seems fair and logical to be able to do that. So an answer to that would be\u2014[Time expired]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u0022d6d0eee1de584152abef9ff444b6e584\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d6d0eee1de584152abef9ff444b6e584\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019d like to firstly start by responding to Dr Duncan Webb when he was talking about comparisons between different people, the claimants and the people they\u2019re being compared to. The example I think he used was the air traffic controllers versus the social workers. He attempted to suggest that I was suggesting they were more deserving than others, and it is not what I\u2019m suggesting at all. I don\u2019t believe anybody is more deserving of their pay under this system. This is about sex-based discrimination. It is not about my individual judgment\u2014that is for the legislation and for people to have these.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EWhen it comes to people\u2019s specific educational levels, it\u2019s far from me to suggest that because people have specific educational levels, that means that they\u2019re more deserving of pay. In fact, some of the smartest people I know have never been to university and they are phenomenal New Zealanders. So in no way am I saying that they are more deserving. What we\u2019re simply doing by making the hierarchy of comparators in different sectors is to suggest that there are many and varied different working conditions and terms and conditions, and it makes determining how much of the difference in remuneration is down to sex-based undervaluation easier under our rules than the previous regime.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EHe\u2019s also asked how it is justifiable to defer fixing the problem by phasing. This is to do with the three-year instalments. We\u2019ve decided on this as a Government because this change to the legislation allows employers to better mitigate any potential negative impacts such as on employment, which should benefit all parties. In essence, money doesn\u2019t grow on trees. If there is a settlement\u2014and we know in the past that the settlements have been extremely large in financial terms\u2014that money actually needs to come from somewhere, and so having phased instalments over three years allows for those mitigations to be reduced. In some ways that goes to answer the question from Camilla Belich. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EIn terms of Glen Bennett\u2019s question on what defines merit, that\u2019s something that I\u2019ve outlined numerous times. Glen Bennett also asked what \u201Cas soon as reasonably practicable\u201D is under new sections 13PA and 13PB inserted by clause 20. That is language that is the same as in the original Act. That hasn\u2019t changed. It depends on the circumstances, and it\u2019s also a term commonly used in legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich also asked about her tabled amendment to, essentially, remove the exclusion on very, very small workforces. The reason that we have decided on this as a Government is that workforces need to be large enough to ensure that any differences in remuneration are not based on differences of individual workers, but it is actually due to workforce.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022 data-id=\u0022df40f000bb964336bd99824fe57ba73d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022df40f000bb964336bd99824fe57ba73d\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019ve been standing to get a call as a follow-up to an answer that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety gave quite some time ago to my question around the teachers\u2014and thank you, Minister, for answering the question at that time. This is a very quick follow-up question. It is around the fact that when that question was answered, the answer was given that teachers can bring their claim. I still didn\u2019t get clarity around whether teachers could be seen as a whole, as a profession, or whether they would be coming as primary teachers, early childhood teachers, secondary teachers, because, as I\u2019ve said, you\u2019re talking about two very distinct groups.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003ENow, the Minister talked about, in one of the answers, this being around getting the framework right. But I don\u2019t believe that the framework can be correct in any which way if these answers aren\u2019t given. Therefore, I point to my colleague Camilla Belich\u2019s schedule of tabled amendments\u2014and I thank her for putting that forward\u2014to the Schedule in clause 8, to have a carve-out for teachers, because I cannot see that we can get this right unless we have absolute definitive knowledge that one lot of teachers is not going to assert itself over another group. So I\u2019d really appreciate an answer to that, and, as I said, it was a very quick contribution.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f7fc7ac3-5ce1-43ca-8cd6-dbb0941bf3ae\u0022 data-id=\u0022bbc54569b8e743f4a1ee4f41ce71cb3b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f7fc7ac3-5ce1-43ca-8cd6-dbb0941bf3ae\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bbc54569b8e743f4a1ee4f41ce71cb3b\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. This is, again, a very short contribution, and it\u2019s around the freedom of contracts. In section 30 of the Act, which amends section 13ZH, it inserts clause (2A), which states: \u201CThe parties may not agree to review, or agree on a process for the review of, a pay equity claims settlement.\u201D It\u2019s just perplexing to me, if two parties who are well advised want to put in a settlement agreement, a process to check up on that later on, why the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is actually intervening in that freely negotiated arrangement and telling them that they can\u2019t.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f7fc7ac3-5ce1-43ca-8cd6-dbb0941bf3ae\u0022\u003EIt would strike me that that\u2019s a real fetter on the free rights and exchange of private property rights, which is often dear to the Minister\u2019s heart. So what is the reason for a fetter on freedom of contract to stop the parties reviewing, should they so choose?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022 data-id=\u0022e76b07bf7bc340d189adac539d69196e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e76b07bf7bc340d189adac539d69196e\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green\u2014Rongotai):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koe. Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to ask a specific question about clause 47 which amends section 19, related to regulations, and it\u2019s very, very broad. It says, \u201CThe Governor-General may, by Order in Council, make regulations for either or both of the following purposes: (a) providing for anything this Act says may or must be provided for by regulations: (b) providing for anything incidental that is necessary for carrying out, or giving full effect to, this Act.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EReally, what I wanted to know from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is whether, after this legislation passes, there will be substantial, new, prescriptive regulations put in place to specify what evidence can be used to determine whether a claim has merit or not, or whether the legislation, as drafted, does that? Because I noticed in the Cabinet paper it does say that there is going to be a regulations-making power that will enable the Government to specify what can be used as evidence. Given that there is no select committee process for us to discuss the merits of different evidence, is it the Government\u2019s intention to introduce regulations specifying what can be considered evidence, and, if so, what process will the Government use? Who will the Government consult with on that? What can the Minister tell us about that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EI also have a question that is more broad but it hasn\u2019t been raised yet, and that is: to what extent was the Minister for Women involved in this legislation? Because when I was Minister for Women when the legislation passed in 2020, I worked hand-in-hand with the workplace relations and safety Minister\u2014and, in fact, I was the Minister who oversaw the committee stages and the third reading of the bill, which is now an Act. So I was extremely involved and I just wanted to know because there\u2019s no indication in any of the Cabinet papers of the Minister for Women, Nicola Grigg, being involved in the development of this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EIn the Cabinet paper, the human rights implications of the legislation are completely redacted, so we cannot see that. So I just want to know from a Government process point of view\u2014because this legislation is not being subjected to the same process and scrutiny that was applied to the legislation that was passed in 2020. It\u2019s being passed in two days. Parliament can\u2019t see what the human rights implications advice was that was provided to Cabinet, and there\u2019s no indication that the Minister for Women was involved in this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EI\u2019m interested in getting answers to those questions, but particularly about clause 47, the new regulations-making power. What are the Government\u2019s intentions around regulations specific to evidence and what is the process they will use to consult? Who will they consult with? What is our expectation about what requirements are going to be put in place for regulations that will have a substantive impact on whether a workforce or a union representing a workforce that is predominantly female\u2014what barriers and hoops they\u2019re going to have to jump through to be able to seek just pay?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022 data-id=\u0022ae390b369c04454e95bcd9f44512a311\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ae390b369c04454e95bcd9f44512a311\u0022\u003EHon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Kia ora. Thank you, Madam Chair, for this call, my first call on this. I was hoping to have the other Minister there, but I see Minister Seymour in there, so it\u2019s probably appropriate to ask him if he\u2019d like to elaborate on what he said yesterday in terms of saving the Government. I\u2019m sure we\u2019re all very interested to hear that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003EI will come to this amendment very shortly, but it was an interesting k\u014Drero from that Minister yesterday. Just as an aside\u2014and, as I said, I\u2019ll come to this amendment shortly\u2014I ran into Ali Mau this morning, who\u2019s a very famous broadcaster, who talked about this kaupapa. When she took over Mike Hosking\u2019s position, she said she was happy to take Mike Hosking\u2019s position as long as she got Mike Hosking\u2019s pay, and, of course that wasn\u2019t forthcoming, so I thought I\u2019d just put that as an aside and come to the amendment that we\u2019re talking about today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003EWe\u2019re talking about clause 8 and we want a new subclause (5) put in. We want to insert that none of the provisions in the schedule affect the existing claim by the Public Service administration and clerical workers\u2019 claim. I think it\u2019s a very fair claim to put forward. I was part of the equal pay for work of equal value campaign back in 1986, believe it or not, so we\u2019re talking nearly 40 years ago. That was driven by my uncle Syd Jackson and it was a claim that has resonated through the years. Camilla Belich will know; her auntie was involved with that claim.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003EI would like to ask the Minister in the chair: what are the chances of this being retained, given this is an intergenerational claim in terms of equal work for equal value? What does that mean to the Minister going forward? Is there still a possibility of this claim being retained, given the history, given the tradition, given what it meant in terms of particularly the New Zealand Clerical Workers\u2019 Union at the time, as I said, driven by Syd Jackson? Tau Henare and myself were part of the claim. So it wasn\u2019t just about a M\u0101ori claim; it was a claim in terms of equity for all workers across the spectrum\u2014incredibly important. That was driven by the New Zealand Clerical Workers\u2019 Union but taken up by other unions through the years and treated as incredibly serious by us as a Labour Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003EI also asked the Minister in the chair today: was there any consultation across the different ministries, particularly if we look in terms of M\u0101ori workers and M\u0101ori female workers, the way that they have been discriminated against over the years? Was there any k\u014Drero in that area with the Minister for M\u0101ori Development, Tama Potaka? Was he brought into the equation? Where did this come from? Was it just driven in terms of the Budget, as Minister Seymour has said yesterday? He saved this Government\u2014ACT to the rescue again for this Government. Was that what it\u2019s really about, or is this really about equity and fairness? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003EThis claim in terms of none of the provisions in the schedule affecting the existing claim by the Public Service administration and clerical workers is, as I said, an incredibly important claim given the tradition, given the prejudice against workers. Here we had women doing incredibly important work at an administrative level but not receiving the status or the mana or the type of wage that they should be getting. That\u2019s a claim that was put on the table in 1986; it has gone through the years, and now it\u2019s being wiped off. Now, I ask the Minister in the chair today: is that something that could be re-examined and what sort of process did the Government go down in examining what was happening across society? Was there consultation with other Ministers? Thank you, Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u002270a8aadf1b28497d817d9abe41fc8bb7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002270a8aadf1b28497d817d9abe41fc8bb7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Can I just say, I\u2019m not ready to take a closure motion, but the Opposition has been advised by former presiding officers in the chair that the conversation now needs to be quite targeted. Please refer to the Amendment Papers and specific topics that haven\u2019t yet been covered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022 data-id=\u002258cb4f50546d4fb0a97e688bcdae4d22\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002258cb4f50546d4fb0a97e688bcdae4d22\u0022\u003EHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I\u2019d like to speak to an amendment that is there, in relation to the Schedule and the particular claims that will be impacted by this\u2014the 33 claims. My amendment seeks to take a look particularly at corrections probation officer and senior practitioners. That is a claim that is on the 33 claims that will be wiped out by this legislation and that comes under the Public Service sector.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003EMy point is that, in the corrections probation officer and senior practitioner claim, that particular proportion of the workforce is 68 percent female, as of 30 June 2020, which is the last information we have. Under the previous legislation, which this is taking away, the threshold was that the sector needed to be 60 percent represented by female, and the amendments in this legislation before us today increase that threshold to 70 percent. So, effectively, what that does is remove the ability for corrections probation officers and senior practitioners to be able to bring a claim, because they are only at 68 percent female.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003EMy amendment would seek to make an exception for that in particular. There is a fair argument\u2014they are only 2 percent short of the requirement\u2014and it seems to be an arbitrary and unfair ability for a part of our workforce that is 68 percent female and, under this legislation, is now unable to bring a claim under pay equity ever, ever. Not only they\u2019re not even in the sector, because they don\u2019t reach that threshold, they\u2019re not actually able to proceed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003EI would be very interested to hear from the Minister in the chair whether it\u2019s some of those calculations that will be saving this Government billions of dollars and whether it\u2019s some of those calculations that will be, in fact, saving this Government\u2019s Budget billions. Is it, in fact, corrections and probation officers and senior practitioners\u2014who form 68 percent of the workforce\u2014who will not ever be eligible to get fair pay as a result of this legislation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022aed260be-c954-464b-bb75-85579e53d05a\u0022 data-id=\u00224b2d45439de2440099e182b400049bb8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aed260be-c954-464b-bb75-85579e53d05a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224b2d45439de2440099e182b400049bb8\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair, and I heed your earlier message. I want to make this contribution relevant to the Schedule, clause 10, review clauses, and I intend to discuss them with respect to groups that I know have not formed part of this debate already.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aed260be-c954-464b-bb75-85579e53d05a\u0022\u003EThe review clauses, it appears, extinguish the ability of workers with current already accepted pay equity claims to have their situation reviewed under this Act and a reassessment of, essentially, whether or not their pay has kept up its relativity. So what I want to understand from the Minister in the chair is: when Cabinet deliberated on this bill, how did they weigh the matter of, as the Minister has mentioned, saving the Government\u2019s Budget against the rights of the women who were part of this agreement, and those rights that are now being extinguished?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aed260be-c954-464b-bb75-85579e53d05a\u0022\u003EI want to speak particularly about the nurses and midwives who have reached pay equity agreements with the Government\u2014tens of thousands of them made a decision to make a deal with the Government about fair pay. They are women who made a decision to agree to a settlement with the Government where they weighed the impact on their future earnings, their ability to provide for their families, their ability to continue in their job as adults. That was their decision they took. They made a decision with the Government that, \u201CYes, we accept your offer, but if something changes in the future, if you pay this other group more who do similar work to us, we have an avenue to come back to you and renegotiate.\u201D The decision the Government made with them is being broken. That agreement is broken by this bill. So how did Cabinet weigh the impact on their rights, on the rights of women, to make economic decisions concerning themselves and their income for their families, against their efforts to balance the budget?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aed260be-c954-464b-bb75-85579e53d05a\u0022\u003EI know that certain members of the Government think that they take individual liberty seriously. Well, I can\u2019t think of something more serious for working women than the ability to make these decisions about your pay, rights that are being extinguished in this bill. I\u2019ve been seeking this call for some time, and while I\u2019ve been seated here, I\u2019ve been thinking about women\u2019s rights in New Zealand over the time that I can remember, in my living memory. I cannot think of a backwards step as big as this when it comes to the legal rights of women to pursue getting an income that they deserve in the workplace. That\u2019s why this bill, being pursued under urgency, without information on its human rights impact, without a regulatory impact statement, matters so much. That is why it is such bad progress, because women\u2019s rights are going backwards under this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aed260be-c954-464b-bb75-85579e53d05a\u0022\u003EWe have no information from the Attorney-General to know how those women\u2019s rights were held in the balance by this Government, because it seems to me that without that information, it would be very reasonable to conclude that Cabinet paid no attention to women\u2019s rights, that they just thought, \u201CWell, the Budget and the ability to balance a Budget, and the ability to pay for our unaffordable tax cuts, and the ability to pay a tax cut to tobacco companies.\u201D\u2014all of those considerations seem to be prioritised over the rights of women.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aed260be-c954-464b-bb75-85579e53d05a\u0022\u003ESo my question is: how did Cabinet consider the rights of women and the agreements we made with adult women, as Government, to enter into pay equity settlements, and why are their rights now being extinguished?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220515437e88144704970f3aef9382517b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I just want to take this opportunity to remind, again, that the views of the Opposition towards this bill have been well canvassed over the past few hours. Can we please contain the conversation to the amendments and the detail in the bill. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261725fea-7d5e-4d1f-8fd3-e5779bb7a14d\u0022 data-id=\u00220931ecdd494c402587c2447f48b5fcbc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261725fea-7d5e-4d1f-8fd3-e5779bb7a14d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220931ecdd494c402587c2447f48b5fcbc\u0022\u003EHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour\u2014Mana):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. The actual clause that I want the Minister in the chair to be able to\u2014and it may be something he might need to talk to his officials about, is the same clause that the Hon Julie Anne Genter looked at, which is clause 47 around the section 19 amendments. The reason why I think the Minister should talk to his officials about it is because it\u2019s potentially a drafting error. I will step through why clarity from the Minister is incredibly important, because this is a regulation-making power. It\u2019s a regulation-making power and primary legislation which a future Government\u2014a future Government such as a Labour Government\u2014may, within their powers as the executive, recommend to the Governor-General some changes. So I just need to understand from the Minister the parameters of those changes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261725fea-7d5e-4d1f-8fd3-e5779bb7a14d\u0022\u003ESo, if I step through this, clause 47 replaces section 19(1) and 19(1A) with the now amended clause 47. Now, amended clause 47\u2014so section 19, the new section 19(1)(b)\u2014has a very broad regulation-making power that is very different to the section 19 currently, which is what this section is replacing. So new section 19(1)(b) says: \u201Cproviding for anything incidental that is necessary for carrying out, or giving full effect\u201D\u2014that is the key part\u2014\u201Cfull effect to, this Act.\u201D Now, if you go back through the legislation and the history of that regulation-making power, you look currently\u2014section 19 of the Equal Pay Act 1972; now, that section was amended by the Secondary Legislation Act 2021, which was also amended by section 34 of the Statutes Amendment Act 2022. It was also amended by section 19 through the 2020 bill. At three different stages of that bill, that particular section was changed, but at every single one of those five changes it did not open up that section 19(1)(b) to anything giving full effect to this Act. The changes in that subsection were very narrow to prescribing matters that must be taken into account when identifying comparable work under section 13ZE.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261725fea-7d5e-4d1f-8fd3-e5779bb7a14d\u0022\u003ENow, there are amendments to section 13ZE underneath this particular bill, but the question that we need clarity from the Minister on, and I think it\u2019s important that he clarifies it, given the legislative history of this particular clause in the section within the Act, again, having been changed five times through different bills. This particular bill, if it is passed, will create the new regulation-making power to provide for anything\u2014anything\u2014incidental that is necessary for carrying out and giving full effect to the Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261725fea-7d5e-4d1f-8fd3-e5779bb7a14d\u0022\u003EThat is very different from the legislative history of that section, which is just narrowed to identifying comparable work on a particular section. So I think it is important to the Minister to clarify either with his officials or to the House, given we are coming under urgency, we have not had time to scrutinise the bill through a select committee process. We could have had other public lawyers, constitutional lawyers who may have picked that up, but I think it\u2019s just important that we have some clarity and some comments in the Chamber so that in future years, if this goes through as I currently interpret it, it means that any future executive can make a regulation, make a secondary piece of legislation only going through the executive through a recommendation to the Governor-General.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261725fea-7d5e-4d1f-8fd3-e5779bb7a14d\u0022\u003EThat is a very different position than what has historically been through that particular section for the Equal Pay Act 72, again, changed five times\u2014three times in 2020, twice by the Statute Amendments Bill. But here we have this bill, which has now widened up that regulation power. So if I\u2019m interpreting it wrong, that\u2019s fine. But I think the Minister should provide a response to that, and to the questions of Julie Anne Genter, because that will provide context for future lawmakers or future lawyers who have to look at this and may be able to take a judicial review of any of the points brought up here, because it\u2019s \u201Canything\u201D in the Act, not just \u201Ccomparable work\u201D. So I think that\u2019s an important point which I would like to see some clarity from the Minister, please.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022 data-id=\u0022ebe3d351e78140288b78b749f542c35a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ebe3d351e78140288b78b749f542c35a\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin):\u003C/span\u003E Oh! Thank you, Madam Chair. That was a very excited \u201COh\u201D, wasn\u2019t it? It was good to hear from my colleague the Hon Barbara Edmonds asking the Minister for some responses, because, of course, this goes on the Hansard, and we are in urgency and the bill has not been to select committee. So it would be very useful to hear David Seymour, the Minister who is currently in the chair, answer some of the questions that are being put to him. It was a very sensible, technical question from the Hon Barbara Edmonds, and it will be useful for future people who have to look at this horrible piece of legislation to know exactly what it was that the Minister was thinking about in terms of those technical aspects.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EThe Hon Barbara Edmonds referred to the Hon Julie Anne Genter\u2019s questions as well, and she asked about the role of the Minister for Women. We heard, yesterday, my colleague Ingrid Leary ask about the role of the mental health Minister and the immigration Minister. The Minister in the chair at that time responded to Ingrid Leary\u2019s question that those Ministers\u2014being the mental health Minister and the immigration Minister\u2014were in Cabinet and that this was a Cabinet decision. The Minister for Women is not in Cabinet, so it would be useful to have an answer to that question. It is a different question from the question that Ingrid Leary asked, and I have not heard a response to the Hon Julie Anne Genter\u2019s question. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EI do want to move, though, to the Schedule. I note that there is an abundance of Amendment Papers on clause 8 of the Schedule. How clause 8 works\u2014and \u201CExisting pay equity claims\u201D is the title. Clause 8(1) states that \u201CAn existing pay equity claim is discontinued on the commencement date.\u201D There are Amendment Papers to exclude some of the different claims from being discontinued at clause 8. I\u2019m not going to touch on those amendments one by one\u2014other people may do that. What I\u2019m interested in is turning the Schedule on its head, because we\u2019ve heard the Minister\u2014the Minister in whose name the bill is in\u2014answer some questions and say, \u201CLook, I don\u2019t want to talk about it claim by claim. This bill is about a framework, so I don\u2019t want to talk about it claim by claim.\u201D But I\u2019m interested in whether she got advice on that point. This is quite different from what the Government did recently with the Fast-track Approvals Act. What happened with that Act was that there was a schedule that specifically named 149 projects and went through them\u2014added at the committee stage, with no public submissions enabled at select committee. So was that approach considered for this bill? We know that there are these 33 claims that the Minister\u2014the Minister in the chair previously\u2014said people could google. Was there consideration and advice about actually laying out those 33 claims in the Schedule\u201433 being a much smaller number than 149\u2014and about considering whether it could even have gone through the process of weighing up whether the thresholds that apply in this bill, as compared to the current legislation, would be next?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s been a lot of discussion about the 70 percent reducing to 60 percent in terms of females in the workforce. Could that not have been done in the Schedule\u2014well, we know claim X of the 33 isn\u2019t going to meet the 70 percent but does meet the 60 percent, so are we going to deal with that specifically in the Schedule one by one? Was there advice on that, and, if not, why not\u2014given that inconsistent approach from this Government with how it deals with schedules when we\u2019re talking about discrete issues?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EThese issues are much more discrete than resource management and fast track. I can think, off the top of my head, of hundreds of different activities that people might want a resource consent for. But there is no way that you can do that about professions that are predominantly women-based and paid an unfair amount compared with professions that are not. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022 data-id=\u0022dc1fee574be541818d73e23438ed70c7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dc1fee574be541818d73e23438ed70c7\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019ll just quickly respond to a number of issues that have been raised.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EIf I understood Jan Tinetti correctly, she asked if the Government was in favour of creating carve-outs for some in the teaching workforce in line with an amendment put forward by Camilla Belich. The Government\u2019s not willing to create carve-outs. We believe that laws should be simple and comprehensive wherever possible.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EJulie Anne Genter raised an issue also raised by Barbara Edmonds in relation to the breadth of clause 47 and the potential uses for that. She also asked if perhaps it could be a drafting error. I\u2019m advised that there is no drafting error and that in fact this change reflects modern drafting practices and is a standard approach to drafting empowering provisions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EThere was a question from Ginny Andersen in relation to the threshold being 70 percent instead of 60 percent, and could an exception be made for a workforce that was 68 percent female rather than 70 percent. Of course, it\u2019s always tempting to argue around what I think people call \u201Cedge cases\u201D, but the problem with any threshold is that there will always be some people that are either just above or just below. Unfortunately, that\u2019s how thresholds just have to work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EThen there were some political questions from Ayesha Verrall. No, Cabinet did not make the equivalencies that she accused the Cabinet of. I think that was very unfair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EFinally, Rachel Brooking asked: \u201CDid the bill\u2019s drafters consider explicitly listing the 33 existing claims in the Schedule, as was done for the fast-track legislation?\u201D I\u2019m not in a position to answer in detail about the advice received, but I note that the member was quite opposed to the inclusion of those scheduled cases in the fast-track bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002271062453a4a24afeb8f5276330d42eb4\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Because they benefited private companies. These are not private companies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022174272892ef64450b1ce4893776f1ae3\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: OK, well, look, tempting as it is to have a debate of political philosophy, all I would say is that I think the member will be pleased to know that there\u2019s no explicitly listed schedule in this legislation, seeing as she was so critical of it previously.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002203b8486482c8407ca531d400ff3f70ee\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Was there advice?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223e19bdd7c7cb4fc8a922045a93480f91\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: She\u2019s now shouting, \u201CWas there advice?\u201D I\u2019ve indicated that having not been involved in the detailed development of the bill, I\u2019m not in a position to answer that question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229634e377-7e76-4353-9662-fb444eb2ec9d\u0022 data-id=\u002292bdbf4131b6497d86f406ff669c1125\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229634e377-7e76-4353-9662-fb444eb2ec9d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002292bdbf4131b6497d86f406ff669c1125\u0022\u003ECARL BATES (National\u2014Whanganui):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That debate on this question now close.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u0022f41b4e2ae68f43a4a4eaf3499bf53813\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f41b4e2ae68f43a4a4eaf3499bf53813\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m going to call the Hon [Pauses] Deborah Russell. Thank you. Sorry. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022 data-id=\u00227526aedcc7ca47149ada92e831ff46b2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227526aedcc7ca47149ada92e831ff46b2\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. We all look the same. I want to pick up on a couple of comments that have been made by the Minister in the chair and then relate them very specifically to an Amendment Paper. The first one was made by the Minister who is currently in the chair, Hon David Seymour, and he said that with thresholds, of course there are always cases where people are just above or just below. That is obviously the case, but the problem here is that this legislation that is being proposed will have the effect of knocking out a pay equity claim that was under way and it will now\u2014not only is it going to be knocked out but it will, in the future, fall under the threshold for a pay equity claim. So an existing claim has been disallowed by this legislation and it will have no way of getting back in. That, surely, is a case for a carve-out. So I\u2019d like the Minister just to reconsider that particular claim that has come through in respect of the corrections probation officer and senior practitioners. So if there was one amendment to that Schedule that was to be considered, that would be the one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022\u003EBut I\u2019m going to pick up another comment that was also made by the Minister in charge of this legislation, who said that \u201Cmoney doesn\u2019t grow on trees\u201D. Well, teachers don\u2019t grow on trees either, and neither do support workers grow on trees. Education advisers don\u2019t grow on trees. Psychologists don\u2019t grow on trees, either. Early learning teachers don\u2019t grow on trees. Nurses don\u2019t grow on trees. These people don\u2019t just come from nowhere.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022\u003EI\u2019m going to point to a very specific amendment: library assistants don\u2019t grow on trees, either, and I really want to speak to the library assistants claim, because when you\u2019ve got the librarians coming for you, you\u2019re in trouble, I\u2019m telling you. But this legislation is going to knock out the claim from library assistants, so I\u2019ve got an Amendment Paper in there asking for the tertiary education library assistants claim to be reinstated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022\u003EHere\u2019s the thing: to get a job as a library assistant, you need a degree. That\u2019s the beginning qualification for a job as a library assistant\u2014it\u2019s a degree\u2014so these people have already done three years of study. Now, we can compare that to any number of other professions dominated by men where a degree is not required, but that is the beginning position to get a job as a library assistant: have your degree in hand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022\u003EHere\u2019s the other interesting fact about it. It comes out of the recent pay round at Victoria University where library assistants finally\u2014finally\u2014got up to the living wage. Before that, they were down at about 50 percent above the minimum wage, and this is an area of work, a workforce, which requires a degree to get into. Now, if ever there is a case for a pay equity claim, that is it, because it is a profession that\u2019s dominated by women. When we go to the list\u2014which the Minister told us to google because she didn\u2019t have it in hand and couldn\u2019t be bothered putting it in her legislation\u2014we find out that the varying rates of pay for library assistants across universities are between 68 to 85 percent, in terms of having a workforce that\u2019s female. So it\u2019s not even clear\u2014we don\u2019t even know what the percentage is, but it\u2019s not even clear that they are going to be able to take a pay equity claim under the new legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022\u003ESo I\u2019m just going to put it out there that the gentlest souls amongst us, the librarians, who instead of telling you to go google something will actually go and help you find it, who are there to assist, who are highly educated\u2014these people deserve consideration. I am urging the Minister: let\u2019s at least get some of these groups back under consideration. I urge the Minister and this House to vote for my Amendment Paper which ensures that the existing claim by tertiary education library assistants does not get wiped out by this shameful legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022094b0ff4-e404-451b-b4a9-ad12bd4dee56\u0022 data-id=\u00228a783d1b2577484f8060755356d3414b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022094b0ff4-e404-451b-b4a9-ad12bd4dee56\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228a783d1b2577484f8060755356d3414b\u0022\u003ESTUART SMITH (Senior Whip\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That debate on this question now close.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022 data-id=\u00227581cae66e6846ef9db25fe09aa805bf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227581cae66e6846ef9db25fe09aa805bf\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate that. I do appreciate this call, and the reason I do is because I do have a number of Amendment Papers to\u2014and I believe we are on to the Schedule now\u2014the Schedule which I haven\u2019t had the opportunity to speak to yet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EThe first one, to a certain extent, although the amendment wasn\u2019t referred to, relates to review clauses. My colleague Ayesha Verrall covered that; I won\u2019t go into that in more detail, but just to note, if the Minister was convinced by Dr Verrall\u2019s arguments, as I was, I do have an amendment here\u2014that would allow review clauses to continue\u2014in my name. So I\u2019m just wanting to know from the Minister: would she entertain that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EThe other amendments that I have in the Schedule are\u2014the one that I want to refer to first, and it\u2019s kind of, it\u2019s an important point, I think. It\u2019s to delete clause 8(1) in Schedule 1. The reason that I have put this forward as an Amendment Paper is because I believe if that particular clause was deleted, that would allow existing claims to continue and not be discontinued, which I think is one of the major elements of unfairness under the Act. So we do have specific amendments, a long list of amendments in relation to specific claims, which I do believe deserve the attention of this House and the Minister. This one is an overall amendment which would allow those claims to continue, which I think is important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EOne of the areas which we hadn\u2019t touched on at all is a claim that is an existing claim, which is the New Zealand Artificial Limb Service. Now, this workforce is 65 percent female. This is one of the lower percentages. Generally, most of the equal pay claims are much higher, but this particular claim, which we haven\u2019t touched on at all, which would be saved by my amendment, which I\u2019m now speaking to, would be protected by that. So for that group of female-dominated\u2014and it is female\u2014I mean if you look in the dictionary, \u201Cdominated\u201D would probably give you something over 50 percent. So 65 percent certainly is a large percentage of women to work in a particular area\u2014doing very important work. We know that our Artificial Limb Service provides life-altering services to those who require it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EThey have an equal pay claim in place due to what they allege is the systemic undervaluation of their work; that claim, as I understand, could not continue\u2014by 5 percent. So it\u2019s unlikely that they would be able to continue with that. The Minister is discontinuing that. So I want to know, for those women in the New Zealand Artificial Limb Service, will she consider my amendment to delete clause 8(1)? She could still have her new regime, which I also disagree with, but it would allow those existing claims to continue, which I think would be fair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EOne other amendment I want to mention briefly in relation to the Schedule: as I have an amendment to delete clause 9, that would mean that the 10-year limit wouldn\u2019t apply. I\u2019d like to know the Minister\u2019s answer to whether she would consider that, because, alongside the discontinuation of current claims, I think that is an element of unfairness. Will she agree to my amendment on that particular point?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003ESo I have asked probably four questions of the Minister in relation to Amendment Papers that I have that have not been addressed today, and I\u2019d appreciate an answer. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u002205c897e9f20942c6a2e33bac90fcf91c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002205c897e9f20942c6a2e33bac90fcf91c\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I firstly want to start in response to questions raised by Julie Anne Genter about the involvement of the Minister for Women in the process, and I understand Willie Jackson also asked a similar question about the Minister for M\u0101ori Development. The Minister for Women was involved in the policy meetings that I held between Ministers leading to this bill. The Minister for M\u0101ori Development is in Cabinet and, therefore, was involved in the decisions leading up to this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EAyesha Verrall asked a question about the extinguishing of current claims to have reviews, and how we have weighed up those proposals. Well, it was really important for Cabinet that there is one system that all of the claims operate under, but it is possible for claims to be reraised if they meet the new requirements. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EWillie Jackson also asked which ministries were consulted on the proposal. I refer the member to, I believe, paragraph 94 of the Cabinet paper, which outlines the agencies consulted. Julie Anne Genter also asked if I was intending to introduce regulation on the need for merit, and I\u2019ve answered that already this morning. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EDr Duncan Webb asked why parties can\u2019t choose to agree to a review clause. We have stipulated in the bill that review will be done after a 10-year period, and while the review clauses in settlements will no longer be permissible, they can be reraised after that 10-year period after settlement, which does provide a way to address any new sex-based undervaluation if it develops over time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EJan Tinetti asked: can teachers be considered as a whole? To raise a claim, the work covered needs to be the same or substantially similar, so it will depend on the evidence provided to support that particular type of claim, but I don\u2019t intend to try and prejudge any outcomes or claims into the future. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EDr Ayesha Verrall asked about her tabled amendment. My response to this is that the transitional provisions allow all claims to have the same pay equity process, so it is which process applies. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich\u2014getting quite busy with the tabled amendments\u2014has proposed to make phasing up to 10 years for employers. I have to admit that I am actually very surprised by this tabled amendment, because the member has been making a lot of statements about the need for pay equity and it surprised me that she wished to extend the need for an employer to pay for up to a three-year phase\u2014to extend that for 10 years so that pay equity would not be reached until a 10-year time frame. It is just a very interesting contribution, but that\u2019s not what the Government will be accepting. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228f20b644-642a-4c85-ade9-d5af32dc690b\u0022 data-id=\u00221e8e789625214918a1c5202c12535170\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228f20b644-642a-4c85-ade9-d5af32dc690b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221e8e789625214918a1c5202c12535170\u0022\u003ELAURA McCLURE (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That debate on this question now close.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u0022b151c8a3196444388a22d3c5a4057b70\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b151c8a3196444388a22d3c5a4057b70\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m not going to put the question, but I think we are getting quite close.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261725fea-7d5e-4d1f-8fd3-e5779bb7a14d\u0022 data-id=\u0022876b76ddf27741ddab3e0bfb092e4a75\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261725fea-7d5e-4d1f-8fd3-e5779bb7a14d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022876b76ddf27741ddab3e0bfb092e4a75\u0022\u003EHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour\u2014Mana):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. You know I always want to add constructively to this debate, and, in particular, it was around clause 47. The Minister in the chair at the time stood up and did confirm that it wasn\u2019t a drafting error. He said that it was a \u201Cdrafting style\u201D. So, then, my question is: given that this has now broadened up the regulation-making power for any future executive\u2014hypothetically, for example; even though it wouldn\u2019t happen because this side of the House, the Labour Party, has said we\u2019re going to repeal this amendment bill in a future Government\u2014it could mean, though, if the Labour Government wasn\u2019t so committed to that, that we could actually provide any regulation, again not coming to this House, not through primary legislation. We could make any changes to the rest of this Act, because it\u2019s no longer about comparable work; it\u2019s about every single provision in the new Act once it becomes enacted, as long as it gives full effect to the Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261725fea-7d5e-4d1f-8fd3-e5779bb7a14d\u0022\u003EFor example, with the amendment that was just raised by Camilla Belich, which the Minister responded to, a future Labour or a future executive might think, \u201CWell, actually, we think it\u2019s necessary to ensure it is carrying out and giving full effect to this Act. We\u2019re going to put through regulation so that, actually, all those\u201D\u2014was it 13 or 33 claims?\u2014\u201C13 claims that are currently being cancelled by this\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c46de55f-b9e4-4c64-9ac6-877bd89c2fc5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224d301d3812384b45a24407105db04870\u0022\u003EDr Tracey McLellan\u003C/span\u003E: 33.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022082322cf872f418faf8ee5ed8d100019\u0022\u003EHon Jan Tinetti\u003C/span\u003E: 33.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261725fea-7d5e-4d1f-8fd3-e5779bb7a14d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b6400007f16a4b90ace0e9de8f1cfb2e\u0022\u003EHon BARBARA EDMONDS\u003C/span\u003E: \u201433 claims that are being cancelled by this; we\u2019re going to say that that\u2019s incidental, and we\u2019re going to put it in through regulation, because it gives full effect to the Act. We\u2019re, basically, going to allow those claims to be reopened.\u201D That is, effectively, the response from the Minister, who said, because of the drafting style, because we can make a regulation, this now applies to the whole Act, not just comparable work; therefore, we can make that executive decision at a later date. Not that it would matter, because, actually, we\u2019re just going to repeal this Act once it comes in force and when we get into Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261725fea-7d5e-4d1f-8fd3-e5779bb7a14d\u0022\u003EI just want to\u2014and I know I labour the point\u2014make sure, because this is a different drafting style. The last amendment to that provision was in 2022\u2014very narrow style. Are we saying that there has been such a change in the drafting style in three years since 2022, which now has a much wider regulation-making power, that the Government is very clear they are comfortable with that? What it means is that a future executive can make any regulation as long as it\u2019s necessary for carrying out or giving full effect to this Act and it\u2019s no longer narrowed to comparable work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022 data-id=\u00223134fd40f6ee43448960c160c71adad4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223134fd40f6ee43448960c160c71adad4\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green\u2014Rongotai):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I do want to raise some questions that have not been raised in this debate, and I think it\u2019s really important because this is going through under urgency, and, in public, the Ministers, different Ministers in the Government have made reference to savings of billions of dollars because of these changes. Now, presumably, that\u2019s due to the extinguishing of the 33 claims which would have otherwise had some fiscal liabilities represented in this Budget. So in the Schedule, that\u2019s where the claims are extinguished, the existing pay equity claims in clause 8 in Part 2 in the Schedule that\u2019s been inserted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003ESo my questions are, and it would be great if the Minister could answer this and if she could refer to the officials if she needs help answering this: is the savings of billions of dollars a gross or net expression of savings? Does it include the PAYE from wages and the GST from wages where if the claims had been settled, the low-paid workers would tend to spend everything they earn and would have an impact on GST? What analysis has been done about the impact on superannuation contributions, recognising that women will have less savings for their retirement because of extinguishing these claims? Has the Minister received advice from Treasury and/or Audit with reference to the wellbeing outcomes and the effectiveness of this legislation? I note that there was no regulatory impact statement completed on this. So there hasn\u2019t been a thorough regulatory impact statement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EFinally, and this is really important because the Minister has said the Government supports pay equity, they just want to change the parameters, right? So of the 33 claims that have been extinguished, the vast majority of them have well over a 70 percent female ratio. So the change to 70 percent will not mean that the majority of those claims that were under way can\u2019t reapply and try to have merit. So, given that, does the savings in billions\u2014like, effectively, if they go back through the new process and it\u2019s delayed by several years, there will still be a fiscal liability on the Crown of bigger wage bills if we expect to someday achieve pay equity for those workforces; will that be reflected? Is that fiscal liability still reflected in the Budget or is it just gone now? We say we\u2019re saving billions of dollars this year, but in a few years\u2019 time this will come back, and a future Government will have the fiscal liability.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003ESo I guess I\u2019m just wondering: has the extinguishing of the claims resulted in a short-term perception of reduced fiscal liability? Has the Government taken into account the fact that the majority of the claims currently under way have well over 70 percent women working in them and therefore will still be able to apply for pay equity? Maybe it\u2019ll be delayed by a few years, but eventually, if the Government does support pay equity, a future Government is going to face this fiscal liability. To what extent is that reflected in the savings of billions?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u0022a5a17a6edf9c4d41a791aa51ddae4c2c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a5a17a6edf9c4d41a791aa51ddae4c2c\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E Well, I thank the member for her question and I think it is an interesting one, but the member will be well aware that anything that is Budget sensitive is Budget sensitive. While there have been comments made about potential savings, what I can say is that there are significant reductions in cost to Government, but I can\u2019t go into Budget. I\u2019m not the Budget Minister responsible and so you\u2019ll just have to wait until the Budget in a couple of weeks.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EWhen it comes to the question from Camilla Belich, it appears the member has proposed a number of amendments which are all on a theme of not discontinuing the current claims, either by deleting the whole clause or exempting certain occupations. As I\u2019ve repeatedly said in the House today and yesterday, the transitional provisions in the bill are important to ensure there is one process for all claims, rather than allowing for two systems to operate for a period.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f429fecb-a955-4d95-8105-e5144e651204\u0022 data-id=\u002270ce778ddc6c4080a8528cbdcfcce2ca\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f429fecb-a955-4d95-8105-e5144e651204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002270ce778ddc6c4080a8528cbdcfcce2ca\u0022\u003EDAN BIDOIS (National\u2014Northcote):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That debate on this question now close.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022f68e3485965849fb94572edba83e00cf\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u0022510700e375a342d386aa0973ed777327\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022510700e375a342d386aa0973ed777327\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 4(2) to set a 60 percent threshold be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022072d58e642d043bab5733bdad77535a9\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022b80fbf306778495faceac9cfed531f05\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E Hon Deborah Russell\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 4(2) to set a 50 percent threshold be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u00228c3f51ebc3054ec293a59cb93fb0d3df\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228c3f51ebc3054ec293a59cb93fb0d3df\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022619d27b6b80445908a7ede4a20444d07\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E the Hon Ginny Andersen\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 4(2) to set a 55 percent threshold be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u0022ea9b03168fd54bcf8e77b4fb0d5c2ca6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ea9b03168fd54bcf8e77b4fb0d5c2ca6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u00228f244e48f2b145379d0b942092252139\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228f244e48f2b145379d0b942092252139\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 4(2) to set a 65 percent threshold be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022a94eab08ebd8499788ef81f098868713\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u002250796b699e7b4046ab23d8c7816e715c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002250796b699e7b4046ab23d8c7816e715c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Marama Davidson\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 4(2) to set a 60 percent threshold is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003EThe question is that Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendment to delete clause 4(2)(b)(ii) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002283e58cf7222f44119437bf0b6d0ca489\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u0022b38f86caba614e51843202311500e23a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b38f86caba614e51843202311500e23a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 6, new section 13A, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002254a1892a454b4d069f53ebcc89d9b72f\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u00224d0316993c664d60b0a41d28e319ea7a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224d0316993c664d60b0a41d28e319ea7a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 6, new section 13A, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022e69a66445708454cb0c98cb768187ec9\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u0022140ef3b458f64718807bd7122726ffcb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022140ef3b458f64718807bd7122726ffcb\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti\u2019s tabled amendments to clauses 10 and 38 to set a two-month bar be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022fc9a7211b7104b2c872f2193b3d534bb\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u0022cee7608bdb3441fda3d08951eafee37d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cee7608bdb3441fda3d08951eafee37d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s tabled amendments to clauses 10 and 38 to set a one-month bar be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022d4d34cad3d13404189ce790ce0abca94\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u0022bbdce7c0152c4f899bca6f5d6e438bcd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bbdce7c0152c4f899bca6f5d6e438bcd\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Deborah Russell\u2019s tabled amendments to clauses 10 and 38 to set a 12-month bar be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022334116ae8a404d62a38b80f4cd73dda1\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u00221970d923ca9b46da9960902b1c693678\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221970d923ca9b46da9960902b1c693678\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Rachel Boyack\u2019s tabled amendments to clauses 10 and 38 to set a six-month bar be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022814b4efd25d340c892a1aa9b0f416f0c\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u0022a94e4e369f274bedbd40ab9f95419b2d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a94e4e369f274bedbd40ab9f95419b2d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 10 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022d1bc8055b10b4dec8bd350a38dd3dfd3\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u0022c83def7cf3d1435da6cc56074d9fdac3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c83def7cf3d1435da6cc56074d9fdac3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Rachel Boyack\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 11, new section 13F, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022f24afb1b7e344fb09a6f8c41c2257558\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u0022d5d0129706c24eddae3e99387ea20cd2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d5d0129706c24eddae3e99387ea20cd2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Rachel Boyack\u2019s tabled amendment to delete clause 13 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022ece47036160446c186295096ff2e43a6\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u0022326348be3ba340bea1518ea39b9f65fa\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022326348be3ba340bea1518ea39b9f65fa\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Deborah Russell\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 15(2) to delete the word \u201Cnot\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002222a44f5e88a84f05a84980ffd712aa84\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u00220d3709c7a0864b84babfa04acce42097\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220d3709c7a0864b84babfa04acce42097\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 20, new section 13PA, to replace \u201C60\u00A0working days\u201D with \u201C20 working days\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022d8c17877270c4665962d586d892a4acf\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u0022d04a6d421d084421b378c03851528ab7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d04a6d421d084421b378c03851528ab7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 29 to delete new section 13ZE(1) to (4) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022095daaf0e3b44ec6a7747159e1c28cca\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u002286c1cce8d2124a439571c652ee50f437\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002286c1cce8d2124a439571c652ee50f437\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 29 to delete new section 13ZE(6) and replace new section 13ZE(7) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022a204393e062145d9921702086e4fa4c6\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u00222c3cf6f648fd40d38fbbcb60bede2aa6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222c3cf6f648fd40d38fbbcb60bede2aa6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 30(1) to replace \u201C3 years\u201D with \u201C10\u00A0years\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022a6c7af55cdc24639b594aa9ae239a901\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u00229cadb56fbc014630b84db24b31d6d9d2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229cadb56fbc014630b84db24b31d6d9d2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 35(3) to replace \u201C3 years\u201D with \u201C10 years\u201D, be agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022f2c746f7320a464d80f8d2aedf74c736\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u0022efabd559a03143c49604e92f4b4150bd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022efabd559a03143c49604e92f4b4150bd\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendment to delete clause 46(3) be agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022a851295f6535454580b842df418e4ab0\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022715c26acb8e2423fa7070969478320f6\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022169a3043dbfe483e9aa383f84c076021\u0022\u003EPart 2  Consequential amendments to other Acts\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u002295bc763a3418491ba59eaf591f40c30c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002295bc763a3418491ba59eaf591f40c30c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we now come to the debate on Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 50 to 55, \u201CConsequential amendments to other Acts\u201D. The question is that Part 2 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022 data-id=\u00226a3aeccaebc542ca9b63292cd3d4103c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226a3aeccaebc542ca9b63292cd3d4103c\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you for the opportunity to talk on Part 2. My questions are ones of language, really, and relate both to clause 52 and to clause 54 as well. That\u2019s on pages 28 and 29 of the bill in front of us.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EWhat this part of the bill is doing is bringing across those new terms into related legislation, being the Employment Relations Act 2000 and also the Public Service Act 2020. As we\u2019ve discussed already in the Part 1 debate, there is this big change from whether a claim is \u201Carguable\u201D to whether it \u201Chas merit\u201D. I asked some questions in that Part 1 debate about what will be new section 13F and the meaning of \u201Cmerit\u201D, and there is some similarity to the existing law but some important differences. One of those differences that was traversed in questions was that all of these requirements have to be met by the use of \u201Cand\u201D in what will be new section 13F. Where the current legislation, back at 13F, has things that are included for consideration, and that happens at subsection (3)\u2014it uses \u201Cincluding\u201D\u2014at subsections (1) and (2), it has to be everything; there are \u201Cands\u201D included.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EWhy I\u2019m focusing on that is that new section 13F is a fundamental mechanism in what the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety\u2019s policy plan is to change. At clause 54, there is an amendment to the Public Service Act, and that is: when forming a view on whether the claim is arguable\u2014\u201Carguable\u201D being the word that was used in the existing legislation\u2014it has changed to \u201Cforming views on whether the claim meets all requirements set out in section 13E of the Equal Pay Act\u201D. What I\u2019m interested in is why there is that change of language from forming \u201Ca view\u201D to forming \u201Cviews\u201D, in relation to section 13E\u2014and I realise I was just talking about 13F\u2014this important difference between when something is \u201Carguable\u201D versus now \u201Chas merit\u201D. Why does \u201Carguable\u201D have a singular\u2014\u201Cforming a view\u201D\u2014to something having merit needing \u201Cforming views\u201D? I\u2019m happy for the Minister to correct me if I\u2019m wrong on this. I thought that you either meet the requirements of section 13E or you don\u2019t. If she could comment on whether or not it should be \u201Cviews are being formed\u201D or whether it\u2019s just \u201Ca view\u201D, and it would be helpful for the Hansard, then, if she could go through what those different views might be that section 82 of the Public Service Act is referring to. There could be quite a few in there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EThen I note, going back to clause 52, which is about the Employment Relations Act, this is about the jurisdiction of the authority, and there\u2019s quite a lot in this section. It\u2019s very important. But, on my use of language and the difference between having to consider everything in a subsection\u2014\u201Cand, and, and\u201D\u2014and whether it\u2019s optional, \u201Cincluding\u201D, we have here at new section 161(1)(qd)(ia), \u201Cdetermining whether a pay equity claim meets all requirements set out in section 13E of that Act\u201D. So that\u2019s section 13E, as referred to again in clause 54, which I was just talking about. At clause 54, you form \u201Cviews\u201D, but under the jurisdiction of the employment authority, they have to look and see if it meets \u201Call\u201D the requirements. Is that a purposeful difference in language\u2014that, in one piece of legislation, they\u2019re thinking about all the requirements being set out in section 13E being met, whereas under another piece of legislation, being the Public Service Act, it is \u201Cviews\u201D on the claim? Does it meet all the requirements or not? Why is there that \u201C-s\u201D in clause 54?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EThen, if we look at other parts of clause 52, we see some important changes to this jurisdiction of the employment authority, and a lot of this relates to policy decisions that, of course, have been discussed in the Part 1 debate. We see there that the repeal of section 161(1)(qd)(vii) means that past grievances can\u2019t be considered. That\u2019s taken out. And then also there\u2019s the repeal of (viii), which is the start date. I\u2019m not sure why that one needs to be repealed\u2014what the policy logic there for repealing (viii) is\u2014but we have this new insertion that we can all see in the bill, at subsection (6), which is a new (va), \u201Cdetermining whether remuneration agreed by the parties to a pay equity claim is to be increased to the agreed level in phases and, if so, the particulars of those phases\u201D. My overall question with this one, of course, goes back to questions I was asking on the Schedule as well, and it\u2019s whether the Minister has received any advice that this could possibly happen now with the changes that she is making. Will there be any remuneration agreed by parties to a pay equity claim, or is this new clause in fact redundant?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003ESo that is what I would like to know at a policy level and an advice level, and then my other question was about this use of forming \u201Cviews\u201D\u2014with an \u201C-s\u201D\u2014and why that is different from forming \u201Ca view\u201D; that difference between \u201Carguable\u201D and whether the claim meets all requirements for that merit test that is so important to the changes that she\u2019s making now. Is that purposeful? Can she explore the requirements of section 13E for us and why it needs this change in language for the Public Service Act but not for the jurisdiction of the authority, which has to check against all requirements?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d14b1afe-2069-41e4-96fa-c8dc81a991a4\u0022 data-id=\u0022df37141d9bd64321901b27646768cd57\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d14b1afe-2069-41e4-96fa-c8dc81a991a4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022df37141d9bd64321901b27646768cd57\u0022\u003EHon JENNY SALESA (Labour\u2014Panmure-\u014Ct\u0101huhu):\u003C/span\u003E Mr Chair, thank you for this opportunity. It is my first opportunity to speak on behalf and to ask questions of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety on behalf of my constituents, especially women from South Auckland and thousands of women from Panmure-\u014Ct\u0101huhu, who will, unfortunately, be affected by the passage of this bill. It is still shocking to me and I still cannot believe that we are here under urgency debating the Equal Pay Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d14b1afe-2069-41e4-96fa-c8dc81a991a4\u0022\u003EI\u2019d like to ask the Minister questions about clause 52(2) of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. This clause may sound technical, but, in reality, this clause is a direct attack on the rights of women and our most vulnerable workers. This will replace the existing threshold for initiating a pay equity claim from \u201Carguable\u201D to \u201Chas merit\u201D. This may seem like a small language change, but make no mistake, this is a calculated move to raise the bar and lock the courtroom doors to thousands and thousands of women across Aotearoa New Zealand, and in particular to M\u0101ori, Pacific, migrant, and ethnic community woman.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d14b1afe-2069-41e4-96fa-c8dc81a991a4\u0022\u003EUnder the current law built on the hard-fought gains of the Terranova v Bartlett case, a claim only needs to be arguable. This means that they must bring a credible case of undervaluation worth investigating, not a fully proven thesis before the process even begins. But when this bill gets passed\u2014which will be later on today because we are under urgency\u2014this National-led Government wants to change that. The coalition Government wants women to come armed with legally analysed cases, market data, and evidence before they could even begin the process. That is not access to justice; in my opinion, that is obstruction to justice for our women. It has a systematic silencing of women in low-paid, female-dominated industries, like our care workers, our cleaners, our teacher aides, and our education support workers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d14b1afe-2069-41e4-96fa-c8dc81a991a4\u0022\u003ETo be crystal clear, when it is \u201Carguable\u201D, the door to justice is more open; when it is changed to \u201Chas merit\u201D under this new clause, it bolts that door shut. The Minister knows, her Cabinet colleagues know, that this will mean fewer claims. It will mean more rejections at the starting line and it will mean that more employers who benefit from systematic undervaluation will be handed more power to deny justice right at the beginning of the process. This is not progress. This bill will take our country backwards.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d14b1afe-2069-41e4-96fa-c8dc81a991a4\u0022\u003ESo my question to the Minister is: how will the Minister ensure that the term \u201Cmerit\u201D is not used to justify historical gender pay gaps disguised as performance-based differences? Also, can the Minister let us know, in the absence of a regulatory impact statement, which we do not have, what safeguards are there under this bill to prevent employers from relying on subjective or biased assessments of merit that may disproportionately disadvantage women. Does the Minister\u2014another question\u2014accept that historical undervaluation of women\u2019s work stems from societal biases, and how does this clause on merit address this rather than reinforce it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d14b1afe-2069-41e4-96fa-c8dc81a991a4\u0022\u003EThis bill, in my opinion, is economic violence against women, especially our M\u0101ori, our Pacific, our migrant, and our ethnic women who do essential work for little pay and even less recognition. This clause is betrayal of the bipartisan consensus that delivered pay equity progress in this country. It ignores the recommendations of experts, unions, and the Human Rights Commission, and it violates the spirit of our obligations under the Convention on the Elimination on all forms of Discrimination Against Women and the International Labour Organization convention No. 100.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d14b1afe-2069-41e4-96fa-c8dc81a991a4\u0022\u003EAnother question for the Minister to consider: who asked for this change? Who benefits from this change? It most certainly isn\u2019t the women of Aotearoa and it is most certainly not fair nor justice for women of Aotearoa New Zealand. Thank you very much.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u0022e3ee1c269813445d91c92cc21094d83b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e3ee1c269813445d91c92cc21094d83b\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you very much. I want to take the time to respond, firstly, to Rachel Brooking, who has asked why it is \u201Cviews\u201D, not \u201Ca view\u201D, in clause 54. The word \u201Cviews\u201D is used because the employer has to make multiple decisions, or two decisions. This is a consequential amendment to reflect the changes made in Part 1 of the bill. It reflects the change made in the bill requiring the employer to consider both whether the claim meets the requirements in section 13E and whether it has merit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EThe second question was, in regard to the language used in clauses 54 and 52, why is it different\u2014is that for a reason? Yes, the language is different, and in the new section 161(1)(qd)(i)(ia), the authority is only looking at the requirements in 13E. In clause 54, the employer is considering both whether the 13E requirements are met and if the claim has merit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EThe third question was in relation to clause 52 and the changes to the authority\u2019s jurisdiction\u2014why is this the case? Once again, this is just a consequential amendment reflecting the changes in Part 1 of the bill, so that\u2019s why it is\u2014in particular, section 13ZY, which sets out why the authority can make the determination.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EJenny Salesa has asked and made comment on the change of wording from \u201Carguable\u201D to \u201Cmerit\u201D. Once again, this change from \u201Carguable\u201D to \u201Cmerit\u201D is a consequential amendment reflecting the changes made in Part 1, which has already been debated and voted on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022 data-id=\u0022ee0e3959332549fb8a359195b5eb1d05\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ee0e3959332549fb8a359195b5eb1d05\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. This is my first call in this debate. I do have some questions on clause 51, the repeal of section 33(2)(d) of the Employment Relations Act 2000. Before I go into that, I want to echo the sentiment that many others have made in this House around how appalling this piece of legislation is, how little analysis has been done, and how women and migrant workers particularly will be disproportionately affected by this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EI wanted to ask about clause 51, which is \u201CSection 33 amended (Duty of good faith requires parties to conclude collective agreement unless genuine reason not to)\u201D. If we go to the Employment Relations Act 2000, there\u2019s a list of reasons here laid out in section 33(2), which include things like \u201C(a) opposition or objection in principle to (i) bargaining for, or being party to, a collective agreement; or (ii) including rates of wages or salary in a collective agreement; or (b) disagreement about including a bargaining fee clause under Part 6B in a collective agreement; or (c) the existence of an unsettled pay equity claim between an employer and a claimant under the Equal Pay Act 1972, or\u201D\u2014which is the part that this bill is repealing, \u201C(d) the existence of a requirement to review a pay equity claim under the Equal Pay Act 1972.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003ENow, in this bill, what we are seeing is simply a repeal of that requirement and, to me, it does leave a void then, because by the looks of that\u2014and I\u2019d be keen to seek some clarification\u2014it is not being replaced by any other language that seeks to at least create an equivalent, and for the future as well. That, to me, seems to be concerning because then it\u2019s just kind of treated as a consequential amendment to this Act, but to me it just feels like it leads to a void.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EI wonder whether this is just in line with the Government\u2019s policy intent of simply lifting the threshold and making it harder for people to achieve pay equity, or whether the Minister explored a replacement of that specific section 33(2)(d) with something else. So I\u2019m keen to understand the policy intent and the thinking behind just simply repealing that section. That\u2019s something that I think we could have actually explored at the select committee stage. We haven\u2019t been able to, so I think, in this process, I\u2019d be keen to seek clarification very specifically on this specific repeal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EI have some other questions that seek to unpack the broader implications of this bill. But, for now, I\u2019m keen to talk about clause 51. I think, to me, why I say this is that often\u2014and why this is particularly problematic\u2014already workers are having to take up cases even to other authorities when they feel like their employer is not engaging in good faith. This actually does happen often. Unfortunately, we\u2019re in an environment where employers have, in many cases, been quite hostile when it comes to negotiations and being able to get to a collective agreement. This is why I think this specific clause just feels egregious and problematic, because it\u2019s kind of painted as consequential, but I feel, to me, it\u2019s also politically motivated. So any clarification as to the intent would be particularly useful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll take another call later to make sure I can unpack particularly\u2014just to give the Chair some warning\u2014the implications around immigration settings as well as child poverty reduction targets. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022 data-id=\u00224248d516381f4618bec6b89ec47b9d07\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224248d516381f4618bec6b89ec47b9d07\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. This is my first call in Part 2, which deals with the consequential amendments, and I did note the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety\u2019s response to the excellent contribution by my colleague Hon Jenny Salesa, talking about how we had covered the issue around merit previously. But I would draw the Minister\u2019s attention to the fact that these consequential amendments primarily focus on changes to the Employment Relations Act 2000 and then\u2014which we haven\u2019t got to yet\u2014amendments to the Public Service Act 2020. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003ESo it is actually a different proposition to look at how the changes that she\u2019s wanting to put through will fit into these different pieces of legislation. It is not the same as talking about it within the primary, in my view, Equal Pay Act. So I do think it is worth making sure, being as that we haven\u2019t had a select committee process, that these changes do actually fit within these very important, significant pieces of legislation, and I don\u2019t think the arguments are exactly the same as they were with the primary Act. So I would ask that the Minister please engage with the questions that we have in Part 2 because, although it is a smaller section, these do deal with significant pieces of legislation and it is important that we\u2019re not making changes in this Chamber today without the benefit of going through select committee, without the benefit of a regulatory impact statement, that do not work with the existing legislation. I think the contribution that Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March made in that regard highlights how important it is to make sure that these pieces of legislation are consistent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003ESo I do have an amendment that I\u2019ve tabled in Part 2, which I will speak to in this contribution if I have time, but I would like to make sure that I have the opportunity to go over that amendment. But I just thought the first thing that I would start with is also to look at 52, but look at 52(ib), because this is when the employment relations\u2014well, we looked at jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Act, and this looks at whether the employees work is the same or substantially similar to the work that is the subject of a pay parity claim in relation to comparators.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003ESo I think this is a really important point for the House to note: when selecting a comparator, the only way that a comparator will be successful is if that comparator is the same as or substantially similar to the claimant. So this idea that these kind of outlandish, totally inappropriate comparisons are being made is just not true because, if it was true, the claims would not be successful and there would be no benefit to it. So I think it\u2019s really important to note that and note the wording in the Employment Relations Act because I think that does help the committee to see that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EThe other question I have in relation to the Employment Relations Act is: the Minister will be aware that the fundamental, overriding duty in the Employment Relations Act is the duty to act in good faith, and I have some questions around the duty of good faith and how that does apply to the changes that she is making today to the legislation. Is it good faith to extinguish claims\u2014and I appreciate some of them may be able to be moved under the new legislation, but not all of them. Is that good faith when there is a bargaining agreement in place? Obviously, it\u2019s permissible for the Government to override good faith, but my question to her is whether she\u2019s considered that overriding duty because she is making changes to the Employment Relations Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EThe next question I have for the Minister is 52(2). It changes\u2014and my colleague the Hon Jenny Salesa was speaking about this, but the point I want to make around this is very different. She is changing the Employment Relations Act and she is adding \u201Chas merit\u201D into that, and I want to know: has she received advice around the use of the word \u201Cmerit\u201D in the Employment Relations Act and whether this use of the word \u201Cmerit\u201D is consistent with that? It\u2019s something I don\u2019t know; I\u2019m interested to know the answer to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EAnother thing that I would like to know, and it does come to the process, is we have talked about\u2014and this particular section talks about consequential amendments, and obviously there is a regulatory component to that. So I want to know from the Minister: will she or does she envisage that that aspect of this bill will be scrutinised by the Regulation Review Committee at a subsequent date? Because sometimes the Regulations Review Committee does scrutinise decisions that have already been made, or, in fact, if it\u2019s just the regulatory component of that which would go to the Regulations Review Committee. I do think that if the Minister wanted to do away with some of the damage that this bill has brought forward, then it would be good to have the answer to that in relation to whether she sees that being part of the process of this in the scrutiny; that would obviously come after the passing of this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EThe other thing that I wanted to know is: does she envisage a role for the usual select committee that this bill would usually go to\u2014and they do have a role in overseeing the Employment Relations Act, which is the bill that we are amending in Part 2. Would she see that there is a role for the Education and Workforce Committee to, after the fact of the passing of this bill, have the opportunity to invite submitters to a select committee hearing or briefing or inquiry into this Act to allow people the opportunity to actually express their view on this piece of legislation? I don\u2019t accept the reasons that this has been brought under urgency. I think it\u2019s absolutely terrible and I think it\u2019s a shame on this Government led by the National Party, but I do think that it would be better than nothing to have a select committee be able to look at this, and so I want to know: will she do that? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EIf we were to have that select committee hearing, post-dating the passing of this bill, it would be the appropriate time where we could look at the Employment Relations Act and the changes that she\u2019s making and really get detailed advice from officials as to whether these changes she is making in terms of language in the Employment Relations Act is consistent with the rest of the Act, does work with the rest of the Act, is workable. It\u2019s just not time for us to be able to make those detailed assessments in this particular bill, heard under urgency. So I would like an answer to that from the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EThe other thing I just wanted to add\u2014and it does relate to a point which I did want to come back to in Part 1, but I was unable to get a call on it\u2014was looking at phasing, and that\u2019s in Part 2, 52(6). So that talks about the agreed phases, and I had an amendment\u2014which, unfortunately, was not successful in the first part\u2014looking at phasing. The Minister criticised me for putting that amendment down, and I wanted to just have the opportunity to explain that the reason I was concerned about phasing is because I genuinely think that when people are in negotiations and when they can agree to something which is appropriate for their workforce, they often make good decisions which people are happy with. The more restrictions we put on the types of negotiations that people can have, in a complex mettle like equal pay, often we are stuck with results that might be quite difficult. So the Minister, in what has passed in the first part of this, has suggested that we should only be able to agree things up to three years, and I think a longer period of time in some instances, if agreed between the parties, might result in a longer period of time where they were able to have their pay equity topped up through that period of time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003ESo I don\u2019t accept the criticisms from the Minister, and I wanted to ask her, in relation to Part 2, clause 52(6): the jurisdiction that the authority would have in relation to agreed phasing, because in the other part of the legislation we had that three-year limit, does this apply to 52(6)? That\u2019s a question that I have for the Minister. So a few questions there. I haven\u2019t had the opportunity yet to talk to my Amendment Paper. I\u2019ll let the Minister answer those questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u00223ce562be2f4a47f1b4b231e32319686a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223ce562be2f4a47f1b4b231e32319686a\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E Mr Chair, thank you very much. I very much have actually been waiting to take a contribution in relation to that member Camilla Belich\u2019s desire to see phasing in of pay equity settlements take longer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EI think every member outside this House, every member of society should listen to Camilla Belich when she says that she\u2019s standing up for workers and wishes to see people who have agreed to a pay equity settlement have a longer time frame to see that money in their pockets. That member has made multiple contributions. This is a member who believes in pay equity and she\u2019s suggesting to people who are successful with pay equity that instead of a three-year phased settlement that this Government is suggesting ends up in people\u2019s pockets, that it\u2019s up to 10 years until they would see the money that they may get for their settlement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EI think everybody should take note of that and I thank the member Camilla Belich for the insight into the Labour Party and the potential desire for that member in the party to see members who are successful in a settlement have a longer time frame to receive that money in their pockets. Thank you very much for that contribution.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EBack to Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March and the question about removing section 33(2)(d). Does it create a void? No. Good faith, of course, continues to apply in all employment matters. I will take my leave now and answer further later.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022 data-id=\u002262707436a4fb4d98bdc91b774cd3cb40\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002262707436a4fb4d98bdc91b774cd3cb40\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I wanted to follow up on some comments that the Minister made just now in her call around money in people\u2019s pockets. It flows on quite well because\u2014and I thought this would be better suited to ask in Part 2 again\u2014of the kind of stuff we would have actually very easily tried to unpack in select committee. One of them is I wanted to understand why there was no child impact assessment being done. I say this because one of the Acts that actually, while not here in writing, is very related to this whole issue is the Child Poverty Reduction Act that we have.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EOne of the reasons why I want to tie it in with this bill is because we have heard from another Minister that work and people entering work is going to be seen as one of the primary ways we\u2019re going to be reducing child poverty. Yet the way that this bill is laid out risks undermining the growth of wages for women in particular, which then in some ways has a flow-on effect on the Child Poverty Reduction Act and the Government\u2019s actual obligations to meet our child poverty reduction targets.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003ESo I\u2019m curious to know: if she doesn\u2019t think that, actually, there is any consequential impact in the Child Poverty Reduction Act, despite the Government saying that work is going to be one of the primary means of achieving those goals, and there was no child impact assessment done as part of preparing this bill\u2014something we could have very easily actually asked for at the select committee stage\u2014I\u2019m curious to know whether she had any engagement at all with Minister Louise Upston, in her role as child poverty reduction Minister, to evaluate whether the delay in wage increases as a result of the existing pay equity claims would have had a negative effect on meeting our obligations under the Child Poverty Reduction Act. I think that\u2019s important because, to me, there seems to be a direct contradiction between the stated goals of this Government and what we\u2019re seeing in this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EThe other question I had in relationship to interactions between the changes here and other parts of legislation and policy\u2014and, again, this would have very easily been asked and answered by officials or the Minister herself during a select committee\u2014is whether there had been any engagement in what\u2019s being laid out here, particularly because there\u2019s a lot of migrant workers in the areas where there\u2019s pay equity claims, and many of them often require specific wages to be able to qualify for some residency pathways. The conversations that I have had in the past with some of the migrant workers in some of those areas is that the pay equity claims could have actually boosted people\u2019s wages to a level that would have allowed them to access residency or other visa pathways.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EBut without these\u2014I am curious to know again, whether the Minister engaged with anyone, whether it\u2019s the immigration Minister, or anyone in the immigration sector, to actually understand the flow-on impacts of this bill on migrant workers who are in the workplaces affected by this bill, and, if there wasn\u2019t any engagement, what certainty can the Minister give us on the impacts of this bill on our obligations to meet the Child Poverty Reduction Act, as well as any immigration policy? Those things are completely related to what\u2019s happening in this bill, because of the direct impact on people\u2019s wages.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EOther people have already talked about the groups that are disproportionately affected. So I\u2019m curious to know as to whether she thought that the Child Poverty Reduction Act should have been amended at all as part of this bill. I just can\u2019t see how the Government will meet its obligations under that Act as a result of these changes, if they\u2019re relying on paid employment to reduce child poverty.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u00224bb755afbb2a4104b2a34ee8200bd040\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224bb755afbb2a4104b2a34ee8200bd040\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E I\u2019ll take the time to respond to a few more of the member Camilla Belich\u2019s questions. Firstly, in relation to whether or not the duty of good faith applies to the changes made in the bill, I have already answered that by another member. Good-faith obligations will continue to apply in the pay equity process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003ESecondly, will the bill be scrutinised by the Regulations Review Committee at another date? If any regulations were made, then they would be subject to the Regulations Review Committee, as is always the case. The bill will not be scrutinised by the Regulations Review Committee as it\u2019s going through the robust parliamentary process, which is how we deal with legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich had another question in relation to the consequential amendment to the Employment Relations Act to section 161(1)(qd)(iv), if this relates to the selection of comparators. Section 161(1)(qd)(iv) sets out the Employment Relations Authority\u2019s ability to make a determination about whether an individual employee\u2019s work is the same or substantially similar to work that is the subject of a union-raised claim and therefore should be covered. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EShe also referred to her Amendment Paper to delete clause 54. The change made to the reference from \u201Carguable\u201D to \u201Cmerit\u201D in this section is a consequential amendment that has already been voted on in Part 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022 data-id=\u00228eae8b50f49048e99ebd573a534db85a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228eae8b50f49048e99ebd573a534db85a\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019d like to take up the issue of the use of the word \u201Cmerit\u201D. I think it is relevant that we\u2019re talking about the Employment Relations Act here, which has been highly successful because it\u2019s taken a term which is actually a virtue. We all strive for good faith. We strive for being a good employer and being a good employee, and it does the world of good to us. What we\u2019ve done in that Act is we\u2019ve signalled to people something that\u2019s really important for them to strive for that virtue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EWhat I\u2019m concerned about here is about the use of the word \u201Cmerit\u201D. I appreciate the point that it\u2019s been used in the previous part, but actually to say something \u201Chas merit\u201D is a very powerful statement. So if you\u2019ve got somebody who is in the 68 percent industry but has been discriminated against, their claim \u201Chas merit\u201D in the common parlance of that word. They have been discriminated against and they\u2019re missing out here. So to talk about \u201Chaving merit\u201D\u2014and we\u2019re supposed to use plain language\u2014is fairly insensitive and it sends the wrong signal to people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EWhat I\u2019d ask the Minister to do is: would she entertain using a more neutral phrase there? She could say something like that it has passed the threshold of merit in Part 1, because that shows that she\u2019s making a judgment call and it doesn\u2019t devalue the person who was before a process like this, who actually has been treated unjustly by the system but has not actually been recognised as such by a system. It\u2019s clearer in Part 1 that that\u2019s what\u2019s going on, that there\u2019s an arbitrary nature to the threshold, although I\u2019m not comfortable with it. It\u2019s not clear at all in Part 2, when the use of the words \u201Chas merit\u201D actually sends a signal to people that every other claim doesn\u2019t have merit. So would she consider using a term which unpacks this, that is more neutral, that is more professional about that and does not send that signal to people? I\u2019d also note that this is also happening in clause 54, which is the Public Service Act amendments\u2014so, again, that the claim \u201Chas merit\u201D. It would be easy enough to amend it so that the language was much more neutral in that case too.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EI also wanted to ask the Minister about\u2014it\u2019s actually on the same page, page 29 in clause 52(6)\u2014the insertion that is going in here that talks about phasing. I wondered whether there had been discussion or advice on what the parameters of that phasing were, and whether it was reflected in this language\u2014is it possible for the authority member to create phases which might be uneven in the amount that is being paid out and that calculate in the loss of the use of money? So all the interest that\u2019s being lost, are we visiting that on the individuals, so that the working women who are not being paid out\u2014it\u2019s been recognised, the claim, \u201CYep, you\u2019re being treated unjustly and you haven\u2019t been paid right. We\u2019re going to take three years to pay you.\u201D Are we now, as the authority, able legally to go \u201CPart of our job is we\u2019ve got three phases, and each one of those\u2014the first one, you\u2019re going to get this amount. The second one, you\u2019re going to get this plus this because it\u2019s the use of money\u2014we\u2019ve had the benefit of your money in the meantime. The third one, you\u2019re going to get an extra amount.\u201D Is that possible under these words or do we need to include words so that that happens? Because anything else, I put to the Minister, seems unjust.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003ESo my third question is, and I\u2019d like an answer to this: does she accept that it\u2019s very unjust if all of the damage done by that payment scheme\u2014which is, in this situation, not agreed; it\u2019s determined\u2014if all that is visited on the poorest person in this situation, which is the worker who has been discriminated against and hasn\u2019t been paid. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u00228481f57920784ca7a8dd4e6bb45ab8ac\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228481f57920784ca7a8dd4e6bb45ab8ac\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to reflect on a couple of the questions. Firstly, a question in the name of Camilla Belich about what jurisdiction the authority has in relation to phasing. Does the three-year limit apply? The changes to the Employment Relations Act reflect the changes made in Part 1, in relation to determinations of the authority\u2014the requirements as specified in Part 1, which included that three-year phasing. So that\u2019s that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u201CWhy is there no regulatory impact statement?\u201D\u2014from Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March. Look, the Government has been working to ensure there is a robust pay equity scheme, and it\u2019s clear that the legislative settings are not working as intended. However, the substantive policy in the bill is included, in fact, in Part 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003ERicardo Men\u00E9ndez March asked about the engagement with, I believe, the Minister of Immigration. I already answered that question during the debate in Part 1, and the Minister of Immigration is in Cabinet and was involved in those decisions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022 data-id=\u00221ff1fab5fcad41e6bf18d3641a27c266\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221ff1fab5fcad41e6bf18d3641a27c266\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 2 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 12.56 p.m. to 2 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022718e98c97ebe4555888288baa11c486a\u0022\u003EVisitors\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00224e13427c5d124a2b978298573d06fb64\u0022\u003EJapan\u2014House of Representatives, Delegation\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022356e47193fde4f899bef3f6a2a60c828\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022356e47193fde4f899bef3f6a2a60c828\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The House is resumed. I\u2019m sure that members would wish to welcome Mr Kiyoto Tsuji and his delegation, who are in the gallery, from the House of Representatives of Japan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022fc7aa5e5355247f29dfce2131a9eb928\u0022\u003EOral Questions\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00221e52f24cb0a649bfaae8a9a7943d80f7\u0022\u003EQuestions to Ministers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00222b884eb70a8a42afb548c6a9c736f8bf\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 1\u2014Finance\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d4dae97-e385-42a3-9791-5440c8cc9b3c\u0022 data-id=\u00229ed7d009a0604016a2b2bb7cb0baad3c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d4dae97-e385-42a3-9791-5440c8cc9b3c\u0022\u003E1. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229ed7d009a0604016a2b2bb7cb0baad3c\u0022\u003ENANCY LU (National)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Finance: What are the Government\u2019s fiscal intentions and objectives?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022 data-id=\u00228ddf4db27d2f423e956148e2f99033ca\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228ddf4db27d2f423e956148e2f99033ca\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice)\u003C/span\u003E on behalf of the Minister of Finance: On behalf of the Minister, the Government\u2019s fiscal intentions are to restore fiscal discipline to this country and to meet all our objectives.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002291bdbf545ffa4d4aa6aa161a202240cf\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I think we\u2019ve got a slight problem here. I\u2019ll just take advice from the Clerk about what happens here. It\u2019s clear that the Minister is in the House and can answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a168bc7da47c417e9d198bd392310939\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It is absolutely true that the Minister of Finance is now in the House. However, another Minister has already started answering the question. I don\u2019t think I\u2019ve ever seen that happen before, but it does create a somewhat complicated issue for the House in that a Minister who has answered the primary question should be subject to follow-up questions, not somebody else taking over midstream.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ce042ebd238946d7aecf5ffb55b6f79d\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, that\u2019s an interesting view, but as the member will know from his long experience in this House, it is up to the Government to decide who answers any given question on the day.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f13b0fb2bcaa45719aa3dcbb62e79875\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That is absolutely true. It is up to the Government as to who answers a primary question and any supplementary questions that flow from that. The Government have decided that Paul Goldsmith should answer these questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002266bc9fc995474ae3a3fcfb2ed3726921\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, the Government clearly decided that it was necessary for Paul Goldsmith to answer a question, but he can\u2019t. He can\u2019t answer for the nominated Minister who is now in the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226dd1033509844fd39353198250222499\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002267c0229546ec410a88d9a5bac9655343\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: We could go on for a long time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226815d79ae4e24f4ca326354cd58c716b\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: We can indeed. If that is the case, then surely if a Minister is identified by the Government that they think should answer the primary question and the supplementary line of questioning goes in a direction that they weren\u2019t anticipating, it\u2019s not unreasonable now for the Government to ask that the Minister who is most appropriate to answer that question starts answering the questions midstream.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022373065c340be4b5ea862139ce95f2767\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, that\u2019s an interesting view and I\u2019m sure it would be the view that I\u2019d take if I was in your position, but the Standing Orders are quite clear that the Minister is in the House. The Government has the right to nominate who answers questions. The primary, of course, is on notice, so the expectation would be that the content of that answer is well shared across the ministry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d4dae97-e385-42a3-9791-5440c8cc9b3c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002227f5b6b9e1ec44f8b662a18087d90ae1\u0022\u003ENancy Lu\u003C/span\u003E: What is required to achieve the Government\u2019s fiscal strategy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220128cbeda10745d097ab5ae15355fbe4\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance)\u003C/span\u003E: Restraint is required. The Government is currently spending more than it is collecting in revenue. That is not sustainable as ongoing deficits must be funded by more and more borrowing. Fiscal consolidation is required to unwind structural deficits and, in the first instance, stop the rise in public debt as a proportion of the economy. It\u2019s worth noting that the interest costs on New Zealand\u2019s debt are already more than the combined amount of funding we are able to provide to the Police, the Defence Force, Customs, the Ministry of Justice, and Corrections combined. The Government is taking a deliberate medium-term approach to fiscal consolidation. This is not austerity. This is what you do to avoid austerity. The interest bill we are having to pay on the debt accumulated by the last Government means that our choices are more limited than they would otherwise be.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e8b9991fd89f48e0aa752bfda0fed903\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: $12 billion in tax cuts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022660b3e795ad942f789321ba3c5c4af57\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The question\u2019s about to be asked.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d4dae97-e385-42a3-9791-5440c8cc9b3c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f4faba76d9224b38b1ba7a5480227977\u0022\u003ENancy Lu\u003C/span\u003E: What levers does the Government have to drive fiscal consolidation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022291e26147e20499b877fc7b6c6a2e502\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: The Government has two fiscal levers. One has the label \u201Ccontrol spending\u201D; the other has the label \u201Cincrease taxes\u201D. The Government\u2019s focus is squarely on controlling spending, which, as a proportion of the economy, is still well above pre-2020 levels. I know others in this House, if they even care about the fiscal position, would go straight to the increased taxes lever. That would be a huge blow to households\u2019 cost of living and to economic growth, just as the economy is coming out of a protracted downturn.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cbbe8160d0014156ba699a879f321a88\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I just make the point that yesterday I was quite firm with the Opposition members that they could not speculate inside a question, and speculating inside an answer is equally unacceptable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d4dae97-e385-42a3-9791-5440c8cc9b3c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222e0d7c48ecf84f93b8624a7b8bd4ec7f\u0022\u003ENancy Lu\u003C/span\u003E: How is the Government\u2019s fiscal position affected by economic forecasts?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221a90a3952f7c46268196c68effa8b050\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the Government can control what it can control. However, some of the biggest changes to revenue and expenditure are outside the Government\u2019s direct influence. The economy affects the amount of revenue the Government expects to receive. It also affects expenditure\u2014for example, growth and benefits, superannuation, and finance costs are driven by economic variables. As I outlined in answer to the previous question, the interest bill which the Government faces on its debt is something which requires us to pay off over time. Of recent updates, a series of downside revisions to economic forecasts made the Government\u2019s fiscal goals much more challenging to achieve. Despite this, we are still on track to deliver a surplus by the end of the forecast period. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022366e0454e1ea475d8d658525aa67f61a\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Just to reaffirm things for the Leader of the Opposition, who raised quite a legitimate question, Speakers\u2019 ruling 199/1, brought down by Speaker Hunt in the year 2000, makes it very clear that if someone else answers a primary and then a Minister turns up, the Minister answers the supplementary questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022261f07a65dd54835b7714517fc4b98ea\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 2\u2014Prime Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022 data-id=\u00225e2749be61dc4031b86da73bd0cd0859\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225e2749be61dc4031b86da73bd0cd0859\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the Prime Minister\u2014maybe the Prime Minister will show up during this one\u2014does he stand by all of his Government\u2019s statements and actions?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225c894b7f4f3b42739bbd38de23e1144e\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, we\u2019re going to stop, and we\u2019ll start that again without the little quip.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022 data-id=\u00220e18445fc2d9480f8c3dd46fb76363b6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E2. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220e18445fc2d9480f8c3dd46fb76363b6\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition)\u003C/span\u003E to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government\u2019s statements and actions?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022 data-id=\u002289bc635458ef4be9bdbdf6a17e8dfd36\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002289bc635458ef4be9bdbdf6a17e8dfd36\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister)\u003C/span\u003E on behalf of the Prime Minister: With the usual caveats, most certainly, yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229c9e74f68d4c40fab5a184db75be5066\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Who is correct: Christopher Luxon, when he said the decision to take billions of dollars from working Kiwi women has nothing to do with the Budget, or David Seymour, when he said that decision has \u201Csaved the Budget\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228c035475e7fc432783428001c9dbb81c\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: The reality is that the law change that is being restored\u2014and it was changed in 2020 by all parties in this Parliament, who mistakenly made those changes because no settlement happened since then\u2014we\u2019re going back to the law of 2017 [Interruption]. Listen, you might learn something\u2014listen, you might learn something. We\u2019re going back to the 2017 law that saw nurses gain $2 billion. We believe that a lot of settlements being made now are settlements that should not be made, are wait and see, because all those past claims\u201435 cases\u2014can be heard in the same way into the future but the law will be different.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aaacb00f82a3419fad3a8bec8ecae696\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Why did Nicola Willis call the pay equity process a \u201Csign of success\u201D last year if it now needs dismantling, and is the Government\u2019s real motive to balance the books at the expense of working Kiwi women?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224506d591afe94e13b6bb14d2a0d36eee\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: No, the motive of the Government is to ensure we\u2019ve got a workable law that compares like with like. You cannot have all these professions that are just miles and miles away. Dare I say it, when you start talking about pay equity, the first thing you must understand where women are concerned is what a woman is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a41b8846dc60413a9ff9af7f991bea0d\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Is his definition of a woman\u2014[Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228922ca30361348f4b60be3316dfc86d1\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, no. Sorry, I\u2019ll just\u2014sorry. There was a lot of noise during that question. We do want to have questions asked in silence. We can\u2019t start to break that down. I\u2019d ask the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223a5aa8e6149d4f0babad7f2da515561f\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Is his definition of a woman someone who\u2019s paid less than a man?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002234984fdae9b443e7a6dc0558606a1457\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, my definition of a woman is not what that member said, \u201CI\u2019ll get back to you later.\u201D, and still can\u2019t describe it and said the other day that it was someone who said that they were a woman. No, if we\u2019re going to deal with this issue properly, then let\u2019s respect women, ensure that they get a fair go, and the\u2014[Interruption]. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002264b2e29da15543d69be4dd53158bdd6e\u0022\u003EHon Dr Megan Woods\u003C/span\u003E: Pay them what they\u2019re worth.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d9296f6f00b848b5bad85f4b0d9be4e1\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, in your case, it\u2019ll be a quarter of what you\u2019re getting now. There are women and women, you know. But, no, no\u2014this shouting. If that member had any experience, she would know that she\u2019s got all these supplementary questions to ask, but no, no, she shouts across Parliament every darn day from the front bench. Now, back to my point\u2014back to my point\u2014the experience of 2017 was that there were fair settlements. The experience since 2020 is that the law didn\u2019t work. That\u2019s why practical steps are being made. As for the comments on what it means, let\u2019s see when the claims are over.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f75a6931db5e4dbbbae19c2925ecd86e\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, sir. Thank you. For absolute clarity, can you please confirm to the House that that answer was on behalf of the Prime Minister?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228dade0c45e1442ba8afce193450dd81f\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s not for me to clarify that; it\u2019s for the person who\u2019s answering the question to clarify it. Until that clarification comes from that person, it can\u2019t be demanded by anybody else.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fdc62f9badbd417ca8b8539cf7a40a8d\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. With respect, sir, it is a requirement for Ministers to indicate when they are answering on behalf of other Ministers that they are doing so, and that is your responsibility to ensure that happens. Also, with respect, this is a point that I have made quite regularly with the Deputy Prime Minister answering on behalf of the Prime Minister, and you have already ruled previously that he is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022540922c27e9440c2be4fa6073bd9b411\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I have in certain circumstances where he has made it clear. It\u2019s for the House to determine. If someone stands up and speaks as a Minister, then that is where it sits. I can\u2019t start telling them or demanding that they are speaking for someone else.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220cf53a634be1458aa8d81318909905f2\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. It\u2019s on notice\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022828ef0aedf7745609fc6f3bef6656bb8\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, that is the point. That is the point, and think about what I\u2019ve just said.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226110cfa4a0fc4301ac71cad6c8c48af1\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: If the Deputy Prime Minister is not answering on behalf of the Prime Minister, who\u2019s he answering on behalf of?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fb2b865e4b8c493fb119e2a935dc7c24\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, you can make that conclusion yourself. He\u2019s not answering it as the Minister of Foreign Affairs or as the Deputy Prime Minister; he\u2019s answering as the Prime Minister. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002216587fbea4de4571b446fb35326271db\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Very good, thank you, Mr Speaker. How is it showing respect to Kiwi women that the Government\u2014supplementary? Sorry, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b93078fa05394bf58f3d433e5979a6d9\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s all right. I knew what you were doing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c7830a747c844a62ae7243c233fce5ab\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Very good, thank you. How is it showing respect to Kiwi women, as he claims, for the Government, under urgency, to unilaterally cancel pay equity claims covering hundreds of thousands of New Zealand women who are being paid less than men simply because they are women?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224664d2cca6c7402c91fbe2035053399c\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the last statement is categorically incorrect. The reality is we had all these\u2014[Interruption] Do you want to hear the answer? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220c14c369bbd44aefa2ca89d1c9849171\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I think\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000424\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220980a9b3e4e049dabf1e63098341c0bf\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: Or do you want to hear your stupid voice?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022edec0108f37a4f288f797ccbe69be64d\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, no.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a3dfba9bdc0c42648fac7175caa20d96\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: You can\u2019t have both.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fa5e52dccb274b8f9e954476d6e9e6d0\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Peters\u2014[Interruption]. OK, look. It\u2019s always an excitable time when the House is in urgency, but that\u2019s no excuse for things to break down quite the way they are. So we\u2019ll hear the balance of this question and answer exchange in silence. The Rt Hon Winston Peters, do you want to add to that answer?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000428\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002252b1542f711a4f10a390922cdf2d79f7\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: No, no.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f126ea78ad2943588e4df7b38f5b6427\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Why do he and his Ministers keep denying the obvious, that this is about robbing Paula to pay Paul, stripping Kiwi women of fair pay to clean up Nicola Willis\u2019 economic mess?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dbf33afced484f49b2b59b46f83c6391\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: To quote someone: I refute the premises of that question. The second thing is that the law worked successfully in 2017, as evidenced by the settlements. But when the law doesn\u2019t work, even though it was supported by every party in Parliament, our job when we make mistakes is to recognise that and fix it, and fix it we are. [Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229a96bac1c9824530a169c1452a06ef3c\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, good. Everyone quiet please.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00229efcda0c5956436c834f51a4eb73644c\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 3\u2014Transport\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f429fecb-a955-4d95-8105-e5144e651204\u0022 data-id=\u00224d6deed3893549999f856d868dc467af\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f429fecb-a955-4d95-8105-e5144e651204\u0022\u003E3. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224d6deed3893549999f856d868dc467af\u0022\u003EDAN BIDOIS (National\u2014Northcote)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made regarding rapid transit in Auckland?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002257e41e9d-285b-4fb3-847d-a63820ae7137\u0022 data-id=\u00229ead21e6830645a8ad9c995a780bd36e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257e41e9d-285b-4fb3-847d-a63820ae7137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229ead21e6830645a8ad9c995a780bd36e\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport):\u003C/span\u003E Excellent news. A couple of weeks ago, I was proud to announce, alongside His Worship Mayor Wayne Brown, that faster, more frequent reliable public transport for Auckland\u2019s north-west is one step closer with the New Zealand Transport Agency board endorsing the north-west rapid transit investment case. As members will know, the north-west of Auckland is home to 90,000 people, one of the city\u2019s largest planned growth areas\u2014100,000 people will live there by 2051. They deserve reliable, frequent public transport like other parts of Auckland do as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000435\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f429fecb-a955-4d95-8105-e5144e651204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221159faa14ce7498783f10d2f2dbe79c0\u0022\u003EDan Bidois\u003C/span\u003E: How will Aucklanders benefit from this project?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257e41e9d-285b-4fb3-847d-a63820ae7137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225b472da575a54b01a749352bbffd4140\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: This is a big project and a big win for the people of Auckland, particularly the north-west. Sixty percent of people in the north-west commute out of the area every day. Delivering the north-west busway will be a game-changer and build on the northern busway, the City Rail Link, and the Eastern Busway. We\u2019ll be able to move 9,000 passengers per hour in each direction. It\u2019s the equivalent of four motorway lanes and, when built, will provide 25-minute journey times from Brigham Creek to the city centre all day and every day.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f429fecb-a955-4d95-8105-e5144e651204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d3f3bcebb10e425fa443982d5ca30194\u0022\u003EDan Bidois\u003C/span\u003E: Very good. Supplementary, Mr Speaker\u2014[Interruption] What work is already\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226306bc20391a49268d6671660425cf6c\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, no. Sit down. You\u2019ve made a comment rather than a question. We\u2019ll move to question No. 4, Carmel Sepuloni.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002224d8a29501c344a6a342a1e06c1cfced\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 4\u2014Women\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022 data-id=\u00222a5dec02b92443e787100232e5f48620\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000440\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E4. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222a5dec02b92443e787100232e5f48620\u0022\u003EHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader\u2014Labour)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister for Women: Does she agree with the statement on the Ministry for Women website that \u201CThe majority (80%) of the gender pay gap is driven by harder to measure factors like conscious and unconscious bias and differences in choices and behaviours\u201D; if so, how has this shaped her advocacy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002293272d4e-6912-4148-8b35-c9622e18b814\u0022 data-id=\u0022fc722d1dac2e4a96b5829bcfd6d42cab\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002293272d4e-6912-4148-8b35-c9622e18b814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fc722d1dac2e4a96b5829bcfd6d42cab\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for Women):\u003C/span\u003E In response to the first leg of the question, yes. I\u2019d also agree with the statement on the website that Aotearoa New Zealand has a proud history of advancing equal rights, and the Equal Pay Act of 1972 \u201Coutlawed discrimination in wage rates between men and women performing the same job.\u201D, and this still stands.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225a73a387986c4469b8596e483e9867cd\u0022\u003EHon Carmel Sepuloni\u003C/span\u003E: Does she agree with the Prime Minister\u2019s statement that \u201Cthis is a Government that\u2019s very committed to pay equity and ensuring that we do everything we can against sex-based discrimination.\u201D; if so, why has the Government pushed through legislation under urgency to stop women from making pay equity claims?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002293272d4e-6912-4148-8b35-c9622e18b814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b63c7fb62e594507ba75932095b9b732\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA GRIGG\u003C/span\u003E: Of course, I always agree with the Prime Minister, and I\u2019d like to elucidate for the member that this is positive news for women. This law change provides a very clear legal framework for raising and resolving pay equity claims\u2014[Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002211977d18f91b471ea6269c1ad2a30723\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, just stop. We\u2019re not having that ongoing barrage like that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228e28a200a76e4c2db57f91c49e4e231f\u0022\u003EHon Carmel Sepuloni\u003C/span\u003E: I didn\u2019t say anything.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222c0ce29aaf1a483ba3ef33215d582bd9\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I beg your pardon?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000447\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ca4e490392eb4da388ca398e34ed55e2\u0022\u003EHon Carmel Sepuloni\u003C/span\u003E: I didn\u2019t say anything.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dfed295db0f44e4cba07e631c82c5d7c\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Unusually, you didn\u2019t say anything. But your colleagues certainly filled in for you, and almost matched your volume. Please, Nicola Grigg.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000449\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002293272d4e-6912-4148-8b35-c9622e18b814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ec98c15fa2eb471798bace3d3ef5d3b0\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA GRIGG\u003C/span\u003E: As I was saying, this law change provides, finally, a very clear legal framework for proving sex-based undervaluation and raising and resolving those claims. That can only be a good thing for women.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000450\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f1f08f0c371c46e19a4a91907913090c\u0022\u003EHon Carmel Sepuloni\u003C/span\u003E: Does she stand\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002261f6a31d6c134c178344997d6a04303e\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Hang on. Just wait for quiet, because it\u2019s people behind you who are pretty excited.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000452\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222f16a780470e4674bf613368db23e41f\u0022\u003EHon Carmel Sepuloni\u003C/span\u003E: Does she stand by her statement, from only 6 March this year, that \u201CThis Government absolutely remains committed to pay equity and meeting its obligations under the Equal Pay Act.\u201D; if so, what has changed?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002293272d4e-6912-4148-8b35-c9622e18b814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229df83d0ec9714a90ae3632b26057339f\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA GRIGG\u003C/span\u003E: Of course I stand by my statement. I want to be clear to this House that this law change is not walking back equal pay or pay equity; we are making improvements to a failed system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000454\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224f85b693951e4e53bd98c64d7bc298bc\u0022\u003EHon Carmel Sepuloni\u003C/span\u003E: Did she advocate for a robust select committee process for the Equal Pay Amendment Bill to allow women the chance to have their say, or is this bill so urgent that the Government doesn\u2019t need to hear from women?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000455\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002293272d4e-6912-4148-8b35-c9622e18b814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022417812372d0a4845b7fe8e1de757b0f0\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA GRIGG\u003C/span\u003E: I always advocate for women, and I have been consulted on and advised on this legislation from the outset.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002250acdfc176cc4289b7a2f638d9877bfe\u0022\u003EHon Carmel Sepuloni\u003C/span\u003E: Does she agree with Kristine Bartlett that \u201CI feel as though women have just been let down so terribly today. It\u2019s just so sad. I don\u2019t know what is going to happen in this society.\u201D; if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002293272d4e-6912-4148-8b35-c9622e18b814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224b60399b678c4fcebbfdefba16613bfa\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA GRIGG\u003C/span\u003E: What I would say to Ms Bartlett is that we are amending the Equal Pay Act to make the process more robust, more workable, and more sustainable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225e1b0fae95cc4e93bfaf4c1fa006f7e3\u0022\u003EHon Carmel Sepuloni\u003C/span\u003E: Is her top priority still to \u201Csupport women to economic empowerment\u201D, and, if so, how does undermining pay equity and cutting the Pay Equity Taskforce achieve this?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002293272d4e-6912-4148-8b35-c9622e18b814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222fbb5bbda66e43ebb94a937d796b3d39\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA GRIGG\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I do stand by that statement. Supporting women to economic empowerment is my number one priority as the Minister for Women.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227cb8716224e54600b505b7d895f6c8f9\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Question No. 5, Carl Bates.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229634e377-7e76-4353-9662-fb444eb2ec9d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f306b4340dbd45d6a17f8cb3925f9c20\u0022\u003ECarl Bates\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister\u2014[Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002207f597c85a1547a0a364223e555f3d8d\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Hang on, hang on, hang on. It\u2019s a simple rule; if there\u2019s a question being asked, don\u2019t speak. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000463\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002225383596e03143fa8b0e7ffc400f1ab1\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: How come you\u2019re looking at her, not the Minister who interjected at the end of her own question?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222610ef59fd3b4545beadb12d1be1742b\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m terribly sorry, I just assumed that there was a general noise coming from around the House, and I was wanting to affirm a position with your good self, given your vast experience in Parliament! Carl Bates.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a5b176078e3f4223b4c7e7a9bcf7e8f4\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Hear, hear! Rules!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229634e377-7e76-4353-9662-fb444eb2ec9d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227adea37208824f2e86c8f99b3643ea3a\u0022\u003ECarl Bates\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d31a50219688495190f19f6c15c3b3ee\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s right, Mr Jones, rules. Please be quiet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002222f6d309f52d4200b9e9fd41e85bf5af\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 5\u2014Justice\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229634e377-7e76-4353-9662-fb444eb2ec9d\u0022 data-id=\u00225f0c3238671d424888c79b5948bc8d59\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229634e377-7e76-4353-9662-fb444eb2ec9d\u0022\u003E5. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225f0c3238671d424888c79b5948bc8d59\u0022\u003ECARL BATES (National\u2014Whanganui)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Justice: How is the Government progressing with its plan to restore law and order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022 data-id=\u00227f0599643be34b07bf919e85636a8a98\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000470\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227f0599643be34b07bf919e85636a8a98\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice):\u003C/span\u003E The Government has been relentlessly focused on restoring law and order in New Zealand. We\u2019re putting victims back in the heart of the justice system and we\u2019re restoring real consequences for crime by taking a range of actions such as restoring three-strikes legislation, giving police more tools to effectively deal with gangs, and strengthening the sentencing regime. We have an ambitious agenda and we\u2019re progressing at pace.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229634e377-7e76-4353-9662-fb444eb2ec9d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cf4302da343e4dfe8b70d35edc27eebb\u0022\u003ECarl Bates\u003C/span\u003E: What update can he provide on the Government\u2019s violent crime reduction target?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bfc27b5201584ba6ad2f99fc32d09865\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, on entering Government at the end of 2023, the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey recorded 185,000 New Zealanders as being victims of violent crime over the preceding year; that is, victims of assaults, robberies, and sexual assaults. The Government has focused the justice system on reducing that number and has set an ambitious target of reducing the number by 20,000 to 165,000 victims by 2029. I\u2019m pleased to tell the House that the latest figure that was released recently is 157,000. That\u2019s 8,000 fewer than our target for 2029. It\u2019s still 157,000 victims too many, but it does show great progress.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229634e377-7e76-4353-9662-fb444eb2ec9d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022031ba83cd53f4f2c9c2075970df9a25f\u0022\u003ECarl Bates\u003C/span\u003E: What impact does such good progress towards the violent crime reduction target have on New Zealanders?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022041943c6f0e54cfcb9595210dd2f1ee6\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, 28,000 fewer victims recorded between October 2023 and now is a statistic amongst a world of statistics. But each of those 28,000 people represent an individual that is spared from the trauma of violent crime\u2014somebody\u2019s son, daughter, husband, wife, partner, friend, or loved one. That\u2019s why our Government has focused the justice system squarely on reducing the number of victims of crime.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229634e377-7e76-4353-9662-fb444eb2ec9d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c74d5cf317db4531ad036a9fe4974d10\u0022\u003ECarl Bates\u003C/span\u003E: What is next in the Government\u2019s plans?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f480b861dd714a4fbb6fb7638d3655d7\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the Government soon will be taking decisions to further strengthen consequences for crime by reforming the Crimes Act, and, in doing so, we\u2019ll continue to receive and consider advice from the Ministerial Advisory Group for Victims of Retail Crime, relating to strengthening trespass laws, addressing low-level offending, as well as progressing law changes to make the citizen\u2019s arrest provisions sensible and effective.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00226e6a79fc9cb64951ada7afe073d7133c\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 6\u2014Prime Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022 data-id=\u00223a64fd5208404557821018edcbe9991d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E6. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223a64fd5208404557821018edcbe9991d\u0022\u003EHon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green)\u003C/span\u003E to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ng\u0101 k\u014Drero me ng\u0101 mahi katoa a t\u014Dna K\u0101wanatanga?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E[Does he stand by all of his Government\u2019s statements and actions?]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022 data-id=\u0022a039a81550704fdb87a70c089580b4da\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a039a81550704fdb87a70c089580b4da\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister)\u003C/span\u003E on behalf of the Prime Minister: In all good tidings, yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c4a3ac1fba3c4d4ab1e09b3c9a9e297a\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Does he agree with his Minister of Conservation that \u201CThe richness of Aotearoa New Zealand\u2019s biodiversity and our iconic landscapes are a source of great pride to New Zealanders. We need to focus our minds on protecting this taonga now and into the future\u201D, and, if so, what is his Government doing to protect te taiao?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c92ad7f9b1354aeaa5517251eb579f84\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: The one qualification as to the name of the country you\u2019re speaking about, I agree with him totally.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a7a90d06baf647aa874264852ecb1550\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: How long has he given the public to submit on the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill, which will allow developers to lawfully kill New Zealand\u2019s protected wildlife?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000484\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002220e23515e3e1463391d53fa0df7db3c6\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s a very specific question that might better be addressed to a select committee as opposed to a Minister. Ask a different one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228686\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224892bb220c1d4a6d97ef8495272471b6\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I\u2019m happy to answer it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225648c79e5c534f21bed8ae8aaa16d109\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, OK. Right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222811cd7eda9041a5b2ca0e407aae1daa\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: Long enough for us to come up with some very sound, practical, and workable legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002215f02c6fe27847f7b2635d408e93d024\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Does he see the irony in rushing through a bill to authorise the killing of wildlife when his own Government\u2019s biodiversity implementation strategy, released on Monday, states that \u201CNew Zealand has one of the highest proportions of threatened species in the world\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224f66c8ee90f84b18af6bde14b48dc5b2\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, all members of this Government understand entirely what that member is talking about, but the reality is that this is a long programme over decades that we have been working on, and it\u2019s nothing new that we don\u2019t know, so to speak. But certain culling has to happen in the interest of the total number of species in this country. That\u2019s just plain common sense.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002224bd98ef39cf4510835234a64b01ac9b\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: How does he expect the Department of Conservation to fulfil additional expectations, as proposed under his Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill, when the director-general has already said \u201Cthe department is not currently financially sustainable for what we are being asked to do\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228edc89b513c84a5da30b9e7a4b29c64e\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: The answer for that is to go and ask all those people around this country\u2014and there are tens of thousands of them\u2014who would be happy to contribute and help out the Department of Conservation on that very issue. That\u2019s what sharing the burden looks like, and I can say there are thousands and thousands of New Zealanders, men and women, who would want to help now, and they\u2019d not want to be paid for it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222e50bf400fba4da5bc392b4a66f95b3e\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Does he agree that without funding in the upcoming Budget, conservation work will continue to be chronically underfunded and reliant on private philanthropy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002216dff52fe5c647329fdb4485925f1d71\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: No, this Government has never believed that tossing money around like an eight-armed octopus is the answer for everything.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002281508d707208485c9bf610af9e85e3cd\u0022\u003EHon Tama Potaka\u003C/span\u003E: Can I ask, Acting Prime Minister, had previous Governments been responsible for numerous authorisations that had been issued for the incidental killing of wildlife, and also, does he have a concern that if we follow the recent judgment that\u2019d stop this, the TV3 programme, a number of roading projects, and green infrastructure projects will be ceased?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225abffd3397884c2eb8594bd635e11077\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: With respect\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000496\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022338345f628694bd7a67348cd99e09adc\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: That sounds different from culling.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000497\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228cece5e8183f470d8f12cdb2dc2eedd1\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: Now, this is the truth now. With respect to both questions, on the first one, we most certainly agree; on the second one, thank you to the Minister for pointing out the abysmal record of the past that we are seeking to correct.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000498\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00226fe5c1322fcf4376b19419c822a6ad1f\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 7\u2014Finance\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261725fea-7d5e-4d1f-8fd3-e5779bb7a14d\u0022 data-id=\u0022f35da61ca522462ab327e1cb7833029d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261725fea-7d5e-4d1f-8fd3-e5779bb7a14d\u0022\u003E7. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f35da61ca522462ab327e1cb7833029d\u0022\u003EHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour\u2014Mana)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Finance: Does she agree with Associate Finance Minister David Seymour that \u201CI actually think that Brooke van Velden has saved the taxpayer billions. She\u2019s saved the Budget for the Government.\u201D; if so, what are the savings from the changes to pay equity?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022 data-id=\u002243255f6c683f4660a693afc5e64d2c68\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000500\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002243255f6c683f4660a693afc5e64d2c68\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance):\u003C/span\u003E I understand from my colleague Mr Seymour that he was speaking as ACT leader when he made that statement, not associate finance Minister. The words the ACT leader chose are not what I would choose. I agree that changes being made to pay equity legislation will reduce the Crown\u2019s expected future costs from pay equity settlements. There is some important context here and, as has been the practice with successive Ministers of Finance, it is my judgment that it is in accordance with the public interest to provide detailed information about this in the full context of the Budget. However, to help the member, I can confirm that there is a reduction in projected future costs to the Crown of several billion dollars. However, there are two reasons why the projected costs of pay equity settlements projected by the Treasury have been rising exponentially, and they are not all related to the changes in the bill which the Government is progressing. The first relates to the costs to the Crown as an employer. This Government intends to keep meeting those costs. Where claims are made that demonstrate that women employed by the Government have been discriminated against on the basis of their gender, it is our Government\u2019s intention to fully fund those settlements, and we will provide funding for that in our Budget\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000501\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db84ffe042d84f94a7562924e22d8911\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Good.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000502\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227254dfd9d650478aa15c8d9d9c036f97\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: It is also the Government\u2019s intention to fully uphold settlements. You\u2019re getting impatient but they want the information, I tell you\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b4a02ca907294e4ba6359a1ebc0b9171\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yep, I am.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223f223e57e39e4c2eb4e055a26b898000\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: But the second issue relates to the way that the Government responds to claims made against private sector employers. The last Government established an expectation that those costs would be fully met by the Crown, and that is not our expectation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022d42a3bde165840b5a13abb608c6b95eb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000505\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d42a3bde165840b5a13abb608c6b95eb\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, good. I think supplementaries from the Minister\u2019s own side might help with that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261725fea-7d5e-4d1f-8fd3-e5779bb7a14d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022062342de46104b7f9b8fbcf0da49b04b\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: When did she first receive advice by the New Zealand Treasury on the potential savings from changing the law to cancel 33 active pay equity claims? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000507\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221b1d071720e540c9ae16d4a2115dda43\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: I have been receiving briefings about the projected future costs of pay equity settlements\u2014as I recall\u2014from within my first days as Minister of Finance, and what I do recall observing was that those projected costs were far, far greater than I had ever appreciated, and far greater than I think Parliament appreciated when it first passed the pay equity reforms in 2020. As I just said, this, in particular, related to a Cabinet decision made by the last Government that it would fully meet the costs of successful claims against private sector employers\u2014that is to say, the taxpayer being a backstop for employers found to have discriminated against women on the basis of their gender. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000508\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261725fea-7d5e-4d1f-8fd3-e5779bb7a14d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002294cc54feb38d40a2aa30a31bdb9dc8aa\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: Does she stand by her statement that \u201CWe are committed to maintaining stability for New Zealanders by continuing to invest in essential front-line services.\u201D, and, if so, how is cancelling the pay equity claim for 75,000 teachers investing in the front line?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000509\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222518151ec9dc425d813aa99bd9e2f119\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: I stand by all my statements. As I have said, it remains the Government\u2019s solemn commitment that where pay equity claims are proven against the Government as an employer\u2014for example, as the employer of teachers\u2014if a pay equity claim is proven, that teachers have been discriminated against on the basis of their gender, then we will meet the costs of that settlement. It\u2019s important to note that workforces advance their working conditions and pay through a number of channels. One of them is pay equity, and that should relate to gender discrimination. The other, second, very important channel is through normal bargaining; that\u2019s how workers bargain for improved conditions and improved pay and, yes, I can confirm the Government has put aside funding in our Budget to meet the costs of future teacher bargaining. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000510\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e4c4e52c5dd44523b7b2e30d0f65a219\u0022\u003EHon Ginny Andersen\u003C/span\u003E: What is she doing to assist the additional 9,000 women who are unemployed compared to this time last year, and how will cutting women\u2019s pay incentivise them into work? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000511\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002242e8000f2ceb4d7188150d784b783e8a\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: I object to the statement made in the latter half of that question, which is untrue. We are not doing that, because what the member is referring to is claims that have been made that have not been proven. Where there have been settlements, the Government is continuing to fully fund the upholding of those settlements, and, second, we are continuing to allow claims to progress where discrimination can be proved on the basis of gender. So those sorts of outlandish statements undermine the credibility of the member and her party. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000512\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b2ddc63dcc4d4d79970774598370bdc1\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Throughout this question, the Minister of Finance has given incredibly long answers that extended well beyond the scope of the question, including insulting the people who are asking the question. You\u2019ve been quite hard on our side of the House today, and I simply ask that you apply that standard to the other side of the House and that Ministers answer the questions that they\u2019re asked and they refrain from insulting the people who are asking what are very fair and legitimate questions about a bill that\u2019s going through the House under urgency with no public scrutiny. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000513\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257e41e9d-285b-4fb3-847d-a63820ae7137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228238ee9ca77547ae8fa313e53267993c\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000514\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002216c24a0cc03645729cf9bdd4e91d9980\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Just before we hear from you, Mr Bishop\u2014I will hear from you\u2014I\u2019d just ask the Leader of the Opposition to reflect that the last question that was asked was very wide of the wicket and it didn\u2019t relate to any previous answer. I was about to stop it, but then thought, \u201CNo, it\u2019s a big issue. Let it run on.\u201D The Hon Chris Bishop\u2014no? OK. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000515\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261725fea-7d5e-4d1f-8fd3-e5779bb7a14d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002213c0815c296e46f3ab8983bb57cb2d68\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: Does she stand by her statement from 2 May 2024 that \u201CIn the past few years, a substantial number of public sector claims have been settled and the taskforce has supported agencies to build up their expertise and knowledge of their obligations. It is a sign of success\u201D; if so, what has changed since May 2024 that requires legislation to be passed under urgency before her Budget? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000516\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002223ae46280f2c415a99055ab3ce4a5a49\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I stand by that statement because it remains the case that those settlements that have been reached will be upheld but also it is the case that the expertise that was built up by public servants through the claims process is partly what has informed the Government\u2019s decision to refine this Act, because what we found was that claims were being able to be progressed across a range of issues that went beyond the intended scope as it related to discrimination on the basis of sex. Finally, what I would make clear is that we are passing this legislation under urgency in order to provide absolute clarity and in order for claims to once again be submitted. It is not the case that this is required for the Budget, because, actually, the decisions made by Cabinet were enough to put the financial implications into the Budget. The legislation did not need to be passed in order for that to happen. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000517\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261725fea-7d5e-4d1f-8fd3-e5779bb7a14d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220f493cc8df4945819c073e6fea0c18d0\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: What claims were outside the scope of the legislation that required the legislation to now change urgently before her Budget? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dda307e1fd0e46ae82dd7d75a3565ac4\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it\u2019s long been a practice of this House that we won\u2019t make legal judgments about which claims may or may not be successful in future. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000519\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261725fea-7d5e-4d1f-8fd3-e5779bb7a14d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227f3751c91f854678a34dd6f68d72f732\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: What is more important: saving her Budget, or ensuring women are paid enough? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000520\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228443d53725c641c0a88383548d840ae3\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: I reject the characterisation in the first part of the question. In answer to the second part of the question, I stand by the statements I have made for several years, which is that I wish to see women be advanced and I wish to see them have equal rights and opportunities to men. It remains my view that women don\u2019t always have equal rights and opportunities to men, and that is why we are entrenching a workable pay equity regime that, by the way, is one of the most progressive in the world, as it stands, in the legislation we\u2019re advancing today, so that where women are being discriminated against on the basis of their gender, they can make claims and have them settled. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000521\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00223ec0155c71944c30ab80bdb1021f4d89\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 8\u2014Mental Health\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d4f894dc-da63-4b45-9c2a-c07b41a65e64\u0022 data-id=\u0022db06e723ed784d959aa8079a7b6e9557\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000522\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d4f894dc-da63-4b45-9c2a-c07b41a65e64\u0022\u003E8. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022db06e723ed784d959aa8079a7b6e9557\u0022\u003EDr VANESSA WEENINK (National\u2014Banks Peninsula)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister for Mental Health: What recent announcement has he made supporting Women\u2019s Refuge through the Mental Health and Addiction Innovation Fund?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ee649aea-c6fa-4610-9fcf-5c4bb2d3cd33\u0022 data-id=\u0022384fa02e48564f43a813b6e8e73c807e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000523\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ee649aea-c6fa-4610-9fcf-5c4bb2d3cd33\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022384fa02e48564f43a813b6e8e73c807e\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health):\u003C/span\u003E Last week, I announced that the Women\u2019s Refuge\u2014[Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000524\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227a808a364ffe4931be79b3abe34cb766\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, sorry\u2014everyone can calm right down.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000525\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ee649aea-c6fa-4610-9fcf-5c4bb2d3cd33\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002276d2bd0e24af481f832f32e9c2d1db4c\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Last week, I announced that the Women\u2019s Refuge was the latest recipient of the Government\u2019s Mental Health and Addiction Innovation Fund. The funding will support 250 advocates based within the 41 women\u2019s refuges across New Zealand. Over the past five years, Women\u2019s Refuge has supported, on average, 15,000 women per year. This funding will help Women\u2019s Refuge better support these women and children in their time of need.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d4f894dc-da63-4b45-9c2a-c07b41a65e64\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221256b623876142fa8f2631315d8dc791\u0022\u003EDr Vanessa Weenink\u003C/span\u003E: How will funding from the Mental Health and Addiction Innovation Fund support Women\u2019s Refuge?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000527\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ee649aea-c6fa-4610-9fcf-5c4bb2d3cd33\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227e31a438ad4e4156bfd225236b39d9c6\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY\u003C/span\u003E: The funding will support Women\u2019s Refuge to upskill their staff and improve connections with local mental health services and referral pathways. The feedback I often hear about mental health services is that they are too hard to navigate because the system is too disjointed and people don\u2019t know where to go. This funding will help Women\u2019s Refuge to join up the system to make it more accessible to those in need. Government funding will be match-funded to total over $1 million to deliver this initiative.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000528\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d4f894dc-da63-4b45-9c2a-c07b41a65e64\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a1a079efe1254c2ebfdd166c2fe8badd\u0022\u003EDr Vanessa Weenink\u003C/span\u003E: What feedback has the Minister received on this recent announcement?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000529\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ee649aea-c6fa-4610-9fcf-5c4bb2d3cd33\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002226fbf8f37ab945028e57cf387ddccf5a\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY\u003C/span\u003E: Women\u2019s Refuge chief executive Ang Jury said, \u201CThis is a project that we wouldn\u2019t have been able to look at without this funding, \u2026 [and] it would have been impossible without\u201D. I had a message from Bethany, who said, \u201CThis is awesome to hear. Our Women\u2019s Refuge centres across the country do amazing work. I hope the funding will be spread to the regional centres.\u201D I\u2019m happy to tell Bethany and the House that this funding will support Women\u2019s Refuge across the country and all of the 41 Women\u2019s Refuge centres. I\u2019m proud that we\u2019re able to help Women\u2019s Refuge support women and families in their time of need.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000530\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d4f894dc-da63-4b45-9c2a-c07b41a65e64\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002230e4773d67b04f63856be3c0ae6a4e56\u0022\u003EDr Vanessa Weenink\u003C/span\u003E: What other organisations have benefited from the Mental Health and Addiction Innovation Fund, and what changes has he made to round two of the fund?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000531\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ee649aea-c6fa-4610-9fcf-5c4bb2d3cd33\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fb5633535a75459f9977770e32ebd7ea\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY\u003C/span\u003E: So far, we\u2019ve been able to support MATES in Construction, the Mental Health Foundation, Youthline, Wellington City Mission, Rotorua\u2019s Youth One Stop Shop, Sir John Kirwan Foundation, and there are still further announcements to come. Round two of the fund will also see a lower limit required from $250,000 per application to $100,000. This means more front-line services will benefit, but the real winners are New Zealanders looking to access timely mental health and addiction support.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00228ab80dc5711749338344733b383f2b22\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 9\u2014Prime Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dbaac12b-3efa-4d95-a08d-f0f637a48bab\u0022 data-id=\u002252e7b0b8ab7540feb736d69e9bea7aca\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dbaac12b-3efa-4d95-a08d-f0f637a48bab\u0022\u003E9. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002252e7b0b8ab7540feb736d69e9bea7aca\u0022\u003ECHL\u00D6E SWARBRICK (Co-Leader\u2014Green)\u003C/span\u003E to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ng\u0101 k\u014Drero me ng\u0101 mahi katoa a t\u014Dna K\u0101wanatanga?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dbaac12b-3efa-4d95-a08d-f0f637a48bab\u0022\u003E[Does he stand by all of his Government\u2019s statements and actions?]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022 data-id=\u00220e22ff5c5fed443fb7202ddcd4447992\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000535\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220e22ff5c5fed443fb7202ddcd4447992\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister)\u003C/span\u003E on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000536\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dbaac12b-3efa-4d95-a08d-f0f637a48bab\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222bcf06933eed40f7bda32bc75e68ec9f\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: Why did his Government choose to pass the pay equity amendment legislation under urgency, bypassing public and expert input and good lawmaking practice?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000537\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227f6dc9557f0048b6b83b5c1a257fccb7\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: The judgment of that question, at the conclusion, is demonstrably false. It demonstrates that the person knows nothing about industrial relations law and doesn\u2019t understand that, at the very bottom of where the labour unions and others are, we made our consideration way back then on the question of minimum wages. Now, the fact is that we need one system for all claimants. We did not need the confusion that arose after 2020, so we\u2019re going back to a system in 2017, which worked so successfully that the then claimants got $2 billion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000538\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dbaac12b-3efa-4d95-a08d-f0f637a48bab\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c8fd9ac8cc42478caa6704af7154e7ce\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: If we are to believe the Prime Minister that the pay equity amendment is about a more robust and workable system, why has his Government chosen to unexpectedly announce and pass the law under urgency, without any chance for public or expert engagement or scrutiny, in just two sitting days?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000539\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002290440cf1c0864dbb83c943e31d219094\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: In the famous words of William Shakespeare, if the deed should be done, it had better be done quickly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dbaac12b-3efa-4d95-a08d-f0f637a48bab\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002291a279ea6a664fb28423e2f1b14d4468\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: What exactly is not robust and workable about the current pay equity scheme?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002256376094d9774561bbc7931f6d5afc13\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s not robust about the current pay equity scheme is that you\u2019ve got all sorts of illogical comparisons, with no relativity whatsoever, and that\u2019s one of the reasons why the claims have been dragged out these last five years. We want to have the system fixed, and remember: some of us have got a record in terms of fair pay, superior to any other people in this Parliament. That\u2019s our record, and so I\u2019m certain that, when it\u2019s over, as the Minister of Finance has warned over and over and over again, there will be a fiscal impact. Why don\u2019t we wait and see what the findings are?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000542\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dbaac12b-3efa-4d95-a08d-f0f637a48bab\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002271f68302da744171b8b779f0d1256fbd\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: What exactly is the purpose of making the pay equity process more difficult and cancelling 33 active claims, representing hundreds of thousands of women in this country\u2019s lowest-paid industries?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a70564cce7f649d986af67c3e050821e\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: Nothing has been cancelled, to the extent that they can revive all those claims under the new regime. It\u2019s so simple: we\u2019re going back to a law that worked before some misguided politicians\u2014unfortunately, far too many\u2014changed the law and it didn\u2019t work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022068cd50dcd444266b46e889dfe85e21c\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 10\u2014Workplace Relations and Safety\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022 data-id=\u002245544166b86d4af5b62a6a5249955211\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000545\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003E10. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002245544166b86d4af5b62a6a5249955211\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she agree with Thomas Coughlan of the New Zealand Herald, who said about her changes to pay equity legislation that \u201CIt is deeply wrong that Parliament can take away that work in a matter of hours\u201D; if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u002225d9cb940995473c96f95c7027a24cf9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000546\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002225d9cb940995473c96f95c7027a24cf9\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E May I start by making something very clear: this Government is committed to maintaining a pay equity regime, and none of the changes this Government is making undo the hard work of Kristine Bartlett, whose work Thomas Coughlan was referring to. This Government denounces sex-based discrimination in the workplace. [Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000547\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228eb14090dd954a1cb0d8ee347a228fa0\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Hang on\u2014hang on a minute. If there\u2019s going to be concern about the answer to a question, I need to be able to hear it, and there\u2019s too much noise for me to be able to hear that. Please carry on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000548\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c5eef1e2dcf2488dbd003b07c4f4eb71\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN\u003C/span\u003E: This Government denounces sex-based discrimination in the workplace. We will continue to have an Equal Pay Act to address cases of genuine sex-based discrimination. We are continuing to allow anyone to raise a pay equity claim. What we are doing is making the system more robust, workable, and sustainable. On that basis, I do not agree with Thomas Coughlan\u2019s characterisation. However, I do agree with a different journalist\u2019s characterisation, which was Mike Hosking from this morning. His article said, \u201CReform for the Pay Equity Act is good.\u201D [Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000549\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022475549cd3ba0449398ea6bae7c3ae01e\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, hang on\u2014just stop. Just wait till the excitement settles down. [Interruption] Now, just wait\u2014I said just wait.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000550\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221e97758bad1a4e22a8375525a0c946e3\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN\u003C/span\u003E: He said, \u201CKristine Bartlett was, to many, a hero. She was a very likeable woman. She was a caregiver who argued her work was undervalued and she deserved more. The Labour Party who love \u2018feels\u2019 and are not exactly unfamiliar with the unions and leapt all over it and the Equal Pay Act \u2026 was born. The downside was how to compare this so-called \u2018underpaid work\u2019 like in nursing homes [etc.] \u2026 They decided at the time comparing mechanics to rest home workers made sense, even though it didn\u2019t, and doesn\u2019t. [And] That\u2019s why Brooke van Velden has announced pay equity is going to be, quite rightly, tipped up and sorted out.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002298fb7fe270c5496c84f607fbad83aebe\u0022\u003EHon Jan Tinetti\u003C/span\u003E: Why is she mandating that pay equity claims can only use comparators from the same industry when the very point of pay equity claims is to highlight that female-dominated industries are less valued than male-dominated industries?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c04c66e60fd04c4c8d0d7e457693eb62\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN\u003C/span\u003E: The reason why we are introducing the hierarchy of comparators is so that we have greater confidence in the pay equity system rightly identifying issues of genuine sex-based undervaluation. We start at home, making a comparison with people who work within the same company or employer. If there is no comparison with people who have a different but similar work environment, a different employer\u2014if there is no comparator there, within the same sector but not across industry. This means that we can have greater confidence that we are picking up genuine sex-based undervaluation and not other labour market forces and things like inflation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000553\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d2f2883baead449b8aa067cdda0e20f6\u0022\u003EHon Jan Tinetti\u003C/span\u003E: Did she compare social workers to air traffic controllers because she fundamentally believes that work done mostly by women is inherently less valued than work done by mostly men?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000554\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002250ed9a82e3c64866b5bb731dd2681727\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN\u003C/span\u003E: No, I did because they do it themselves.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000555\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b0dc6ed45f5b421fa01b47a9ceb3634b\u0022\u003EHon Jan Tinetti\u003C/span\u003E: Does she think \u201Cvery real and significant cost reductions to Government.\u201D is a price only women should pay for?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d00daa5e7f324026971bcbdc16e819da\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN\u003C/span\u003E: No, I believe women should be paid for their work. Every woman in this Cabinet believes women should be paid for their work. What we don\u2019t agree with are muddied laws. We have laws that Labour pushed through that have made pay equity confused with things like collective agreements; confused with inflation; confused with other labour market forces, things like technological change, demographic change\u2014a whole range of labour market forces. If you genuinely believe in gender-based and sex-based discrimination being stamped out, then you would support this bill, because that\u2019s exactly what it does.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000557\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f43e794f9374491baa2561ace57f3825\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Can I ask the Minister as to whether the questioner, who is a primary school teacher, has told her as to who gave primary school teachers\u2014massively filled with women in that population\u2014pay parity?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225c0340889b644875a4eebc9dc948419f\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: So how is that question in order? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000559\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226918b1520b5747c5900807fb65f1c8a2\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Because you\u2019re looking at it; that\u2019s why.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221a92bd16ac5e45ac8d49bc113c7571f9\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, hang on a minute. I\u2019m not about to dissect the question, but in the context of the question that is asked, in the context of the supplementaries that I\u2019ve been listening to very carefully, because the answers have been lengthy, it\u2019s not an unreasonable question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022347f89a4c9c14ccc982d0a8cef41e69d\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It is absolutely unreasonable to refer to the background, the prior employment, of any member in a question to a Minister. How is that in any way in order? It is a complete departure from the Standing Orders and Speakers\u2019 rulings.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f878baa1acf04a729c2c6381b2b8c8db\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000563\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cae92fab6e5d452dacac07020e673f79\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, no\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000564\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228e7ca647f58846b3b59b6a812a211ff7\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I can be very helpful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002240ec3e564b574faea0624021395afdd5\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, we\u2019re not going to go on too long.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002234ea1e4d413a4fde8bee3e059253f194\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: The reality is that the teaching profession in more recent years has massively become more the province of women than men, it\u2019s sad to say. But the reality is I was just trying to make the point that this person, who has an experience as a headmistress of a primary school, was the\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000567\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f91b6259b1c34a4797581ec8e236349c\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Principal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000568\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228686\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c3f3d51d5c684d6dbb1ed1f7a6c4bab5\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, well, the principal\u2014same thing. There\u2019s a lot of ranges of the way to describe them. Some still describe themselves as headmistress. Not everybody\u2019s like that person: confused about what a woman is. But the point here is that they were the beneficiary of pay parity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000569\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226ca3a50ef2d2421ca5705f00eb1ae572\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker, I\u2019m willing to attempt to answer the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220eff518233344bcea54cd091ee5f4e4f\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I think everybody in the House\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000571\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022827bb2f424dd40c98b8f4b2cbc8ee9d8\u0022\u003EHon Jan Tinetti\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000572\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f5fff9bd3d5b4d35ba912e02d1909f6d\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Just a minute. I think everybody in the House already knows the answer, so we won\u2019t be hearing it. Point of order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000573\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c1a4dfa806fb4c9994cd1515f87f5590\u0022\u003EHon Jan Tinetti\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I was just going to say, how does that Minister have responsibility for pay parity and giving it to teachers?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000574\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002284237ec29194400492b4d1f19119337f\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve just said I think we know the answer. The question\u2019s not going to be answered as it was being asked. Do you have another supplementary?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000575\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022359ebb55f92d4da18e6b1dd034938ee8\u0022\u003EHon Jan Tinetti\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister believe that this gender pay gap, as it currently stands, simply isn\u2019t wide enough?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002282bfd11ffd2c43f49fdda976eef1ebd3\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN\u003C/span\u003E: I believe that the gender pay gap and pay equity are separate concepts. The gender pay gap has far more individualistic elements to do with career choices, time away from work, part-time work. Pay equity is about systemic sex-based undervaluation, not on an individual scale but on a workforce-wide scale.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000577\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c427e220af414b9984160cfcd3082eb4\u0022\u003EHon Jan Tinetti\u003C/span\u003E: Is her message to Kiwi women whose work is undervalued that they should just suck it up and work harder to grow the economy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000578\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b66e631a59fa4488ae2da45413742b0d\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN\u003C/span\u003E: My message to women who believe they are undervalued is that this Government does value women. We believe in having a pay equity system that is fair, that is workable, and that is sustainable. That is not changing. People can still make claims, but if we genuinely believe in stamping out sex-based undervaluation, everybody should be in favour of being able to correctly identify it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d41cdc4a1239457783ec0465e1e1ea77\u0022\u003EHon Jan Tinetti\u003C/span\u003E: Is she comfortable that taking the women\u2019s movement backwards by decades will be her political legacy? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d59b0b5fb54347d9a2f56ebacd23dae9\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN\u003C/span\u003E: My political legacy shouldn\u2019t be the focus of that member. She should focus on doing her job. [Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ab1f5695d11f41faa9cf7ff1652f3d7a\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Are we all right? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a0afb43994ab4daa874f687b4d5fb1bb\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: No, I\u2019d like to keep going. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000583\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221db4fc7ab7594313a74dd3e7eab657a6\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, if some people need to let a bit of steam out, leave the House and just let it go out in the fresh air somewhere.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000584\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ceee005b696b479c8ec5cf907f1d0042\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 11\u2014Children\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002227600399-0a88-4371-a784-b5a7bc7afc37\u0022 data-id=\u002284872931211e4118b5f4b1f1fda0683d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227600399-0a88-4371-a784-b5a7bc7afc37\u0022\u003E11. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002284872931211e4118b5f4b1f1fda0683d\u0022\u003EMARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori\u2014Te Tai Tokerau)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by her statement that \u201Cincreased reporting also shows that people feel like they can report their concerns to Oranga Tamariki or other government agencies and that these reports are being captured and actioned\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002286ae9a20-33bd-4912-8dc1-5b4eb670be44\u0022 data-id=\u002209f61e1a19114f139ccb4f1804e425ef\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000586\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002286ae9a20-33bd-4912-8dc1-5b4eb670be44\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002209f61e1a19114f139ccb4f1804e425ef\u0022\u003EHon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children):\u003C/span\u003E Yes. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank people who do make reports of concern and remind everyone, whether you\u2019re a teacher, neighbour, family member, or anyone else: if you see something, please say something. I also want to acknowledge the social workers who are the ones picking up the phone, responding to safety concerns, and working alongside children and young people and their families and communities. The work of Oranga Tamariki front-line staff needs to be recognised.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000587\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227600399-0a88-4371-a784-b5a7bc7afc37\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fb8e8d12a9d540759e9b7514ff079c71\u0022\u003EMariameno Kapa-Kingi\u003C/span\u003E: What urgent action is she taking to ensure that every child reported to Oranga Tamariki is assigned a social worker without delay, including the 1,000 tamariki who are currently sat on a waiting list?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002286ae9a20-33bd-4912-8dc1-5b4eb670be44\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a5944ad4a57b4a4283d8308c4e52a7f3\u0022\u003EHon KAREN CHHOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Whilst I understand the unallocated cases of young children are sitting at a high number of around 1,300, we cannot pretend that this is a new issue. This has been an issue for a very long time. But what I can say is I\u2019m really proud of the hard work of our front-line social workers who have managed to keep that number the same, even with a massive increase of reports of concern.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000589\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227600399-0a88-4371-a784-b5a7bc7afc37\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e9c362b6419946559226038c81f29549\u0022\u003EMariameno Kapa-Kingi\u003C/span\u003E: What reassurance can she offer to the over 300 care and protection social workers who are dealing with a caseload of more than 20 tamariki, especially when work protocol requires intervention at this stage?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002286ae9a20-33bd-4912-8dc1-5b4eb670be44\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223280121f11a1408cb5961c2414454a2b\u0022\u003EHon KAREN CHHOUR\u003C/span\u003E: There are many measures that have been put in place. We have been trialling support staff alongside front-line staff workers to help with work that isn\u2019t necessarily required by a social worker. I am out on the front line talking to as many of these people as I possibly can to hear what the concerns are region to region, because a one-size-fits-all model doesn\u2019t work. I\u2019m out listening to see how we can make a difference.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227600399-0a88-4371-a784-b5a7bc7afc37\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002253b152c64770476080232465fe6163b0\u0022\u003EMariameno Kapa-Kingi\u003C/span\u003E: How is the Minister ensuring that the 45 percent rise in reports of concern is matched with sufficient resourcing so that tamariki are not left vulnerable and at risk due to unmanageable workloads?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000592\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002286ae9a20-33bd-4912-8dc1-5b4eb670be44\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ab55d183b7a342d5a906ec7e13697afa\u0022\u003EHon KAREN CHHOUR\u003C/span\u003E: I think I referred to that in my previous answer. I can\u2019t snap my fingers and fill a vacancy. There are vacancies available, but we are also working alongside other measures to support our front-line staff.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000593\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227600399-0a88-4371-a784-b5a7bc7afc37\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e89718538030450b862373c2bdf102df\u0022\u003EMariameno Kapa-Kingi\u003C/span\u003E: How is the Minister addressing the increasing pressures of a cost of living crisis, rising stress levels, and cuts to social services that the Children\u2019s Commissioner has identified as contributing to the rise in reports of concern?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002286ae9a20-33bd-4912-8dc1-5b4eb670be44\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002261375ac8c27c4bfa93bfa921317ba309\u0022\u003EHon KAREN CHHOUR\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s a massive assumption to make\u2014that assumption as to the reasons behind the reports of concern.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d57f993754fa48acba81b28945198bad\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 12\u2014Regional Development\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b21beb09-9d9b-4414-9bb1-ddba249459d5\u0022 data-id=\u002241fabd1cf741450b8393176d401dd90a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b21beb09-9d9b-4414-9bb1-ddba249459d5\u0022\u003E12. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002241fabd1cf741450b8393176d401dd90a\u0022\u003ETANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister for Regional Development: What reports has he seen on regional development in Northland?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022 data-id=\u0022cbd590c551234233aa1bb4d896a5e946\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000597\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cbd590c551234233aa1bb4d896a5e946\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Development):\u003C/span\u003E I was particularly glad to read a report recently that Australians have secured a prospecting permit to explore for minerals in a part of Northland that has a bad problem with P. Opportunities are very narrow for the young people. Sadly, however, it elicited a response of \u201Chumbug hap\u016B\u201D, who would rather do nothing. I am not going to tolerate the hobbling of the minerals sector because of fanciful ideas from hap\u016B leaders who are more interested in sovereignty than genuine mahi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b21beb09-9d9b-4414-9bb1-ddba249459d5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022be4cd0ced6f24bbb98a85117da81d05d\u0022\u003ETanya Unkovich\u003C/span\u003E: What plans does the Government have to reindustrialise Northland?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000599\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022edbd2d35904e4efdb5f7cc614ce8ca21\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: At Marsden Point, the Government, through following up on the coalition agreement, is moving ahead with the creation of a drydock facility. It\u2019ll be a landmark project. It\u2019s part of a grand vision that our Government has for the regions. This facility will address an omission in our broader economic infrastructure, and, at the moment, we are talking to a range of parties. It is these concrete developments that give regional New Zealand confidence, not people protesting about sand when they live in houses made of concrete.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000600\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b21beb09-9d9b-4414-9bb1-ddba249459d5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002262b173dec2624ae0bb327460bfe4469b\u0022\u003ETanya Unkovich\u003C/span\u003E: What plans does the Government have to increase economic resilience in Northland?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000601\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b7ac276d15fe44ccb102cb0163a36c66\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m sure everyone in Parliament agrees that energy is an ongoing affordability problem. Security continues to challenge us as we go into every winter. Indeed, it was only today that Methanex have announced a partial closedown in an arrangement with Contact Energy, to ensure that secure flows of energy keep the lights on. To that end, an energy bridge is contemplated in Northland. Prior to any final decision, a sum of money has been allocated to ensure that the costs of this project are robust and don\u2019t suffer any problems with either inflation or non-delivery. It\u2019s this type of transmission development and transmission investment that gives confidence to investors and garden variety Kiwis.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b21beb09-9d9b-4414-9bb1-ddba249459d5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222608ec75beec409eabe4e9241fd1d5f0\u0022\u003ETanya Unkovich\u003C/span\u003E: Why is reinvigorating Northland so critical for New Zealand?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022732e62f63b494356b41fcbcae4a7ede7\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: There are nigh on 190,000 to 200,000 New Zealanders who call this part of New Zealand home. It\u2019s proximate to Auckland and can create a larger flow of energy, sorely needed, but it is also, as we\u2019ve seen in Kaikohe, a sad indictment on the recent history in New Zealand that meth and the associated criminality has been allowed to spread as some type of cancer. The leader of the Ng\u0101puhi tribe, Mane Tahere, a bright young man, said, \u201CThe police are not the enemy of M\u0101oridom. The police ought not to be defunded, and Ng\u0101puhi do not believe that.\u201D That is why we are standing strong for the rule of law, the reinvigoration of energy, and to drive the people who peddle P and sell delusions that the police should be defunded out of public life.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022b545822734ea4733b3c846f5ebdd52f3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b545822734ea4733b3c846f5ebdd52f3\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Just before we come to end of question time, I might just ask the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage what that badge is that\u2019s on his jacket.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022 data-id=\u00229c6e6ca28020438e8ccb3f5fe2956d86\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000605\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229c6e6ca28020438e8ccb3f5fe2956d86\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage):\u003C/span\u003E Mr Speaker, I can inform the House that it is New Zealand Music Month, and that is the badge.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u002264b8ea565d4e4a85b480f33ba7f14d82\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002264b8ea565d4e4a85b480f33ba7f14d82\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I thought you could say something more than that!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022 data-id=\u0022d86ea3258b70496e94d6085ceabfde68\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000607\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d86ea3258b70496e94d6085ceabfde68\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage):\u003C/span\u003E And it is an occasion to celebrate the quality of New Zealand music, from Shihad to Devilskin to Lorde, to all those great players, and this is a month when we celebrate that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022871e4e2eff054fa8b754abee20f2fcc8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000608\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022871e4e2eff054fa8b754abee20f2fcc8\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: And how is that being celebrated here in Parliament today?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022 data-id=\u0022cceb86babb5f41a0887521b3cb916351\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cceb86babb5f41a0887521b3cb916351\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage):\u003C/span\u003E By the wearing of this badge, Mr Speaker\u2014and also, because we have people from Rockquest at a function at 6 o\u2019clock, which I think all members should attend.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022734d168ba9874df5b76aff61a198525b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022734d168ba9874df5b76aff61a198525b\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, that took a while to get to! I\u2019d ask other members who have to go off to other duties to leave quietly. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EI declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000612\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002234584e2596314a0b81a6fa694e407e1e\u0022\u003EEqual Pay Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000613\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022817120ac7857497d98d6ac43de03c963\u0022\u003EIn Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000614\u0022\u003EDebate resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000615\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002253e217b0f7594b2e8a48209c895f8d9b\u0022\u003EPart 2  Consequential amendments to other Acts (continued)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022efc3a03dedf1464c9cccb3369f158ec4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022efc3a03dedf1464c9cccb3369f158ec4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, before the lunch break, the committee was considering the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, and was debating Part 2, the \u201CConsequential amendments to other Acts\u201D. The question again is that Part 2 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022 data-id=\u002280e56b436d0140fcb54e109b609f0d4d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000617\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002280e56b436d0140fcb54e109b609f0d4d\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. There are two issues I want to discuss with the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. The first one goes back to a discussion we were having before the lunch break, obviously in Part 2, and I was asking questions about why we\u2019re forming views, rather than forming a view. In relation to amended section 13E\u2014so amended section 13E is different from replacement section 13F. My first question is if the bill was referring to the right section, because 13E, under the legislation as it stands at the moment, is that \u201CUnions and employees may raise pay equity claims\u201D. Then replacement section 13F is the \u201CMeaning of arguable\u201D. Of course, one of the things this bill does is changes the vocab, so we go from \u201Carguable\u201D to \u201Chas merit\u201D. We had a lot of discussion\u2014not enough discussion, but some discussion\u2014in Part 1 about those changes to 13F, about the merits.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000618\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003ESo when I was reading these sections\u2014both clause 54, which is the amendment to section 82 of the Public Service Act, and also clause 52, which is amending section 161 of the Employment Relations Act\u2014I read it as if it was referring to section 13F, which is what is the meaning of a merit based or an \u201Carguable\u201D claim, as opposed to what is it to do with \u201CUnions and employees may raise pay equity claims\u201D. There might be quite a simple answer to that, but I do want to check that the reference to section 13E of the Equal Pay Act 1972 in both clause 54 and clause 52 is the correct one\u2014that it\u2019s the correct letter; that it\u2019s E and not F. In my reading of it, it would make a lot more sense if it was F. So that\u2019s my first question\u2014quite a simple question there: is it E or F?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000619\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EMy second question goes to comments that the Minister has made in some of her answers just before the lunch break. She referenced that there was a robust parliamentary process happening now with this all-stages urgency bill that we didn\u2019t see until the Minister started speaking on it. In her contributions, she also mocked my colleague Camilla Belich and asked the world to see some of the contributions and amendments that she was making and was very derisive of those comments. I ask the Minister if she understands that we are in an all-stages urgency process and this is the only opportunity we have to ask questions about this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000620\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003ENormally, a bill goes to a select committee. She will know that there is normally a six-month process, whereby people have the opportunity to make submissions; not only that, members of Parliament have access to officials and can ask officials questions. We have not had that opportunity here. Whenever I have asked questions during this debate and the Part 1 debate about whether advice has been sought\u2014we\u2019ve had questions about evidence; we\u2019ve asked for examples\u2014we have not got any answers. We do not have a regulatory impact statement, yet the Minister takes the opportunity to make a call, mocking the people asking very reasonable questions and, of course, suggesting changes to the legislation\u2014the Minister\u2019s legislation that we do not like. We say: \u201CYour legislation is going to result in fewer people\u201D\u2014your legislation, Minister; not the Chair\u2019s legislation. This legislation in the Minister\u2019s name is going to result in fewer pay equity claims. That is the point of this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000621\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003ESo of course we are going to take every opportunity to try and amend this terrible legislation that we think is a disgrace. Why is it that the Minister would take an opportunity to mock members doing that? Does she understand that it is very unusual and goes against our constitutional conventions to pass such important legislation where there is no urgency, there is no emergency, in all stages without an opportunity for the public to have any say?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u0022640b090af11942eea1a30a679d59a6ea\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000622\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022640b090af11942eea1a30a679d59a6ea\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I think that does deserve a response. Look, my suggestion that we were having a robust parliamentary process is potentially too generous if the member does not believe that the contributions from her side have been robust. I believe that it\u2019s the place for this Parliament, to have robust contributions and debate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000623\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EIn response to the suggestion that my comments were mocking the Labour member prior to the lunch break, that was not my intention. I simply suggested we should look at the oddity that it is the Labour Party that believes in pay equity and wants people to have pay in their pockets, but, at the same time, it was putting forward a contribution to extend the time frame for when workers would receive that money. I think all members of our community external to these walls would be interested in that contribution.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022 data-id=\u002201e403551f2440e481cbbf57d76dab26\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000624\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002201e403551f2440e481cbbf57d76dab26\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I think, as this has come up a number of times by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety herself, it deserves to be addressed. The amendment that I was proposing, which we have traversed, was to allow the period of time where payments could be received to be longer. That could result in more payments to people in pay equity claims. I don\u2019t think that\u2019s inconsistent with any principle that the Labour Party may have. Personally, I take issue with that Minister criticising the Labour Party for our commitment to pay equity. This is a Minister who has implemented a higher threshold for raising claims; this is a Minister who has put in an Act that nullifies review clauses; this is a Minister who is making equal pay claimants wait 10 years; this is a Minister who is removing the authority\u2019s ability to order back-pay, and she has the cheek to suggest that it is the Labour Party who was working against underpaid women. I take issue with that. I do not think it\u2019s correct. I think if she is looking for someone to blame for women not getting equal pay, she should look in the mirror. That is my response to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EI also have some questions for the Minister. We have previously discussed parts of the first part of Part 2, which refers to the Employment Relations Act, and I did ask, and I haven\u2019t heard the answer yet, as to whether the Education and Workforce Committee would be able to work on looking at this bill, which I think we have established has a number of outstanding questions on it. I have not heard the answer to that yet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EBut I do want to move to ask some questions around the amendments to the Public Service Act, which has been changed. Now, I have asked the Minister in previous forums, including select committee, about her responsibilities as the Minister responsible for the implementation of the Equal Pay Act, and I have to say I am not sure that the actions that she is taking are really within the spirit of the 1972 Act in making the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety responsible for that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000627\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EThe question I have in relation to the Public Service Act is that often when I\u2019ve asked her in the past about equal pay claims, she has said that she is not responsible for them and that she would like Ministers who have more direct engagement with specific pay equity claims to be responsible for answering that question. So I wanted to ask her, in relation to the changes to the Public Service Act, did she\u2014because she appears to dislike taking responsibility for these claims and in fact is extinguishing all of them\u2014consider making other Ministers responsible for pay equity claims that may come within their ambit? For example, the Minister for the Public Service could be responsible for the implementation of pay equity claims within the Public Service Act, and we are talking about proposed amendments to the Public Service Act. So would the Minister consider changing the responsibility in relation to that and perhaps to some other Minister who perhaps may not extinguish the claims which have been filed under the Act that she\u2019s responsible for? I have asked that question, and I would appreciate an answer to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000628\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EIn this particular section, which is clause 54, Part 2, there is also an additional change which looks to\u2014I believe, and I\u2019d appreciate some clarity on this\u2014\u201Cwhether the claim is arguable\u201D or whether it \u201Cmeets all the requirements set out in \u2026 the Equal Pay Act 1972\u201D and has merit. This is worded slightly differently to the way that the \u201Carguable\u201D and \u201Cmerit\u201D distinction, which is in Part 1 of the Act, is worded, from memory, and I wanted to ask whether there is consistency throughout all the three Acts when it looks at the \u201Carguable\u201D principle, which of course has been replaced now by \u201Cmerit\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000629\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003ESo those are the questions I have in relation to that particular part of Part 2 in relation to the Public Service Act changes, and I\u2019d appreciate if the Minister would answer them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u0022a8a37bbb502840eaaa908f8fa6017fdf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a8a37bbb502840eaaa908f8fa6017fdf\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E I\u2019ll just quickly respond to the technicality raised by Rachel Brooking in response to her question as to whether the reference should be section 13E or section 13F. I can confirm the officials\u2019 advice: the reference to section 13E is correct.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022 data-id=\u0022a824aca5bd134c6f9cc93a5663358b92\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000631\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a824aca5bd134c6f9cc93a5663358b92\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a question for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety on replacement section 33, inserted by clause 51. Now, understanding that when we are looking at section 33(2)(d), which is currently being repealed in this bill, in the Employment Relations Act it\u2019s specifically pertaining to the existence of a requirement to review a pay equity claim settlement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000632\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003ENow, the reason we have the allowance for a review, and particularly done by authority, is it is another way of not being challenged, for example, by a judicial review. So, in the context of this, without the ability to have a review as a part of a mandate by the Employment Relations Authority (ERA), what are the alternatives? Has the Minister anticipated there will then be an increase in the number of judicial reviews that potentially will have to be challenged as a result of a lack of review via these means? Is that something that has been anticipated?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000633\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EBecause, again, when we are looking at judicial reviews or even for some instances according to judicial review, it does provide an additional level of complexity and also of legality that people will have to go through in order to challenge a particular decision that is being made. Usually when we\u2019re looking at the review by the ERA, we\u2019re potentially looking at decisions as well as the process itself. I\u2019m sure the Minister knows the difference between judicial review and also a review by an authority.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000634\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EBut, yeah, I just want to check with the Minister, has that been a consideration that\u2019s been made\u2014that the removal of the ability to review by the ERA would increase the number of potential judicial reviews that we will see?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u0022ca4dd383ccb041afbff7dae707c39458\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000635\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ca4dd383ccb041afbff7dae707c39458\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E Look, I just wanted to go back to the query made by Camilla Belich about whether I\u2019d considered making other Ministers responsible for the pay equity claims. The only changes being made to the Public Service Act in this bill are consequential. I have not considered any substantive change to that system and I still remain the Minister responsible for the Equal Pay Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000636\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EIn response to the query as to the statements I\u2019ve made in select committee about my responsibilities, it\u2019s true that I\u2019m not responsible for the individual claims that people can take. So my comments through select committee are still true. I\u2019ve always suggested, however, that I\u2019m responsible for the legislation but not the claims that people can make.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002296f5f6b7-c116-477e-88a9-ea17aa616886\u0022 data-id=\u002268c3f459a94f488e8c46112ae0b02548\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000637\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002296f5f6b7-c116-477e-88a9-ea17aa616886\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002268c3f459a94f488e8c46112ae0b02548\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. This is my first opportunity to ask a question on Part 2 of the bill. It relates specifically to new subpara 161(1)(qd)(va), inserted into section 161 by clause 52(6), where it talks about particulars of phases that the authority is able to rule on. I understand there have been questions on this, but my questions are different because they relate specifically to the scope. So this is about the scope of the authority\u2019s powers, particularly in relation to the words \u201Cthe particulars of those phases\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000638\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002296f5f6b7-c116-477e-88a9-ea17aa616886\u0022\u003ESo my questions are, really: does that relate to how payments are made and the timing of the payments? What about confidentiality and what about any impacts or legal status of non-disclosure agreements that are signed? What kind of relationships would those non-disclosure agreements have if they were already in existence with the authority\u2019s scope as it relates to the particulars of the phases?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000639\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002296f5f6b7-c116-477e-88a9-ea17aa616886\u0022\u003EI\u2019m thinking here about what kind of rights are available, because, currently, most of the rights are limited to de novo rights\u2014but is this something different? I\u2019m thinking about what happens if something goes wrong and what kind of appeal rights would be available. So would this relate to another form of tribunal or court? Will it rely on precedents of the case work that has already happened under the authority\u2019s scope in the existing legislation? Or does this have a new level of scope and, therefore, no precedent to inform it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000640\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002296f5f6b7-c116-477e-88a9-ea17aa616886\u0022\u003EQuite technical questions, but really important, given that we\u2019re in new territory here and we want to understand the scope of the authority in this subsection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u0022cc6d02d80cfe417fb9b5b037bd4f9740\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000641\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cc6d02d80cfe417fb9b5b037bd4f9740\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E In response to the member Lawrence Xu-Nan, who asked about clause 51 and if we can\u2019t have reviews, what are the alternatives and will it increase judicial review action\u2014the question is not actually about the change in Part 2; it\u2019s about the removal of the ability to include review clauses in settlements, which is part of Part 1, which we did debate at length. As I\u2019ve covered many times, settlements will be able to be re-raised after 10 years. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022 data-id=\u00221ddfc6ad8a9c4c62bc291742e46cf7f7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000642\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221ddfc6ad8a9c4c62bc291742e46cf7f7\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. A very short question going back to an early contribution I made about clause 52(7), the repeal of section 161(1)(qd)(vii) and (viii). Paragraph (viii) is about the start date, but is that section repealed because it relates to the reviews as well? I\u2019m asking this because, of course, that section links back to other pieces of the Act\u2014I think the Acting Prime Minister made reference to the tentacles of an octopus today\u2014and it does take some time to work out how all these bits and pieces are linked to each other. That\u2019s my first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000643\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EMy second question is, the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, in response to my earlier contribution, talked about the term \u201Crobust\u201D\u2014in a robust legislative process\u2014and challenged me: did we not think we were making enough of a contribution to be robust? We never can, in Opposition, when we do not have the ability to access advisers, be as robust as we can be in a select committee process, where we can hear submissions and ask questions of advisers. So my question there is: does she accept that a process whereby the Opposition have no access to advisers can never be as robust as one where we can?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022 data-id=\u0022c600ea3b8a0342719feb0f11a0132c7d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000644\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c600ea3b8a0342719feb0f11a0132c7d\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you. My question is from genuine confusion, and I apologise if it turns out that I just simply don\u2019t understand. But, again, I take the point that my friends made: that this is extremely difficult in this particular context. We just simply don\u2019t have time to make sure that we\u2019ve got the detail right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000645\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EIf the Minister for Workplace and Relations has a look at page 29, Part 2\u2014so it\u2019s clause 52(7). It says, \u201CRepeal section 161(1)(qd)(vii) and (viii)\u201D. What I understand that is about is the jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Authority. But it says it\u2019s going to repeal it. So it looks like the jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Authority will no longer be exclusive on these matters. Can I confirm that I am right, in which case is there another body where this will be able to go through, or have I just simply got that wrong? I\u2019d just like to understand why we\u2019re repealing that and what the impact of that repeal is. It really does relate to what\u2019s going on here, and so it marries in with where do things go from here\u2014is this an exclusive right? I can see your advisers looking into that; thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000646\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EI might spend the remainder of my time just asking about clause 54. Again, it comes back to this issue about the use of the word \u201Cmerit\u201D in that context. I did ask about merit in a previous question, and I made sure that the Minister was aware it was also in this clause. I was actually talking about a clause above\u201452(2), on the use of the term \u201Cmerit\u201D. I ask the Minister to consider using a more neutral term. Talking about the matter as having merit or not leads people into a situation where they think it has no merit. I remind the Minister that I talked about situations where maybe there\u2019s 68 percent who are women, so they don\u2019t get to the threshold, and when we say in plain language that case has no merit, it\u2019s not actually correct\u2014is it?\u2014because it has lots of merit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003ESo is there a way that we could reword this clause along with the other one, and what\u2019s wrong with doing that? If we reword it in a way that says \u201Chas not met the thresholds in section whatever\u201D, we would actually move away from the idea of merit. Now, I understand that the term \u201Cmerit\u201D is used in the first part, but do you think that we could, in this situation, use something that\u2019s more neutral so we were not telling women all over the country who had been disadvantaged and discriminated against that they had no merit in their case? Particularly with regard to this section, I\u2019d like an answer on that, because we\u2019re talking here about the Public Service Act, but I haven\u2019t had an answer to the first question either that\u2019s related. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022 data-id=\u0022da367f218a334382a52d639cac2746d8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000648\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022da367f218a334382a52d639cac2746d8\u0022\u003EHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you very much, Mr Chair. My question is in Part 2 in relation to clause 51, \u201CSection 33 amended (Duty of good faith requires parties to conclude collective agreement unless genuine reason not to)\u201D. I just have a couple of questions in relation to that particular point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000649\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003EI think it\u2019s important to understand\u2014first of all, I\u2019d like to know what consultation has taken place in that space, but specifically in terms of what analysis the Government got hold of or what even were the workplaces or the employers who were consulted in the development of some of the changes here in clause 51, but also in part of that Part 2. I think it would be really useful, because I\u2019ve had emails on this; there are a lot of women and workplaces who are contacting us now to understand the implications for them. I think this represents the difficulty with not having a select committee process, which is that now we are trying to funnel in a whole range of people\u2019s views. What employer groups, if any, were consulted prior to taking this decision and what are the sectors most likely to be impacted by this section and what is the work that\u2019s gone on in that space?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000650\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003EI think it\u2019s really important to understand that if you are talking about good faith between employees and employers, then undertaking these changes significantly undermines that good faith between employee and employer. It is really important to understand if the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety did undertake any consultation. We\u2019ve already been asked if the Ministry for Women has been involved. I understand they haven\u2019t, but what other consultation has taken place in that space?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000651\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003EI do know that this question has been asked, but it is incredibly important, and I don\u2019t think we have had an answer, so I\u2019m going to ask it again. I would like to understand what advice did the Minister receive specifically in relation to those existing free-trade agreements, particularly with the EU and the UK. We know there are specific implications in there, in terms of our stance on pay equity, and I did want to understand whether that had been covered off or not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000652\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003EThe final question that I would like to hear from the Minister on is that while we have discussed in terms of good faith and the impact upon women\u2019s wages, we don\u2019t have a regulatory impact statement. So I\u2019m asking: what happens in terms of the existing child poverty reduction targets and has there been any analysis done by either the Treasury or the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that would give further insights into the impact on the existing child poverty reduction targets?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003ENow, these sorts of frameworks, this sort of analysis is always done as a part of the regulatory impact statement. It is absolutely shocking that we have a bill from the ACT Party, who set up the Ministry for Regulation, who\u2019s put forward such a fundamental bill that changes the whole framework of pay equity for women, and there is zero analysis in terms of regulatory impact for New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000654\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003ESo I think it is completely justified that we ask these questions about what consultation was undertaken with other employers, what advice was received in terms of the impacts on fair-trade agreements, particularly with the EU and UK, and also what is the impact on those child poverty reduction targets that are monitored. Even though they have been changed under this Government, they still exist. Those sort of fundamental parts of analysis should have been provided as part of the regulatory impact statement. So I would ask the Minister to fill in some of the gaps that she has left wide open as a result of not having that important analysis in terms of what the impacts will be on New Zealand women as a result of this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u002286e85b9fadc74212a2026fb24b1c54bb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000655\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002286e85b9fadc74212a2026fb24b1c54bb\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019ll take a shorter contribution to get through a few of these questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000656\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EFirstly, to the question from Ingrid Leary about section 161(1)(qd)(v)\u2014\u201CWhat are the authority\u2019s powers in relation to the confidentiality and legal status of non-disclosure agreements and appeal rights?\u201D\u2014this clause is a consequential amendment. Part 1 sets out the requirement in relation to the pay equity system, and the Employment Relations Act sets out the authority\u2019s powers generally. Those are unchanged.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000657\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003ERachel Brooking and Helen White both had a similar question around the repeal of section 161(1)(qd)(vii) and (viii), related to review rights, and this reflects the change made in Part 1 that related to the ability of the authority to include back-pay in determinations. As the authority\u2019s ability to make back-pay has been removed in Part 1, the reference to that has been removed in the Employment Relations Act also. The authority\u2019s exclusive jurisdiction in relation to Equal Pay Act disputes remains.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000658\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EHelen White also then had a question about whether I would consider the use of a more neutral term than \u201Cmerit\u201D. No; I can say I won\u2019t be doing that. Merit is defined already in Part 1, which we\u2019ve already voted on, and this change reflects that in Part 2 for consistency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000659\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EGinny Andersen has made queries about clause 51\u2014what consultation in place of \u201Crelation to good faith\u201D? Clause 51 is, once again, a consequential amendment from Part 1, and I consider I have covered questions about the consultation in that part. I\u2019ve answered questions about the international obligations in relation to the bill in that part, as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022edb8f985ec9f4d64939accd7597fcc8b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000660\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022edb8f985ec9f4d64939accd7597fcc8b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll just note, at the moment, that this is a relatively short part, and I have been crossing out questions as they\u2019ve been asked. I\u2019ve got lots of marks on my page, so I\u2019ll be looking for new material from here on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fe342415-6351-4072-a17e-19dab2ef184d\u0022 data-id=\u00224fc4f5c3af9446f49849c4ac7b64a582\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000661\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fe342415-6351-4072-a17e-19dab2ef184d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224fc4f5c3af9446f49849c4ac7b64a582\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019m hoping for a short contribution. Thank you for allowing me to take a short contribution here. I want to ask in particular about new Part 2, \u201CProvisions relating to Equal Pay Amendment Act 2025\u201D, in the Schedule, and my question is around clause 9, on claims relating to employees and work\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223d3526c5ea144c4f90943af07f4bd38e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: No, we\u2019ve already\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000663\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fe342415-6351-4072-a17e-19dab2ef184d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f282a257bbb74c4287463e41d512da64\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, that\u2019s been covered? That\u2019s my specific question. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000664\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022677bb49fb6ed4b9580d6e1bcb376fcae\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: We debated the Schedule as part of Part 1. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000665\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fe342415-6351-4072-a17e-19dab2ef184d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225dcbcfb2ddcd47f48ab0b48ff42e5684\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ\u003C/span\u003E: Is this not part of Part 2\u2014this Schedule? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000666\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e5a48edb306e4ba1af02cee25e634916\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: No, the Schedule was in Part 1. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002296f5f6b7-c116-477e-88a9-ea17aa616886\u0022 data-id=\u0022ccaa8969ce304d978a7de42449c7a870\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000667\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002296f5f6b7-c116-477e-88a9-ea17aa616886\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ccaa8969ce304d978a7de42449c7a870\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019m so grateful to be able to take a call on this question, which is quite a small, technical, and detailed question. It has not been asked, but, in my view, is quite critical, actually, because this is around certainty for those who are going into this kind of process. It\u2019s looking at the change of words in amended section 82(3)(a) inserted by clause 54 where it\u2019s replacing the words, and I quote, \u201Cforming a view on whether the claim is arguable\u201D with \u201Cforming views on whether the claim meets all requirements\u201D, etc.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000668\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002296f5f6b7-c116-477e-88a9-ea17aa616886\u0022\u003ENow, I know it\u2019s a small distinction but \u201Cforming a view\u201D in legal terms is quite different than \u201Cforming views\u201D followed by an \u201Cand\u201D and then having a subsequent hurdle to get through which is \u201Cwhether the claim has merit\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000669\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002296f5f6b7-c116-477e-88a9-ea17aa616886\u0022\u003ESo my question to the Minister is: why was the change in language from \u201Cforming a view\u201D to \u201Cforming views\u201D made, and what views would need to be formed or would be tolerated\u2014could there be different views in meeting that part of the sentence\u2014and then going on to \u201Cwhether the claim has merit\u201D, or does it have to equate to forming a single view with a single mind? If that is the case, why didn\u2019t the words stay the same? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000670\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002296f5f6b7-c116-477e-88a9-ea17aa616886\u0022\u003EI\u2019m wondering, actually, if the answer from the Minister is going to be that they have the same effect, is this an example of maybe sloppy drafting because it\u2019s been done in a hurry? If it is being done deliberately, which I would hope is the case because they are quite different, I think, in effect then I would like to ask some further questions so we can really tease out the difference between what this provision will do when this bill is passed compared to what it is now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u002298c3dbcdc87a4bb2985b176b6df0f363\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000671\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002298c3dbcdc87a4bb2985b176b6df0f363\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E I\u2019ll take that last contribution first. I\u2019ve already answered that query; it was made by one of your colleagues just before. It\u2019s based on multiple views of the employer, but you can find that reference because your colleague already asked that one. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000672\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EGinny Andersen: what happens in terms of existing poverty reduction targets and the analysis done? The changes made by this bill are intended to improve the pay equity system, but I note that the question relates to a policy that was debated in Part 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002294b52412-f97b-4bbd-8009-5dc49520f7f4\u0022 data-id=\u00224161762e458d4e5a8789e823ffd3b337\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000673\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002294b52412-f97b-4bbd-8009-5dc49520f7f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224161762e458d4e5a8789e823ffd3b337\u0022\u003ERYAN HAMILTON (National\u2014Hamilton East):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That debate on this question now close.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022 data-id=\u0022b062b6763ab449fb93e13aef238a8d68\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000674\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b062b6763ab449fb93e13aef238a8d68\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. Two quick questions for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. I acknowledge the answer just then, that the Minister\u2019s answered, and given the same answer, about the views\u2014the \u201CS\u201D\u2014and the employers, but it would be good if she could expand on that answer and\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000675\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002296f5f6b7-c116-477e-88a9-ea17aa616886\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d6e5380e2f6c4554baeb31a424354d95\u0022\u003EIngrid Leary\u003C/span\u003E: Relates to the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022658e5d4f5f584f9bbd71729b588cf5f7\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014how, yes, as my colleague is saying, it relates to the rest of the sentence and why the \u201Cemployers\u201D is different in clause 54 with the views to, back up the page, in clause 52(1)(ia) when it\u2019s talking about \u201Call requirements\u201D. That would be useful for the Hansard.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000677\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EThen I also want to ask a different question, and that is\u2014I take the Minister\u2019s point that everything that we\u2019ve discussed so far has been consequential, and I\u2019ve been trying not to raise policy issues because of that, but I do need to ask, in terms of the review clauses that have been discussed and the retrospective nature of this, if she agrees with a statement around the rule of law: \u201Cthe law should be clear and accessible; the law should not adversely affect rights and liabilities, or impose obligations, retrospectively\u201D. Does she agree with that statement?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002239b9bac1-a992-4ccf-a473-9591aeb3a298\u0022 data-id=\u0022a7ca06582b7747f4b5486ff53ac1d4a3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002239b9bac1-a992-4ccf-a473-9591aeb3a298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a7ca06582b7747f4b5486ff53ac1d4a3\u0022\u003ERIMA NAKHLE (National\u2014Takanini):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That debate on this question now close.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022 data-id=\u0022e72aaf51caf547db90de67eab35da76b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000679\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e72aaf51caf547db90de67eab35da76b\u0022\u003EHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I have a question in relation to Part 2 of the bill that relates to those consequential amendments. Clause 8 provides that on the commencement\u2014are we on to that? No, no we\u2019re not, sorry. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000680\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003EIn terms of the consequential amendments, particularly those that amend section 33 of the Employment Relations Act, that requires parties for collective bargaining to conclude a collective agreement unless there was a genuine reason not to. So, as I understand it, at present, section 33(2)(d) provides that \u201Cthe existence of a requirement to review a pay equity claim settlement\u201D is not a genuine reason to complete a collective agreement. That provision, in fact, is repealed. It is redundant in this Act because it removes those review processes from pay equity claim settlements. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003EThis is the particular issue that we are getting repeated people emailing in about. I would like to ask the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: has she considered having another opportunity\u2014seeing this impacts on so many women and the outcry that we are seeing right across email, social media, and other channels we receive\u2014that people are asking to have a say, particularly on areas that take away that ability to review a pay equity claims settlement? So I would like the Minister to take into consideration if there is any possibility at all for her to have a window opened for women in New Zealand to be able to have their voices heard on an issue that directly impacts women that are underpaid already in New Zealand. If she could respond to that, I would be very grateful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u0022f07a41f1c6444e30b43fcf5080a7f115\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000682\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f07a41f1c6444e30b43fcf5080a7f115\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I\u2019ve reflected on Rachel Brooking\u2019s query and wish to expand on \u201Cview\u201D versus \u201Cviews\u201D, which I\u2019ve done twice in the Chamber today. Clause 54 talks about \u201Cviews\u201D. It is \u201Cviews\u201D because it is both a view on if \u201Cthe claim meets all requirements \u2026 in section 13E\u201D\u2014so that\u2019s the first\u2014and if \u201Cthe claim has merit\u201D, which is the second. When the bill says, \u201Ca view\u201D, it is because only one thing is being considered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222837c142-c937-468e-9984-bc646d066687\u0022 data-id=\u0022b7513a9cc88e420b81d7ef8b5b8ea047\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000683\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222837c142-c937-468e-9984-bc646d066687\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b7513a9cc88e420b81d7ef8b5b8ea047\u0022\u003EDr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National\u2014Ilam):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That debate on this question now close.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00221050936f3a6742ff985def1738d9571b\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022bbe0319396d649e6b58bb754a0cf703b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000684\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bbe0319396d649e6b58bb754a0cf703b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendment to delete clause 54 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002247c78a7cc32a4e82b0f10ed37e8d71ca\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002234c4b3c636764fcca2ad3979563af554\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022a1d11501312048fda7b73ba1d9fd10e1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000685\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a1d11501312048fda7b73ba1d9fd10e1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: We come now to the vote on the Schedule.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000686\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003EThe question is that Rachel Boyack\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to delete new clause 8(1) and (2) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002254d8bc8ccfd24c378f849440acf3f73b\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u00228ddce2f34ec04c8f97456e601296a4fb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000687\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228ddce2f34ec04c8f97456e601296a4fb\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for care and support workers be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022b127fcb706db42e79132c204f038ba07\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022675e6ccd667e4df5aafc30025e52e269\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000688\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022675e6ccd667e4df5aafc30025e52e269\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for care and support front-line managers be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00220573e029296644458841fc985ffad98b\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u002256e0eefe77124fc08ce2299fbe154aca\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000689\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002256e0eefe77124fc08ce2299fbe154aca\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for social services workers be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022facb5abf4eb4423a8f0de8cb32416ecd\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u00225e82b94a50144187b8a26e62b17f17a1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000690\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225e82b94a50144187b8a26e62b17f17a1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for university library workers be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00222008796862e2481a820ad28a88db0488\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022bb9ba8a276b84872a5de7d47319c993a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000691\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bb9ba8a276b84872a5de7d47319c993a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for university administration workers be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022ca129891d0af4e729bbda7a6674bd51b\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u002200721120d00f49f28606eb8165bcc8f1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000692\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002200721120d00f49f28606eb8165bcc8f1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Corrections probation officers be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022d797cf9723be4687bde3d33fc7a8898f\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022b5e06c4406c14de2871ce35b18e35449\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000693\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b5e06c4406c14de2871ce35b18e35449\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Corrections psychologists be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002259fac6dc572d41868b094391d7dc636a\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u002290f6f27e7db44606b4a2dcc19b6954c2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000694\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002290f6f27e7db44606b4a2dcc19b6954c2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Awanui Labs workers be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022ebf79637787743f080def29178f52793\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u00223b7cfdcde6cb4d1a862251335393195e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000695\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223b7cfdcde6cb4d1a862251335393195e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Artificial Limb Service workers be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022ac6e03d0d1e148e8bc70de0183325e23\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u002273d503ca6c65484988ffdd4f19a02410\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000696\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002273d503ca6c65484988ffdd4f19a02410\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for residential schools workers be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022cc74cf5b2299477291b4a5f86e3c5617\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022d5b57fc2324e4596aefdc6192bdaba19\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000697\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d5b57fc2324e4596aefdc6192bdaba19\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for local government library workers be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022a5cb123b5df640b6bb4afc528ede6561\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u002233949dc5dfc6436295505b87eff4fdec\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000698\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002233949dc5dfc6436295505b87eff4fdec\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Public Service admin/clerical be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002268fe25589d2b445ead5b751888e76237\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022f99b8bc5314d464bb90ae04aeaa59edd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000699\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f99b8bc5314d464bb90ae04aeaa59edd\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for workers in residential schools is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000700\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for early learning teachers be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022d33ccb13375e472eb8d1221b53b998c6\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022a62ec1ca10d64f93bd1e86692bab8a1b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000701\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a62ec1ca10d64f93bd1e86692bab8a1b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Shanan Halbert\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for tertiary education administration and clerical worker be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002201b700764c9f478a92d41621a45f9402\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022e29d8279e3a34b6dbd5510ccea870fdd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000702\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e29d8279e3a34b6dbd5510ccea870fdd\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Rachel Boyack\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for service managers in the Ministry of Education be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00221cd878dd2d0c49ce9e1c7ae0d5f9a852\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022c9926d1dfe85423daf99bb9f367f0637\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000703\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c9926d1dfe85423daf99bb9f367f0637\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for teacher (PS and ECEA is funded sector) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002284671e8646f5442bbcda6f8d9d60f174\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u002243647661daf44bbf91ac0c8b58522224\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000704\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002243647661daf44bbf91ac0c8b58522224\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Dr Tracey McLellan\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for education advisers (learning support) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00221c77b593ad8248dfab21d469a919fb12\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022e4750899d276490a819ff308450f4712\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000705\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e4750899d276490a819ff308450f4712\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Dr Tracey McLellan\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for psychologists employed by the Ministry of Education be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00220312436ad5174c8aaea4d9b92960ce6d\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022b42e6bbb6ce84a1d8f9911017ddb7980\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000706\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b42e6bbb6ce84a1d8f9911017ddb7980\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for care support workers 2 (lodged in 2023) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022143f48879879402fba0f434240ea0d6a\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u00223135a93ec0c74683975c732af72a2c72\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000707\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223135a93ec0c74683975c732af72a2c72\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for social service workers at NGOs be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00221fc9af280c1b4dd8b6140a04d2a04daf\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022673f4db806b04a9d99ac75826f21e2fb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022673f4db806b04a9d99ac75826f21e2fb\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim 1 for Public Service administration and clerical workers be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022bf1f5d7d861342de887c427347398154\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u002279b9b31a02cc444c89d4120cc0d6c0bd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000709\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002279b9b31a02cc444c89d4120cc0d6c0bd\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for tertiary education library assistants be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022ce2583b2fd9a495db8d097f42fcd7379\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u002280919bf92b85469095a5a1bbab28a36f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000710\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002280919bf92b85469095a5a1bbab28a36f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim 2 for Public Service administration and clerical workers be agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022d2929683047f48d98a1853715f8f5441\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022c289293350534877b943b86391121309\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000711\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c289293350534877b943b86391121309\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Public Service administration and clerical workers is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000712\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003EThe question is that Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for front-line managers and co-ordinators in funded health be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022f23b47d10bf54f0d8e8ecb95772eab34\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u00227deaacd1c5364ca98bcf0799af1465cd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000713\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227deaacd1c5364ca98bcf0799af1465cd\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for care support workers (lodged in 2022) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022048ea39b329f4bc48bbeee3e75820751\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u002229c0a32c3a5f40a08ce831b039ba8d21\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000714\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002229c0a32c3a5f40a08ce831b039ba8d21\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Plunket nurses and clinical workers be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00227ee6f749ac78429a8651003e4e8e62ce\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u002263860a906dfe4bfa9600110f2957e811\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000715\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002263860a906dfe4bfa9600110f2957e811\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Plunket administration and clerical workers be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00222f5c9850e37f4e34bd663ed42e6b5299\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022d53fd6d9e8f74151985e51db1f422e39\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000716\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d53fd6d9e8f74151985e51db1f422e39\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Access community nurses be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002278327de2b3aa46cda8e43d49676fe129\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022f4afdd2b75ad48ac913edd58c69ece9e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000717\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f4afdd2b75ad48ac913edd58c69ece9e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for community midwives in primary birthing units be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022e016adcf27354e83a9320f8bbb508246\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u00228759fb4ded7e40cf949f451339e26b69\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000718\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228759fb4ded7e40cf949f451339e26b69\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for primary care administration workers be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00221b0693ae1aa34dc8933897c440184d7b\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u00222710024c686c4973a7321555c0e826f6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000719\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222710024c686c4973a7321555c0e826f6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Labtest Awanui workers is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000720\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for hospice nurses and healthcare assistants be agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022b56788c92d744d98a5e92d8fb5fb89d6\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u00220c66a6c01b0d40a29dc64ae24ec67d59\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220c66a6c01b0d40a29dc64ae24ec67d59\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for primary care nurses be agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002218ccf44191b141bdae5415a684049013\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022beda49448075403bb1298c7f37a31120\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000722\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022beda49448075403bb1298c7f37a31120\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for librarians and librarian assistants in councils be agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022ab49030d1d76450f84c9584d87d4e953\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u00224bbf8f3929fe48ecb0910d567e005098\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224bbf8f3929fe48ecb0910d567e005098\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for New Zealand Artificial Limb Service workers is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000724\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for nurses in residential care be agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002230cb1df68b7446f1bfe6e21b92bfed56\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u002278d8f20c9db3468abafb09e78a85298b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000725\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002278d8f20c9db3468abafb09e78a85298b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Sexual Wellbeing Aotearoa workers be agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00223703f20035904e92bb329ee63bf5eecb\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u00222e2364c63f1d465f8cfed1db1d9db9f3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000726\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222e2364c63f1d465f8cfed1db1d9db9f3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Corrections probation officers and senior practitioners be agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002202561f237aa3428e9870f5ab45b79c09\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u00220e17e660def84729bcb148f9191d457e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000727\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220e17e660def84729bcb148f9191d457e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Corrections psychologists is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000728\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003EThe question is that Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to delete clause 8(1) be agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002228a0a47eb7584aca86f3b8e9081708f3\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022d93610f1af70442daececc71ddef62d3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000729\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d93610f1af70442daececc71ddef62d3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to delete clause 9 be agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022f569bca60ee0441eb53aaf1d46adb5af\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022adcf7cd9974d497f989a3f40220a10ac\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000730\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022adcf7cd9974d497f989a3f40220a10ac\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendment to the Schedule to delete clause 10 be agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022fb53e49cfc144bdab7a46fff6544f4a2\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022312f2e83f8654f31b2c0846aaf5681b2\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the Schedule be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000731\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022505091e1b4a540909cbf38ce95675720\u0022\u003EClauses 1 to 3\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022a84523688240428a9a37ec748d0ceca2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000732\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a84523688240428a9a37ec748d0ceca2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: We come now to the debate on clauses 1 to 3, \u201CTitle\u201D, \u201CCommencement\u201D, and \u201CPrincipal Act\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022 data-id=\u0022218c68678e1a40c6bf1b66e01996538f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000733\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022218c68678e1a40c6bf1b66e01996538f\u0022\u003EHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I was pretty keen to take a call on this because I\u2019m of the view that this bill is named incorrectly. It\u2019s called the Equal Pay Amendment Bill but, actually, if you consider the arguments that have been put forward by the Government Ministers, this isn\u2019t an amendment bill; this is a repeal bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000734\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003EIn order to justify what is proposed in this bill, they have tried to minimise the impacts and say, \u201CNo, no, all we\u2019re doing is going back to what was in the bill when introduced in 2017.\u201D That is very interesting, indeed. They\u2019ve spent a lot of effort in trying to say that what this bill does is simply go back to provisions then, despite the fact that it was those Ministers that voted for the very changes that they are now saying need to be removed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000735\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003ENow, that isn\u2019t an amendment; that is a repeal\u2014a repeal, in effect, from the 2020 bill\u2014and if this House wants to send an accurate and honest reflection to the New Zealand people as to what is in this bill, then the title should be accurate and upfront. This is more than an amendment; this removes a whole swathe of changes that were brought in in 2020 and were supported pretty much across the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000736\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003ENow, I\u2019m not one to read from my phone when I\u2019m in the House, but I did see the finance Minister doing it the other day, and so I thought it, therefore, must be OK. During the debate in 2020\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000737\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002204041268a57a49c18baf2198a8d875b0\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s not illegal yet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000738\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227373c93531a84e72abf4b4fff7be35b1\u0022\u003EHon KIERAN McANULTY\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, sir? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000739\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002293444cf62bbc4ef58af0c0bc5cffb985\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s not illegal yet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000740\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d41f5f493aa3488da8d53ecfa0ef6892\u0022\u003EHon KIERAN McANULTY\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, really? Well, a pending member\u2019s bill perhaps, sir! But in the debate in 2020 for the bill that this Government is now, essentially, repealing, National MPs at the time were scrambling over themselves to support it. Nicola Willis, for example, said this: \u201CI\u2019m proud to stand in this House tonight and say that National will be supporting this final reading of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill.\u201D; the bill that they are now repealing. So I would propose that having a title that says \u201CEqual Pay Amendment Bill\u201D doesn\u2019t tell the full story. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000741\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003EIf Government Ministers are going to, in only a matter of five years, stand up, fight for a spot to declare how supportive they are of the provisions, and now sneakily try to get rid of them in urgency, only two weeks before a Budget, because their Budget doesn\u2019t add up and they need the money, then they should be upfront in the title of the bill, and say that this is a repeal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000742\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003ENot only were they so keen to support the bill, they actually tried to take credit for the crafting of it. Nicola Willis said that her party had \u201Ccontributed to crafting this legislation and bringing it to the House\u201D\u2014and now they\u2019re sneakily trying to get rid of it. That is a fact. It is on the Parliament Hansard, and so it should be reflected in the title of the bill that we are debating.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000743\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s another quote here which I thought was quite interesting in that very same debate. This one was from Erica Stanford, and I quote\u2014this one\u2019s a bit longer, but it does make the point\u2014\u201CThe dreams I have for my daughter and my grandchildren\u2014one day, when I have them, hopefully\u2014is that they will grow up in a country where the work that they do is equally valued and compensated equally to that of their male counterparts. This bill sets out the framework that we will achieve that outcome.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000744\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003EThese are the words from the National Party members who are now Government Ministers and are trying to tell the country that this change is minor. It\u2019s wrong, it is clear to be wrong, they themselves said it was a good thing, and they\u2019re only getting rid of it now because their Budget doesn\u2019t add up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000745\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003ESo my simple proposition to the House is that if the Government is going to be upfront with the people of New Zealand, at least have a title that reflects not only what is in the bill but the effect that this bill will have and, actually, is transparent around the journey of this bill: it was brought in in 2017; it was improved in 2020; Ministers in this Government, like Nicola Willis and Erica Stanford, not only crowed to support it but also claimed credit for it; and now these are the very same Ministers who want Parliament to vote against it today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000746\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003EThat is why I\u2019m proposing to change the title from the Equal Pay Amendment Bill to the \u201CEqual Pay Repeal Bill\u201D, because that\u2019s what this bill does: it repeals what those Ministers voted for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022 data-id=\u0022c2e2c7e3fa8e4b8bad41e38150365faf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000747\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c2e2c7e3fa8e4b8bad41e38150365faf\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chairman. It is my honour to take a call on this bill, because any moment that we can stop this bill becoming law is a win for the women of New Zealand, because, make no mistake, this is a bill that does nothing more than cut women\u2019s pay. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000748\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EI want to speak in this title and commencement debate to an amendment that my colleague the Hon Ginny Andersen has put up to clause 2 of the legislation\u2014so that\u2019s the commencement clause\u2014and it says the \u201CAct comes into force on the day after Royal assent.\u201D Now, my colleague Ginny Andersen has proposed that, in clause 2, we replace \u201Con the day\u201D with \u201C10 years\u201D, and there is a very clear rationale for why this should be the case: this delays the commencement of the Act so that the existing claims that were lodged under the previous legislation can be examined under the law that was there at the time they were lodged\u2014so this is the 33 claims that are already lodged.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000749\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EWhat we have is a Government that is, effectively, putting in place retrospective legislation. There are groups of workers and their organisations\u2014dare I say the word \u201Cunions\u201D\u2014that have done a lot of work to get these pay equity claims lodged and in, and it is our contention, and through this amendment of Ginny Andersen, that these claims should be examined under the law as it was when they were lodged.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000750\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003ENow, I think one of the things that is getting lost, certainly from the non-answers we\u2019ve been getting from the Minister in the chair, Brooke van Velden, and certainly from Government Ministers\u2014certainly the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon; the finance Minister, Nicola Willis\u2014when they\u2019ve answered this, is a lack of any focus on the real people that this bill is going to affect. If we look at those lists of the 33 claims that are going to be turfed out and then, because of clause 2 of this bill, will be examined under this new piece of legislation rather than, if my colleague\u2019s amendment went through, be examined under the legislation as it was when they went through.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000751\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003ESo we\u2019re talking about hospice nurse and healthcare assistants. We\u2019re talking about home care and support workers. We\u2019re talking about some of the workers in this country that do some of the hardest, hardest work that we call on people to do. All we are asking through this amendment is that these groups of workers are able to go through and have those claims examined under the legislation as it stood.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000752\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003ENow, one of the reasons why I think this is vitally important, because we\u2019ve heard a lot of words\u2014let\u2019s call them those\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000753\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a66e04e58d404c16aa7c6a71b2cd2847\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Generous.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000754\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022241022e43b294a6baf8334b83e363144\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014from members of the Government. Generous\u2014you\u2019re right, Kieran McAnulty; it is generous. But we\u2019ve heard a lot of words about what the problem is: that there were a whole lot of claims that had been lodged and, basically, that they weren\u2019t fit, that that wasn\u2019t what the legislation was intended to. But in the course of this debate and in question time today, we have not heard one example of what one of those claims are. We\u2019re just hearing assertions from Ministers who know they are doing the wrong thing. They are doing nothing more than cutting women\u2019s pay and selling the women of New Zealand absolutely down the river, but they will not front us and tell us what the problem is. What are the egregious claims that are sitting there that mean that we have to change this legislation, not only for future claims\u2014and speaking to the amendment to clause 2 that my colleague Ginny Andersen has here\u2014but for those existing claims so they could be heard under the legislation as it was lodged?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000755\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003ESo I ask the Minister to tell this committee. We haven\u2019t had a select committee process. We don\u2019t have the option to tease that out through the committee process. We don\u2019t have a regulatory impact statement. In fact, there is no analysis that we can see. What is the problem definition here? What are the claims that are so problematic that for 33 groups of workers that currently have claims in at the moment, the law is going to change and, because of clause 2 of this legislation\u2014they lodged claims believing they were going to be examined under legislation as it was at the time, but this Government is going to pass what is, effectively, retrospective legislation, so that all changes. The Minister needs to front up. She\u2019s not fronting up on much, but she needs to front up and tell us.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022 data-id=\u0022126b30d329644c8498acfcfd01e7da27\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000756\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022126b30d329644c8498acfcfd01e7da27\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. It\u2019s a pleasure to take a call. The amendment that I want to make is to the title. This bill is titled the Equal Pay Amendment Act. I want to suggest a different title for this bill because I don\u2019t think it accurately reflects what this is doing. Additionally, I\u2019ll give a bit of a history lesson on equal pay that means I think the Minister for Workplace and Relations should consider perhaps a different title.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000757\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EMany different things have happened in relation to the history of equal pay in this country, and many of the different Acts have specific names relating to the particular type of law that they were bringing in. We had the Government Service Equal Pay Act, that was one of the first pieces of legislation, and that was in 1960. That was appropriately named because that only applied to people in Government service.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000758\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EThen the Equal Pay Act 1972 came in\u2014that\u2019s the primary Act\u2014and that was the Act which made it illegal, if you can believe it, for men and women to not be officially paid different wages, because those with long memories, and I\u2019ve looked into this, will remember that there was actually a time where it was legislated and it was in employment agreements that there were men\u2019s and women\u2019s rates for the same job. So that bill came in. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000759\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003ENow, throughout that period of time, after the passage of that bill, it was obviously good that it got rid of men and women being paid different wages, but there was also something that actually had been the work of the suffragists in New Zealand after they obtained the vote. They had wanted to focus on equal pay; it had been one of their objectives. That continued on after the 1972 Act. In 1990, there was a new Act, and the title of this Act was the Employment Equity Act. That was brought in in 1990. That bill sought\u2014as I understand it\u2014to look at pay equity but also look at other discrimination that was faced in the workplace. So I think that was probably appropriately titled. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000760\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EUnfortunately, that Act brought in 1990\u2014there are pictures of Helen Clark receiving flowers in this very House after that was passed\u2014was repealed by the National Government that very same year. So that bill, as we had it, is no longer on our statute book.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000761\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EThen we had a situation where there was a pay equity unit that was established. There wasn\u2019t legislative intervention. The pay equity unit was also disestablished by a National Government. Then we had a case brought by Kristine Bartlett, which was really important, very significant. That was in 2014, and that case, in 2014, was really a landmark case. I think everyone in this House respects greatly the work that Kristine Bartlett did to bring that claim\u2014she was Kiwibank New Zealander of the Year\u2014and it resulted in a law change, and it was actually, at that time, championed by a National Government. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000762\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EI had hoped that that was the change that we were to see, that we were all on one page when the National Government agreed to Kristine Bartlett\u2019s claim. Unfortunately, after that settlement was put in place, that settlement has now expired and Kristine Bartlett and her colleagues are now, due to this Act, unable to take a pay equity claim. They\u2019re on the minimum wage\u2014most care and support workers\u2014until 2027. So there\u2019s a long history of equal pay, really, is my point. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000763\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EIt is appropriate that things are named appropriately. So I think that this is another step backwards for equal pay in New Zealand. It\u2019s not unusual for this to happen, as you would see from the history. There are two steps forward, one step back. We had been making progress; New Zealand had been going forward. We had been looking to settle claims. It\u2019s a hard process. I don\u2019t think that any of our comments about the process said that it\u2019s easy; it is difficult. It\u2019s a process that takes time. But people, in good faith, were going through that. This bill is reducing the ability to do that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000764\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EYes, it\u2019s not getting rid of pay equity entirely. I mean, that would be a retrograde step that I put past even this Government. But this Act reduces the ability for women in New Zealand\u2014underpaid women\u2014to claim pay equity. So, therefore, I think the title is inappropriate. It\u2019s the same title as the last Act that was passed, that it seeks to repeal\u2014the Equal Pay Amendment Act. It should have a different title. I think it should be called the \u201CEqual Pay Reduction Act\u201D because that is what it does. It reduces the ability for women to take equal pay claims. It makes it harder. It reduces the amount of money that they\u2019re likely to see. It makes the group of people that can take those claims smaller. It reduces women\u2019s rights.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022 data-id=\u002213348145658745cdaf229499e141cc4c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000765\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002213348145658745cdaf229499e141cc4c\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I, too, want to talk to the commencement part of this particular part that we are debating at the moment. I have an amendment in front of me in the name of my colleague Camilla Belich. She\u2019s been very busy and, as you can hear from her history that she has given of the pay equity journey, has an absolute knowledge that is probably second to maybe those people that fought in 1972. But apart from that, we are very honoured to have Camilla as part of our team here with the knowledge that she brings, because I think it is really important that we bring that history here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000766\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003ENow, the reason I wanted to talk about the commencement\u2014like my colleague Megan Woods\u2014is around the fact that it\u2019s concerning that the Act comes into force on the day after Royal assent. Yesterday, when we were out the front with this rally that was called within an hour and a half and had quite a large number of people turn up to it on very, very short notice, we were gifted the opportunity to hear from people who have been part of the pay equity claims process. Listening to them was quite enlightening, about how robust the process has been, but how successful the process has been as well because of the ownership that members have had with that process. So it\u2019s not a once-over-lightly; it is a process that takes many, many years and many iterations to go through.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000767\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003EThat gave me confidence yesterday, when I listened to those people, about how incredibly robust that process was, that we had something that was incredibly successful. As a result, we have seen many claims that have been successful since the last amendments were put through in legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000768\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003ENow, what I would like to argue here is that if we\u2019re talking about\u2014here, in this House today\u2014the Act coming into force on the day after Royal assent, then all of that work means absolutely nothing. So all of the work that those people talked about\u2014and in my first reading speech yesterday, I mentioned a woman who stood on those steps, called Tessa, who has been working as part of a librarian team with their pay equity claim for four years. Four years of work that, if this goes through the House today, will mean absolutely nothing. What that means is that, once again, women are having to go back to ground zero. All the gains that they have made, they\u2019re actually going backwards because we are getting rid of something\u2014well, not we, but the Government\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000769\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229634e377-7e76-4353-9662-fb444eb2ec9d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228c125a7087ba4963ad9ede044b8ac7b8\u0022\u003ECarl Bates\u003C/span\u003E: Shouldn\u2019t have put it in place in the first place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000770\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002257cba07e5a5a408ba652e2d2199ab6cb\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014is getting rid of something that has been working incredibly well. I sort of heard a little bit of a heckle coming through there, saying, \u201CWell, maybe it shouldn\u2019t have been put in place in the first place\u201D. I suggest that those members who are calling that out go and read the history and understand what has happened since 2020, and also understand the process, because if they\u2019re going to be short-sighted enough to call out heckles like that, it is obvious that they have no understanding of what they are talking about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000771\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003ENow, my colleague Camilla Belich has proposed here that in clause 2, we would replace \u201Con the day\u201D with \u201Cfive years\u201D. Now, the reason that I want to talk to this is that I believe five years will see those claims get through. You know, when you hear that Tessa and her group of librarians have been working for four years, they\u2019re probably at the tail end of their claim process. But there are some in that 33 who are right at the beginning. So if they are right near the beginning, then that means we\u2019d give them five years to get their claim all the way through. I think that that is actually a very, very fair metric. It also means that we would not lose all of that work that has been done to this date. It means that they would still have ownership of the process, and it is incredibly important, for this to be successful going forward, that people have ownership in that process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022 data-id=\u0022db7f6563dfe54026aafe72784743b806\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000772\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022db7f6563dfe54026aafe72784743b806\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a number of tabled amendments on the title of this bill, and I want to address some of them, because I think one of the things we\u2019ve heard throughout this discussion is still a lack of clarity from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety regarding the rationale behind why this bill needs to be introduced into the House under urgency, other than the fact that it is a budgetary concern. But what I\u2019m particularly flabbergasted by is the fact that we have a system in place where literally the Government is wanting to do anything, including punching down on low-paid New Zealanders, other than to improve the tax system. So I want to ask the Minister if the Minister would consider my tabled amendment that says that this bill is better called \u201CEqual Pay (Do Anything Other Than Improve the Tax System) Amendment Bill\u201D, or \u201CEqual Pay (Punch Down on Low-paid New Zealanders) Amendment Bill\u201D, because what we are seeing as a result of this bill is that there is going to be more blue, yellow, and black tapes being placed for women to have that equal pay claim. So would, then, the Minister consider my amendment, which is \u201CEqual Pay (More Blue, Yellow, and Black Tapes) Amendment Bill? [Member stands to take a call]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000773\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226e99ad38b2a540628892cee8d6e09493\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: He\u2019s still speaking. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000774\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220c0886b95aeb4a6c83c9c56a201dbd3e\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000775\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022071f7800-2755-41b6-83df-07ebaf867ae2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225629789550fe4d5ab2cca4b7d6360419\u0022\u003ETim van de Molen\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000776\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229ad1c5ba6a2a4ef89699ceb2673a3756\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: He takes a breath occasionally.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000777\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e83e98f4865a4ca49634d0cc1823e815\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: That is just some of the considerations, but\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000778\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002267d6b90e476544c589ad1004aebd85bd\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, I\u2019ve got a point of order, sorry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000779\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022071f7800-2755-41b6-83df-07ebaf867ae2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002276ecd975ea344d438afeb4d4956cda64\u0022\u003ETim van de Molen\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just with regards to the titles being proposed by the member, there is a longstanding convention that they must be genuine attempts to reframe the title of the bill in a reasonable manner. The ones that have been proposed, they\u2019re clearly disorderly, which is actually outside the Standing Orders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000780\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022df0dd1f2828d4a3db432b7fccc0e24c9\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: They\u2019ve come through the process and they\u2019ve been approved.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000781\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223b689dfacf8448318c32175e7aaca32d\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, thank you for raising that concern. I think whether they are in order or not will be determined as part of the voting process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000782\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003ESo, continuing on, let us be clear in terms of this bill. This bill is nothing short of a war on women. So I want to check with the Minister if the Minister would actually consider \u201CEqual Pay (War on Women) Amendment Bill\u201D, because all we are hearing from the Minister, when we are giving the Minister examples of people who have spent decades of their lives trying to fight for equal pay and equal rights for themselves, all the Minister is able to tell us is that \u201COh, we really appreciate the work that they are doing and we really see them and we really care about them.\u201D So, from my perspective, that is the equivalent of \u201Cthoughts and prayers\u201D. So would the Minister consider my amendment \u201CEqual Pay (Thoughts and Prayers, But Your Salary Won\u2019t Get Higher) Amendment Bill\u201D? Because this is what this bill is going to be doing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000783\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EBut, honestly, I\u2019m just simply at a loss for words, in terms of what this is doing, because, over and over again, we have heard, through this last day and through the debate, around the fact that this particular bill will have a detrimental effect on people\u2014actually, not just on women; this bill will also have considerations and concerns for all workers. So this is on behalf of my colleague Francisco Hernandez, as well. Finally, would the Minister consider the \u201CEqual Pay (War on Workers) Amendment Bill\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u002261a4b38afa0d43cf9d76bdc82cc29948\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000784\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002261a4b38afa0d43cf9d76bdc82cc29948\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I will take the time to respond to a couple of the contributions that have just been made. Firstly, starting with Camilla Belich: no, I won\u2019t be accepting the title change to the bill that the member has suggested, although I do thank the member for at least getting to the heart of the matter here, that we are not actually getting rid of the Act. I thank the member for acknowledging this, because the other member in her party\u2014Kieran McAnulty\u2014stood to make a contribution suggesting that we change the name of the bill to a repeal bill, but that\u2019s not true, because we are not repealing pay equity and we are not repealing the Equal Pay Act. The title of this bill is quite correctly named because we are amending the Equal Pay Act, so it has been named accordingly as an amendment to that. That is the same answer that I have to Lawrence Xu-Nan, and his contribution on behalf of Francisco Hernandez, as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000785\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EI have to admit, I enjoyed Jan Tinetti\u2019s contribution, because while she started out talking about changes to the commencement date\u2014which we won\u2019t be making\u2014I heard her try to rewrite history. I think that\u2019s quite amusing, because she made a contribution suggesting that when amendments first came through this House in order to put in place a pay equity system, they were comprehensively tested, which is not true, because Labour\u2019s amendments came through under an Amendment Paper (AP) that was rushed under urgency, without consultation. So it is quite rich of the Labour Party to stand here talking about process, when the pay equity system, with substantive policy changes to pay equity, came through an AP rushed by the Labour Party through urgency. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022 data-id=\u0022a3026e03439440cab4e2b8147c09aa6f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000786\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a3026e03439440cab4e2b8147c09aa6f\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I, first of all, want to talk about the commencement period. There is a proposed amendment which talks about a 10-year period, and I want to argue in favour of that period. What the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety has done means that all the benefit of a 10-year period goes straight to the boss, in the law as it is. At the present time, the proposal on the Table is that the people who will suffer are the people who have been injured. So the amount of time that will elapse before someone can take a case, again, if there is sex discrimination, is going to be 10 years. During that period, no back-pay claims can be made, so they also pay the price for that full 10 years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000787\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EIs it fair that the law comes into place now and it isn\u2019t a 10-year period\u2014if we\u2019re going to be fair about things? Shouldn\u2019t we have a 10-year hiatus where we get through these claims, and they apply and we do things for 10 years, and wouldn\u2019t it be better to commence this law after 10 years, given that the Minister\u2019s willing to give that full freedom of 10 years to the boss and actually allow them all the benefit of discriminating for that period and deprive women in New Zealand of what they should be being paid? Effectively, the Minister\u2019s proposals for the change in the law are saying \u201CIt\u2019s OK to discriminate for a full 10 years, and we will take the profit. We, as the employers, will take the profit off the workers. We will discriminate\u2014too bad; that\u2019s what we\u2019re going to do.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000788\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EI wondered whether the Minister might consider actually renaming this bill with a title that is perhaps reflective of what it means for women in New Zealand today. \u201CThe Mother\u2019s Day Gift Bill\u201D might be appropriate. Mother\u2019s Day is this Sunday. My mother was\u2014and I talked about this earlier\u2014one of the women who started to work in the 1960s under a law that meant that she got paid a quarter of a male wage, and it\u2019s those professions\u2014she was a schoolteacher, but it happened in other professions as well\u2014that suffered because so many women were employed on much lower wages than their male comrades. Their male comrades were paid four times more because they were assumed to have families. So what happened when that happened to them was that they dragged behind for years and years and years. So they did not save the kind of money that their male colleagues saved. They did not leave violent relationships because they could not afford to. Their children also suffered. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000789\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EThat is what happened and that is the history that meant we\u2019ve had deeply unequal amounts of pay in this country. It had nothing to do with the value of their work. And it definitely had nothing to do with the term \u201Cmerit\u201D, which has been used here in a way that I hope you understand, by my contributions today, is deeply offensive to me. To suggest that somebody who\u2019s in a profession that\u2019s 68 percent female and has been discriminated against, and historically, all those factors mean they\u2019re being paid less, is not a meritorious claim. That\u2019s deeply offensive to me, and it\u2019s deeply offensive to people like my mother, who actually fought to work for equal pay in this country and deserved better\u2014absolutely deserved better.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000790\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EI also wanted to suggest that maybe another change we could look to is a title that reflected the complete walkaway that the ACT Party has done from the capacity of people to make a contractual bargain. All these settlements were actually contracts, and people made them\u2014blood, sweat, and tears made those contracts, those agreements. They came up with a deal. They negotiated and they came up with a deal. What the ACT Party, and this coalition Government, does today\u2014National can\u2019t walk away from responsibility for this\u2014is they walk away from\u2014they squash\u2014that contractual freedom, all the work that went it, and all the bargains that were struck: tough. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u0022f2960034307e4dd3aa5b087942e1d3a9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000791\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f2960034307e4dd3aa5b087942e1d3a9\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I couldn\u2019t listen to a second longer of that contribution\u2014I\u2019m sorry\u2014especially hearing the member note offence so often in that contribution. I wanted to make it known that I personally find it offensive that we have a member who is conflating the issue of being a woman with being a mother. There are women who cannot become mothers, and there are women who have struggled to be mothers. When we have this bill talking about discrimination between men and women, we should not be trying to rename it to a \u201CMother\u2019s Day Bill\u201D, because there are so many working women in this country who are struggling to become mothers, and I personally find that hurtful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002257c0c650-e6a0-4475-b66d-5281ede8b1e3\u0022 data-id=\u0022f47b767115f74f608b3600b8b286525d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000792\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257c0c650-e6a0-4475-b66d-5281ede8b1e3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f47b767115f74f608b3600b8b286525d\u0022\u003ESUZE REDMAYNE (Junior Whip\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That debate on this question now close.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022d27e73c86d91492cb1aae376d8074fcb\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022 data-id=\u002270fb13c1dfe44173b52d0171a4ba725b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000793\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002270fb13c1dfe44173b52d0171a4ba725b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Francisco Hernandez\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change the title to the \u201CUnequal Pay Entrenchment Bill\u201D is out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000794\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003EFrancisco Hernandez\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change the title to the \u201CEqual Pay (War on Workers) Amendment Bill\u201D is out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000795\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003EThe question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change the title to the \u201CEqual Pay Regulatory Framework Amendment Bill\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022006e564560c34a49b565d242a1d4c0d6\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022 data-id=\u00226be2cd03d7d643e58594b87500a1cc93\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226be2cd03d7d643e58594b87500a1cc93\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change the title to the \u201CEqual Pay (More Blue, Yellow, and Black Tapes) Amendment Bill\u201D is out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000797\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change the title to the \u201CEqual Pay (Do Anything Other Than Improve the Tax System) Amendment Bill\u201D is out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000798\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change the title to the \u201CEqual Pay (Punch Down on Low Paid New Zealanders) Amendment Bill\u201D is out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000799\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change the title to \u201CEqual Pay (War on Women) Amendment Bill\u201D is out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000800\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change the title to the \u201CEqual Pay (Thoughts and Prayers But Your Salary Won\u2019t Get Higher) Amendment Bill\u201D is out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022fb351b82209e4a089c52916677fa9fdd\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022 data-id=\u0022d9dcafa71a1648eea347f8f9bd539867\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000801\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d9dcafa71a1648eea347f8f9bd539867\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Rachel Boyack\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 2 to replace \u201Con the day\u201D with \u201Cone year\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022b817401e501a4c70a477b1cfd749dd34\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022 data-id=\u0022abf85e55ff724ef0a662d76ae01b12fc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000802\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022abf85e55ff724ef0a662d76ae01b12fc\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 2 to replace \u201Con the day\u201D with \u201Cfive years\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022f81cb1569b964371b56c52b19db7795b\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022 data-id=\u0022d2b8fb4de0514ece89d131205705bede\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000803\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d2b8fb4de0514ece89d131205705bede\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 2 to replace \u201Con the day\u201D with \u201Cten years\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00225b2f00caf0f240feb18a89c526e0cc64\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022 data-id=\u002250e0707d2af548a989ba419112f5ff87\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000804\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002250e0707d2af548a989ba419112f5ff87\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 2 to replace \u201Con the day\u201D with \u201Ctwo years\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00227007ec3eb6734ed187a1b07b20880889\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022 data-id=\u0022adaa610c11da46f19af94df24ce58ffa\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000805\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022adaa610c11da46f19af94df24ce58ffa\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 2 to replace \u201Con the day\u201D with \u201Ctwenty years\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00225ba4473d827144b6aa074b479ec3910b\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022 data-id=\u0022d80a2c138b5f434989e18956fffb0766\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000806\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d80a2c138b5f434989e18956fffb0766\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 2 to replace \u201Con the day\u201D with \u201Csix months\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022bb15546ce5a54e6d84dbefbfab303917\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022 data-id=\u002253e86c97dbbb4bf8b6b67c838b361999\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000807\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002253e86c97dbbb4bf8b6b67c838b361999\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 2 to replace \u201Con the day\u201D with \u201Cthree months\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000808\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022d5952da4e2974b4ebbc212026cc299dc\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34, Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15, Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49, ACT New Zealand 11, New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the Equal Pay Amendment Bill be now read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000809\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000810\u0022\u003EClause 2 agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000811\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000812\u0022\u003EClause 3 agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000813\u0022\u003EHouse resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022 data-id=\u0022a1e57c8fe52d481db22a0df1bdec9b0d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a1e57c8fe52d481db22a0df1bdec9b0d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Equal Pay Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000815\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000816\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003EReport adopted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022309d0ea1f7f548d5b86dd5add48f827d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000817\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022309d0ea1f7f548d5b86dd5add48f827d\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The Equal Pay Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000818\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00221142598ee6e24b4e9ccd5c141b07c80a\u0022\u003EThird Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u00226a478da14d4042eab7a96f8268390d11\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000819\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226a478da14d4042eab7a96f8268390d11\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the Equal Pay Amendment Bill be now read a third time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000820\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EThe Equal Pay Amendment Bill improves the process for raising and resolving a pay equity claim and provides a better framework for assessing whether there is sex-based undervaluation in remuneration in female-dominated occupations. I consider that the current legislative settings are too permissive and have resulted in the pay equity framework not working as intended. The current Act only requires that pay equity claims are arguable to progress. I consider that the settings have resulted in claims progressing through the entry threshold without strong evidence of undervaluation. The bill addresses this by increasing the threshold for raising a pay equity claim, including requiring claims to have merit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000821\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EThe current Act includes limited tools for employers to contest broadly scoped claims. This has led to broad claims where it is difficult to determine whether the differences in remuneration are due to sex-based undervaluation\u2014for example, the DHB allied and technical health pay equity settlement covered 90 occupations, including hospital dental assistants, physiotherapists, wheelchair technicians, and cultural advisers. The bill addresses this by providing employers with the tools they need to ensure an appropriate scope of claim. There is insufficient guidance in the Act for choosing appropriate comparators and on comparison methodology. This has led to comparators being used repeatedly across several claims, despite there being a number of differences with the work of claimants and respective skills. Fisheries and corrections officers have been used as a comparator for nurses, DHB administration, and clerical claims, as well as school library staff. The bill address this by introducing a hierarchy of comparators and adding more prescription to the comparison methodology.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000822\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EThe current requirement to include review clauses in pay equity settlements has led to reviews considering factors that may not have been connected to sex-based undervaluation. Review clauses in the teacher-aides and DHB admin and clerical claims have sought to consider a range of factors beyond whether sex-based discrimination had returned. This includes the\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000823\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222c4696e48b234fa7b3d8ed7b861a7380\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry to interrupt the Minister, but there is a lot of noise in the House and it\u2019s not coming from the gallery; it\u2019s coming from downstairs. Can we have a bit more respect, please. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000824\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225ab08a0ebf8449fa96f87e3f78fa907a\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN\u003C/span\u003E: This includes the Consumers Price Index. The bill addresses this by removing the ability for a settlement to include a review clause and limiting when claims can be re-raised. The current Act does not allow for the phasing of pay equity settlements. This does not acknowledge the disruption that can happen when wage costs shift unexpectedly. The bill addresses this by providing for the phasing of pay equity settlements. There are also a number of issues with the current parameters for the Employment Relations Authority relating to fixing remuneration, which do not provide the right incentives to resolve pay equity claims. The bill addresses this by changing how and when the authority can fix remuneration, including requiring phasing when the authority fixes remuneration and removing the ability for the authority to award back-pay.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000825\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EIt is worth noting that New Zealand\u2019s pay equity regime is an outlier internationally. Most countries that we compare ourselves to, such as Ireland and the United Kingdom, do not allow multi-employer claims or comparators outside of the employer\u2019s workplace. Australia\u2019s pay equity regime does allow multi-employer claims but they\u2019re usually progressed through their modern awards system that does not require the use of comparators. New Zealand has had significantly more pay equity settlements than Australia since pay equity legislation was introduced in 2020. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000826\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003EOverall, the bill provides for a better regulatory framework for parties to a pay equity claim to assess whether there is sex-based undervaluation. This will ensure that the pay equity regime is workable and sustainable. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022 data-id=\u002257ce5cfc7c054455af2559ef95fa724d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000827\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002257ce5cfc7c054455af2559ef95fa724d\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022 data-id=\u0022de618e9504204218bce5bfea817c838e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000828\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022de618e9504204218bce5bfea817c838e\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Well, here we are, just over 30 hours after the Government announced this bill, which, in my time in Parliament, is right up there with one of the most egregious pieces of legislation that this House will put through. I continue with my anger and my disgust that a House of Government would put women in a position of putting them on the back foot, and would put their bad fiscal management in front of women\u2019s rights, and in front of making it a better day for women by increasing their pay. This is taking the women\u2019s movement backwards, and ensuring that women will continue to be paid less, well into the future. Again, what an egregious piece of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000829\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003EWhat have we heard over the course of the last 30 hours? We have heard a Government who has gaslit the public. They are saying that this is going to make this process better. We have heard it from all three coalition partners over that time\u2014throughout the debate and throughout question time\u2014that this will make it better. I cannot believe that particularly our women members on the Government side of the House can hold their heads up and say that. This will do nothing but put women backwards. Once again, women are paying the price for the bad fiscal management of that Government. This has happened year after year after year with a conservative Government. And, once again, women will pay the price.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000830\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003EBut in that gaslighting, we had one MP\u2014one MP\u2014who was caught telling the truth. Yesterday, we had the Hon David Seymour telling the media that this, of course, will save the Government billions of dollars\u2014that ACT have found the money to make the Budget work. So we know\u2014we have had confirmed what we know\u2014that this is setting off a Budget that they could not make work. They went out and they thought, \u201CWhere can we find the savings? Women: that\u2019s where we can find the savings.\u201D How dare they? How dare they do that to women of this country? I am absolutely disgusted and I find it completely disgraceful that we are in the position that we are in today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003EYet when I look over there, I can see people laughing and thinking that this is a joke. I heard members in their first reading speeches talking about \u201Cthe Opposition will dramatise this because they always do.\u201D We are not dramatising this. We are angry. We are angry for the women who this will impact. We are angry for the Kristine Bartletts of this world who have changed the course and done everything that they can in their lives to make it a better day for living. We are angry and so are they.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000832\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003EThey are out there and they are protesting this in great numbers, and they will continue to protest this in great numbers. This is outrageous, dishonest, and, once again, it\u2019s taking us backwards. The ACT Party has shown their hand for what it really stands for. But what is absolutely disgraceful is that all coalition partners are standing by and doing nothing to stop it\u2014nothing to stop it. Nothing to see and nothing to help stop what is happening to put those women backwards.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000833\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003ENow, yesterday, I had\u2014as I\u2019ve said in this House, over the past 24 hours, from a number of people\u2014a large, large number of emails coming through from different people from different walks of life. All of them are absolutely taken by surprise and asking what on earth they are thinking about. Some of them\u2014and a lot of them, to be fair\u2014were their voters, and are their voters. They are asking what they are thinking. One of those people said, \u201CIt feels like we are in a parallel dystopian universe. It feels like we\u2019re going back to a Handmaid\u2019s Tale time.\u201D Well, that is what women are feeling. They are feeling aggrieved\u2014absolutely aggrieved.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000834\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003EWe had in this country\u2014have, actually, until this bill goes through\u2014a strong process for pay equity claims. Many women\u2014many women\u2014felt absolute ownership of those pay equity claims, because they have worked voluntarily, many of them, to ensure the process was robust, to make sure we are making a positive difference for our future generations. In fact, I want to mention a couple of those women. There was one that was on the news last night, Ally Kingi. Ally Kingi is a teacher-aide and a NZEI Te Riu Roa member. Now, that\u2019s probably going to get the other side a little bit, you know, agitated, because, I just mentioned the name of a union. But Ally, as I said, is a teacher-aide. For those of you who don\u2019t know, teacher-aides are one of the most vulnerable workforces that we have in this country. They go from year to year not knowing if they have a job. Some of them go from term to term not knowing if they have the same hours for the next term. Many of them are on incredibly low pay.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000835\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003EAlly worked incredibly hard over her time on the team that worked through their pay equity settlement, to ensure that teacher-aides were valued for the work that they do. In fact, ask any principal and they will tell you that they cannot run their schools without their teacher-aides. Ally says, \u201COur pay equity settlement in 2020 was life changing for teacher-aides. But those pay gaps reopen over time. To be told this Government is happy to allow gender pay gaps to open up for a decade at a time, without the opportunity for review, is devastating.\u201D On the TV last night, Ally said, \u201CI gave myself to this process so that my daughters and my granddaughters will have a better life because they won\u2019t have to worry about fighting like I am now to be valued for the work that they do.\u201D She said, \u201CIt feels like we\u2019ve just been kicked.\u201D That\u2019s exactly what many women like Ally are feeling.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000836\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003EAlly is a national treasure for the work that she has done for women in this country. What this Government has done has absolutely kicked women like Ally, and we\u2019ve gone back to zero again\u2014where women are just being expected to put up with it. Women in this country are being asked to put up with the fact that that side of the House have bad fiscal management, can\u2019t make their Budgets work. They\u2019re paying the price for tax cuts, tax breaks to landlords, and tobacco companies. [Interruption] And listen to them try and deny it\u2014listen to them try and deny it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000837\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003EThis has been rushed through with little, little prosecution over that time. It wasn\u2019t even taken to select committee. They never even gave women and people who are very much invested in this a voice. They took their voice away from them. They did not take it to select committee so that women could have their democratic say over such an egregious piece of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000838\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve already found anomalies, and we\u2019ve found mistakes in the legislation. That is sloppy lawmaking, and that is the price that that side will pay for not giving people their democratic rights and their democratic say through a select committee process. That is just unacceptable, and the women in this country are absolutely angry and livid. The ground has been swept from underneath them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000839\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003EFinally, I want to acknowledge someone who has done so much for women in this space, an absolute national hero, and that is Kristine Bartlett. Kristine Bartlett fought for and got a settlement for rest home workers. She said yesterday that this news brought her to tears. It was gut-wrenching. She feels so sorry for these women workers. Well, what I say to Kristine and other workers is to hold on to that anger. Hold on to that anger because that means we can organise, and we will mobilise. Women will not stand for such egregious legislation. Women will not be put on the back foot again. I absolutely condemn this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022 data-id=\u0022ac8d0d4376d44dbfa606701e639d4e92\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000840\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ac8d0d4376d44dbfa606701e639d4e92\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green\u2014Rongotai):\u003C/span\u003E I know that we can live in a country where all people have enough to live good lives and where the people who undertake some of the most important caring work that binds together our communities and supports us all are properly paid. I am talking about midwives who care for mothers and babies before, during, and just after birth; early childhood teachers who are educating our tamariki at a time that is absolutely influential to their outcomes later in life; our primary school teachers; our secondary school teachers; our nurses who care for us when we are sick and injured; and the clerical and admin staff who do the mahi so that doctors and nurses can do their job and we can get the healthcare we need; care and support workers, like Kristine Bartlett, those looking after our disabled wh\u0101nau, looking after our elderly in retirement villages and rest homes. And there are others as well. These professions have been underpaid because they are mainly women doing the work, and that is not something anyone has debated. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000841\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EI know that Nicola Willis has acknowledged there is a need for pay equity. I know that members opposite, women in the Cabinet, know and understand that there are professions that have been underpaid because they have historically been female dominated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000842\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EBut the coalition Government of National, ACT, and New Zealand First would have us believe it is unreasonable, that it is unaffordable or unsustainable, to pay these people what they deserve. This bill, and the way it\u2019s been rammed through under urgency over the last two days\u2014two weeks before the Budget\u2014is a disgrace, and the Green Party has always stood for fair pay. We oppose this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000843\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EClosing the gender pay gap was one of the key priorities in our confidence and supply agreement with the Labour-led Government from 2017 to 2020. Following on the work of my colleagues in the Green Party, Catherine Delahunty, Denise Roche, and especially Jan Logie, it was my honour and privilege to serve as Minister for Women. I worked alongside Labour to pass the 2020 amendments to the Equal Pay Act that established the process for pay equity that has delivered 10 pay equity claims that have resulted in absolute life-changing increases in pay to mainly women, to low-paid workers who do some of the most important work in our communities. That legislation would have delivered another 33 claims covering hundreds of thousands of workers in this country if it weren\u2019t for the shameful legislation that we are debating right now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000844\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EIt is not us alone. The fight for equal pay has been going on for over a century, and the fight for a pay equity process that would actually deliver for women and men and others who work in these female-dominated professions was many years, and even decades, in the making. Others have of course referred to Kristine Bartlett, who, under the last National Government, she and her union took a claim as a care and support worker that she had been underpaid because the sector is female dominated, and they won. She forced the then National Government to reckon with this issue, and it massively changed the lives and financial circumstances of over 50,000 aged-care workers and support workers. She was recognised as New Zealander of the Year in 2018. She\u2019s been recognised so many times.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000845\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EI acknowledge Kristine Bartlett. I acknowledge the whole union movement, men and women who have been working to get a good, evidence-based process that would properly deliver fair pay and pay equity, because that is what we need to do in order to close the gender pay gap. We need this process\u2014which was world-leading, and now the Minister refers to it being world-leading as though that\u2019s a reason to change it back, so we can go backwards. Well, Aotearoa New Zealand has often led, but not because of the people in power; because of the ordinary men and women who organised and fought for the right to vote for women, who organised and fought for rights when it comes to te reo M\u0101ori, and who organised and fight\u2014and continue to fight\u2014to close the gender pay gap and for pay equity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000846\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EOur people and our country cannot thrive if we do not have people doing this work. It is public good work. It is ridiculous to claim that the commercial economy is somehow independent of this public investment. The commercial economy relies on public investment in people and infrastructure. We don\u2019t have an economy if we don\u2019t have healthy people, if we don\u2019t have public education. This system benefits from underpaying workers. That is the status quo and that is what we are up against.  That is what this coalition Government is now promising to do for years to come.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000847\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EThe most outrageous aspect about this bill being passed under urgency is that it completely cancels and annuls the work that has been done over the past five years since the legislation was introduced. Hundreds of thousands of workers are going to be affected by this decision to cancel those claims. It is deeply, deeply cynical. We see you, Minister of Finance Nicola Willis. We see you claiming that you\u2019re a good economic manager, and we see you ensuring that hundreds of thousands of workers\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000848\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c0357031388f48db8eb2895b7d38f483\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Julie Anne Genter! Please apologise. It\u2019s about the Government; it\u2019s not about individuals. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000849\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229b72bd458a2944c382ce8c26df4d99d8\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Speaker, are we not allowed to refer to the decisions made by the Minister of Finance and the consequences they have on the people of this country?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000850\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002285cc9f60b7be44019b89520ccb274542\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, except this is not the Budget and you were singling out the Minister. So, carry on\u2014and carry on without singling out the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000851\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e510c8aabf884d3184d31a6fbab7767d\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER\u003C/span\u003E: I would like to refer to this Cabinet paper by the Hon Nicola Willis when she was Minister for the Public Service, date of issue 25 June 2024, entitled the Pay Equity Reset. I would like to quote from this because it is directly related to the legislation that\u2019s being brought today. It says, in paragraph 4, executive summary, \u201Cpay equity costs to the Crown have become significant\u201D. And then it says, in paragraph 7, \u201CChanges are required to ensure that there is a greater focus on transparency of costs and better management of claim costs. I propose a new fiscal management approach,\u201D. It is very clear\u2014through the Cabinet papers, delivered by Nicola Willis in her role as Minister for better public services, which disestablished the Pay Equity Taskforce, which was located within the Public Service Commission, who did a lot of really important work and mahi to help ensure that we were supporting closing the gender pay gap and progressing pay equity right across the public sector.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000852\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003ESo there are decisions that flow from individuals in the Government and in the Cabinet, and those decisions have consequences for hundreds of thousands of people. They\u2019re the people who are not on hundreds of thousands of dollars; they\u2019re people who are on $60,000 or less and they are trying to make ends meet under really difficult circumstances. We all know that some of these professions\u2014and 33 of them had active claims\u2014had been systematically underpaid due to gender-based discrimination. The only way we will ever change that is if Governments take action.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000853\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EThe truth is that the Government, as an employer, benefits from underpaying these people. They benefit from women being willing to do the hard caring work, and they exploit these women and their work. They exploit them, and then they claim that we can\u2019t afford to pay them more. But all of this is a political choice. Governments are elected by the people, and we, as the people of Aotearoa New Zealand, can show our values. If we\u2019re serious about closing the gender pay gap, if we\u2019re serious about fair pay, if we\u2019re serious about ending horrific levels of inequality and doing more for the worst off in our society, then we can do that. We can choose to do that. We don\u2019t have to sit back and say, \u201CIt\u2019s too hard; we can\u2019t afford it.\u201D We can make the tax system fairer. We can tax wealth. We can tax capital.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000854\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EEvery decision this Government has made disadvantages workers and it benefits the largest corporates and the people who own the most: the landowners. This decision is a decision, and I think it is worth mentioning that Nicola Willis, as a member of the Opposition when this bill was passed and I was the Minister in the chair, spoke in favour of the bill that was passed, the amendment to the Equal Pay Act. I know that they\u2019ll say that there was a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), but the SOP reflected the changes and the issues that were raised at the Education and Workforce Committee. So, look, it\u2019s all smoke and mirrors.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000855\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EThe reality is that this is an irresponsible Government that can\u2019t pay for their promises, that refuses to make sure that the wealthy in our country pay their fair share. They\u2019re supporting the private businesses, the profits of private businesses, like tobacco companies, and they\u2019re telling teachers and midwives and nurses and early childhood workers and care and support workers that they don\u2019t deserve fair pay for the work that ensures that our country can thrive. I think it\u2019s a disgrace.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022 data-id=\u0022aae049a6b1a84f6a9e8261c3a2491248\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022aae049a6b1a84f6a9e8261c3a2491248\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance):\u003C/span\u003E Five years ago, I stood in this House, along with my then National Party colleagues, and supported the passage of a reform to the Equal Pay Act. At that time, I made this comment: I said, \u201CWe support the simple concept that people should be paid the same for the same work, regardless of their gender, and we support the equally important concept that, if someone has been doing work and there are reasonable grounds to believe that that work has been historically undervalued based on their gender and has been underpaid because of that, they should be able to make a pay equity claim.\u201D I made that comment five years ago and I repeat it today. What I also said five years ago was that we would reserve judgment on a Supplementary Order Paper that was introduced with multiple changes to the bill that we were supporting. In particular, I noted that we would have to watch to see whether that caused issues and problems. So it has proved.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000857\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003ESo today, I wish to make a few things clear. The first is the concept of equal pay\u2014that men and women should be paid the same for the same work\u2014remains as strong today as ever. The second is the idea of pay equity. I wish to be clear what pay equity is, because it has sometimes been conflated by members on the opposite side of the House with equal pay. Pay equity relates to the concept that men and women should be paid for work which may be different but which is of equal value. Now, the question for lawmakers is how we judge what is of equal value. What Kristine Bartlett achieved was she said that our Equal Pay Act should be interpreted to go to this question of pay equity. What the last National Government formed a view on was that rather than leaving these matters to be interpreted by the courts, it would be better for both employers and employees if there was a clear process in law that would allow claims to be progressed. We put forward legislation to achieve that. The last Labour Government delayed that legislation so they could do a press release on Women\u2019s Suffrage Day three years later, in the last year of their first term.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000858\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003EThey put forward a process. What has turned out to be the case is that that process has led to challenges, which is illustrated by the fact that as of today, there has never been a claim by a private sector employer that isn\u2019t funded by the Government. The large majority of claims have been public sector claims. So there have been challenges.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000859\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003EI want to make three things clear that, again, members opposite have intentionally, I believe, tried to confuse today and yesterday. The first is this: our Government is upholding the settlements that have been achieved under the existing Equal Pay Act. We think that\u2019s important and we are continuing to fund those settlements. So no one is having those settlements taken away from them, as has been stated by some.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000860\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003ESecond: we are ensuring that there is a very clear process at law for future claims, and we are doing that clearly and simply and immediately. Members opposite have asked that we take this process over many, many months\u2014that we delay that process so that people are in limbo and don\u2019t know whether they can make a claim. We are making a simple process. In doing that, we are still allowing that where women are able to prove that they have been underpaid for reasons of gender discrimination, for reasons of sex discrimination, then they can make claims.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000861\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003EThe final thing that I want to say is this: there are many workers across our economy and, indeed, across economies internationally who continue to want to be paid more, and so they should, because, actually, that aspiration is held on this side of the House. In fact, the very reason I want the New Zealand economy to grow is so that we are an economy that is better able to pay good wages and provide good working conditions for workers. We have in law, our employment relations law, very clearly established processes for people to bargain and argue for better pay and work conditions, and so that should continue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000862\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003EBut this is about gender discrimination. So pay equity processes should be used for genuine issues of discrimination. They should not become a parallel route for bargaining. They should not become a backdoor route for bargaining. They should be about discrimination. With the changes that the Government is making here, we are ensuring that that is the case\u2014ensuring that there is clarity about the comparisons that should occur and allowing people to factor in market-based factors. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000863\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003EFinally, I would say this\u2014to private sector employers that have listened to this debate today and are listening, I\u2019d say this: \u201CPay women fairly; pay them equally.\u201D I do not subscribe to the tenant and the principle that the last Government did, which is that they, I believe, set up a principle that said, \u201CIf you, private sector employer, don\u2019t pay people properly, don\u2019t worry, if the Government is funding you, we\u2019ll provide the backstop, we\u2019ll write the cheque, and we will help pay for the settlement.\u201D They made that decision and it had significant implications. We now are in a scenario where women can make claims, they can have them settled where gender discrimination takes place\u2014this is fair; this is reasonable. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000864\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003EI want to end my remarks by referring to a statement that I made five years ago that I believe to this day and I believe that the Government\u2019s work absolutely upholds: \u201CWe all, I believe, want to live in a country and a world in which men and women have equal opportunities, are equally rewarded for their work, and are able to progress and fulfil their own potential to the maximum extent possible.\u201D I said it then; I stand by it today. I commend this bill to the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000865\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003EDebate interrupted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000866\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00227f557a8b2ae44567bada3bff5533cf38\u0022\u003EValedictory Statements\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000868\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00223282e0d7f23b43288a9dcc97cdceb885\u0022\u003EValedictory Statements\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u002229295ab8bc064f7da8e281a960128570\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000867\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002229295ab8bc064f7da8e281a960128570\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I want to indicate to the House that, at the conclusion of the Hon David Parker\u2019s valedictory statement, the House will suspend for the dinner break. In accordance with the determination of the Business Committee, I call on the Hon David Parker to make his valedictory statement. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022 data-id=\u00229acdc24f1d414393a7bc77a13d4dc0e7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000869\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229acdc24f1d414393a7bc77a13d4dc0e7\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you all for being here. I was elected for Labour on 27\u00A0July 2002, when I won the Otago seat. Campaigner extraordinaire Pete Hodgson trained me when I chaired his electorate committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000870\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u201CPark Parker in Parliament\u201D. I wore a purple checked shirt in every photo and every day. People said I\u2019d stolen a tablecloth from a greasy spoon\u2014a fashion crime. Queenstown and Arrowtown had been home for a couple of years\u2014the hitching solicitor. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000871\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI\u2019d co-founded with Howard Paterson and Max Shepherd agribiotech companies A2 Milk, BLIS Technologies, PharmaZen, and BotryZen, plus about 10 other businesses with others, so I had some profile as an entrepreneur. I never hid the fact I\u2019d skinned my knees as well as succeeded. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000872\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI proudly declared I was born in Roxburgh. There\u2019s a large clan of Parkers who wondered which bed I\u2019d fallen out of. In fact, I arrived as my mother dashed back to Dunedin\u2014one of the few times in my life I\u2019ve been early. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000873\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EIt was a winter election. I\u2019d hired a banner from the owner of the Otago Daily Times, Sir Julian Smith. \u201CBut I\u2019m staunch National.\u201D \u201CYou\u2019re a media mogul, and this is a purely commercial deal.\u201D We agreed a fee. Each Saturday, a giant \u201CVote Labour\u2014Parker\u201D banner flew over the winter sportsgrounds and buzzed Central Otago towns and ski fields. Julian donated his fee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000874\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EWith snow on the ground, the ski fields were booming. I love skiing, and handed out my brochures as people came off tows. They came to me! I didn\u2019t have to move. Close to an upset, a steady stream of Ministers came creating media opportunities. We won by just over 600 votes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000875\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EMy life and my family\u2019s changed that night. It has been a privilege to be elected to be representing my fellow country women and men. And in the 23 years since, I\u2019ve given it my all. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000876\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI was Dunedin raised, in a family of small-business people, for generations on both sides. My mother, Joan, was a talented musician, and dad, Frank, was a self-employed importer/wholesaler in the jewellery trade, and sporty. I was taught to cook and sew by Mum and to paint and build by Dad. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000877\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EMy sisters, Fiona, Christine, and Louise, and I naturally discussed business and issues of the day. We went to Roslyn Presbyterian Sunday School. The Little Gingerbread Man was given to me \u201CFor inquisitiveness\u201D by Heather Grimwood\u2014still active in Labour in her 90s. In my teens, I attended a wonderful youth group led by John Hardie. We debated many hard issues. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000878\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EIn 1977, Brad Tattersfield and I were performing a Peter Cook and Dudley Moore skit on religion to raise money for charity. One of our lines was \u201CAll those heathens in Africa will go to hell because they worship the wrong god.\u201D How could that be right? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000879\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI became an atheist. My atheism is itself faith-based\u2014I can\u2019t explain how the universe began\u2014and to this day, I respect all faiths which have at their heart the golden rule \u201CDo unto others as you would have them do unto you\u201D. I believe all citizens owe reciprocity. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000880\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EMy State schooling was top-notch. I made great friends\u2014great friends\u2014and fell in love, actually. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000881\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EMy first act of civil disobedience was refusing to wear long trousers in summer, donning junior shorts. The school handled it brilliantly. They ignored me. It didn\u2019t catch on, but it taught me it\u2019s not too hard to stand apart. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000882\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI did law and commerce at the University of Otago, tutored in information systems and accounting, and co-founded the Dunedin Community Law Centre. Anti-apartheid protests were powerful. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000883\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI studied tax in both my degrees and gained a deep understanding of the economic theory and statutory treatment of taxable compared with economic income, labour and capital income, inflation, real rates of return, and net present or future values.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000884\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EAs a litigation partner of Anderson Lloyd, I appeared in all New Zealand courts except the Supreme Court. I became an experienced CEO and company director. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000885\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EWe each bring our varied life experiences to this place, and democracy relies on it. My experiences made me an egalitarian. Wealth creation and its fair distribution have been central to my being here, and they sit at the core of Labour\u2019s founding values.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000886\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EMy primary commitment is to working people\u2014the waged, the salaried, the unpaid parent at home, the small-business owner, the farmer who owns one farm, not five.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000887\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI have three main threads to my political objectives: a prosperous, egalitarian economy, the protection of civil liberties and the rule of law, and good environmental outcomes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000888\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EMy first break in Parliament came from \u201CCorngate\u201D, or the Seeds of Distrust. The select committee inquiry unanimously found no evidence of interference or cover-up by any Minister, including the Prime Minister\u2014she quite liked that! \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EHelen, Michael, Winston, and Richard Prebble dominated the House. Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald were establishing the Green brand. An exceptionally good coalition Government: nine surpluses, strong growth, low unemployment, and a list of achievements longer than my arm. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000890\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThe Rt Hon Helen Clark was a fantastic PM for three full terms. So much has endured. She, Sir Michael Cullen, and Heather Simpson stand tall as giants. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000891\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI had electorate offices in Oamaru, Queenstown, and Alexandra: Barbara Duff, Angela Dolan, and Sue Parker\u2014no relation. We worked hard for our constituents. I wore out a car, and momentarily fell asleep at the wheel near Allanton\u2014a lucky escape. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000892\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EBy 2005, we had plenty to run on, and the highlight was a public meeting hosted by one Sam Neill\u2014warm, principled, and funny. People flocked to see him in Oamaru, and the media coverage was great. So, despite the swing against Labour, we increased our party and electorate votes, but we still lost when many who\u2019d stayed home in 2002 voted in 2005. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EIn 2011, Phil Goff did us proud. I stood in Epsom. We had barnstorming meetings. John Banks said he was walking past Ellerslie Racecourse and heard \u201CWhoosh!\u201D as the Labour Party parachuted David Parker in. I\u2019d reply that I wouldn\u2019t take fiscal lessons from the man who had doubled council debt as mayor, and highlighted ACT\u2019s links to the Sensible Sentencing Trust, including the ACT MP who\u2019d stolen the identity of a dead baby for a passport and who railed against discharges without conviction, having got one. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000894\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003ENumbers at meetings built. Paul Goldsmith said, \u201CParty vote National.\u201D Paddy Gower televised a rousing meeting. I got threatened with defamation proceedings by the misnamed Sensible Sentencing Trust. But our strategy worked. I was trailing third, and the electorate result was too close to call. The single-seat lifeboat of Epsom itself had to be rescued by the now infamous tea party which John Key held in Newmarket. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000895\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI stood in Epsom again in 2014 for a ritual thrashing by David Seymour, with Paul Goldsmith having perfected the art of standing to not be elected. Robust contests, but no one overstepped the mark. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000896\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s been a busy time in Parliament. I was deputy leader under David Cunliffe, which I enjoyed, and for six weeks, I was acting leader of the party\u2014enormous privileges. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000897\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EWe\u2019re here to improve New Zealand. Obviously, being in Cabinet helps. I was a Minister in Helen Clark\u2019s fifth Labour Government, and in the sixth, led by Jacinda Ardern and Chris Hipkins. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000898\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EEnvironmental issues significantly define who I am\u2014you can see it\u2019s quite an emotional day for me. Kiwis have a good environmental ethic.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000899\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThe M\u0101ori gods Papat\u016B\u0101nuku, T\u0101ne Mahuta, and Tangaroa show environment at the centre of the M\u0101ori world view. New settlers from the UK were keen to leave behind privatised access to rivers and water. They understood the tragedy of the commons, where population pressures ruin the environment in the absence of rules, and the importance of private property rights to enable investment. The fused values we now enjoy are a shared ethic. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000900\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EMy two main environmental priorities have been climate change and fresh water, and I\u2019ve tried to align business investment and people\u2019s consumption with good environmental outcomes. There are only three ways Governments can influence this: education, regulation, and price. Price can include subsidies or charges for pollution or the use of public resources. All are necessary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000901\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EWe build on the efforts of others. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000902\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI was Listener\u2019s Environmentalist of the Year in 2008 for my work establishing the emissions trading scheme and the 90 percent renewable electricity target, which remain cornerstones of New Zealand\u2019s efforts to reduce emissions. We got there with votes from the Greens and New Zealand First, who both have a good voting record on these issues. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000903\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EMy passion for having rivers clean enough to swim in comes from my Otago roots. Our rivers and lakes are replenished every minute of every day with clean waters from the headwaters. They shimmer and sparkle. I doff my hat to Nick Smith and the Land and Water Forum for the macroinvertebrate index and periphyton\u2014aka slime\u2014attributes in freshwater management. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000904\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EMy main contribution was to reach community acceptance in the 2017 election that swimmability is the target. Kiwis in rural areas and cities overwhelmingly believe that the most important river or beach is the local one they and their kids swim in during summer. If their local river or beach, and yours, is clean, they all will be. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000905\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EWhere currently polluted, Kiwis will allow time for a gradual improvement, but people will rebel if the national policy statement standards are undermined. You can see I fear this in this time of reactionary politics. Please don\u2019t\u2014we need Ministers for the Environment, not \u201CMinisters for Pollution\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000906\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI had responsibility for the enactment of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act, which introduced ministerial responsibility and ensured the right of citizens to challenge every COVID order in the courts via the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000907\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003ELike everyone else, I rolled up my sleeves. I was a go-between, helping Fisher \u0026amp; Paykel (F \u0026amp; P) Healthcare fulfil its extraordinary contribution to saving literally millions of lives around the world for people who needed respirator treatment to live. F \u0026amp; P\u2019s generosity and influence helped New Zealand in ways few understand and few know, and they were ready to do more. Lewis Gradon really is quite a special man. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000908\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EAll COVID decisions, now, are being critiqued, and I\u2019m sure hindsight will be closer to 20/20 than reality. I hope to be called by the inquiry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000909\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EWe owe the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern an enormous debt of gratitude and respect for her leadership. Had we closed borders earlier, thousands more would not have got home. But with worse comorbidities like obesity and fewer respirators than Italy, our system would have been overrun had we not acted as we did. Outcomes would have mirrored Italy or the UK. Thousands would have died, including many doctors and nurses, and patients with other ailments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EJacinda\u2019s astoundingly clear and kind communication carried the nation, as she did after the Christchurch massacre\u2014this one always gets a tickle in my throat\u2014when she said, \u201CThey are us.\u201D\u2014they are us\u2014and showed respect by wearing a headscarf. That\u2019s leadership I\u2019ll remember.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000911\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003ENow, my wider work on upholding civil liberties included on the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Act, and this created a pathway for Parliament and the executive to respond to declarations from the senior courts while maintaining parliamentary sovereignty.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000912\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EOn Te Tiriti, we of all countries can find a way through. It\u2019s not long ago that the leaders or deputies of every party here had whakapapa.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000913\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EAn insult hurled across the Chamber at a heated moment last year surprised me: \u201CYou\u2019re only 15 percent M\u0101ori.\u201D I hope that was regretted, because that cuts, and it cuts in more ways than one. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000914\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EDame Anne Salmond describes the Treaty as an exchange of gifts\u2014tuku\u2014between the Queen for her subjects and rangatira on behalf of hap\u016B. I agree with Dame Anne that Te Tiriti is not a partnership between races. She criticises both the phrase and that legal construct from the decision of Lord Cooke in the 1987 Lands case. I don\u2019t think those comments from Cooke are a necessary part of the ratio decidendi of that case, and it would be helpful for the senior courts to say so, if they are of that view. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EKelvin Davis says that article 1 plus article 2 equals article 3.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000916\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003ETreaty rights are substantial, but there is no Treaty right to a parallel system of Government. That would breach article 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000917\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EIn 2017, I charted a pathway into the important Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, updating our screening regime for inward investment to include residential land. Kiwis should not be outbid by richer people from overseas, nor be tenants in our own country. This is as true of the most beautiful lakeside property and the most modest urban home which is another Kiwi\u2019s dream. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000918\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EInterest deductibility: the sale price of housing in New Zealand is often set by landlords, who currently can borrow 100 percent secured over their property portfolios, and they outbid owner-occupiers who just want one house to live in. It\u2019s only possible because of lax interest deductibility rules. Leveraged landlords get capital subsidies year after year. Grant Robertson and I fixed this, but, sadly, it was reversed. Maybe we went a little bit far, but we were right in essence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000919\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve tried to move debates from imperfect, narrow statutory definitions to real-world economics. Economic income increases an individual\u2019s resources\u2014in other words, the ability to buy more kit. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000920\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThose in the high-wealth individuals study had an average wealth of $276 million. Most of their income is never taxed. Their total effective tax rate as a proportion of income averaged under 10 percent, including both income tax and GST. The Treasury and IRD papers on income tax, wealth distribution, and trusts were the result of years of exceptional work by officials.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000921\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EMiddle-class Kiwis, by contrast, on wages or salaries pay an effective tax rate of around 30 percent, including income tax and GST\u2014at least double the rate paid by the very wealthy. This is plainly unfair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000922\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003ELabour income is taxed; most capital income of the very wealthy is not, and New Zealand now is a tax haven for billionaires. Their assets commonly sit in intergenerational trusts. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000923\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThe top 1 percent own 26 percent of everything. For investments outside the family home, it\u2019s much more. The 1 percent own over 60 percent of all direct New Zealand investment in New Zealand private and public companies\u2014astounding. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000924\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EPiketty was right: the wealthy earn much more than they spend, and they hoover up much more each year. R is greater than G\u2014their rate of return is higher than growth in the economy. We\u2019re fast becoming what my ancestors came here to escape. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThe revenue-neutral tax switch I proposed is sometimes described as a wealth tax, but it\u2019s better seen as a tax on income from capital. Think of it as an average rate of return of 4.5 percent taxed at a third. In fact, it\u2019s less because the family home and contents, plus an additional $5 million of investments each\u2014$10 million for a couple\u2014were excluded. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000926\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s always been difficult to convince the other side on tax. At times, I\u2019ve found it surprisingly hard on my own side, too.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000927\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003ENow, there\u2019s a debate about the relative merits of a capital income tax or realisation-based capital gains tax (CGT), which I\u2019ve also advocated for, and either solution is good\u2014and, yes, if I had my way, we would have both, with appropriate credit for one against other. Capital income would not be double-taxed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000928\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThat would allow everyone to get the first $20,000 income tax-free\u2014$10k immediately and the next $10k phased in as CGT revenue grew\u2014and I\u2019d fix interest deductibility, again. And I\u2019d let everyone inherit $1 million tax-free, be it from trusts or deceased estates, and then I\u2019d treat the rest as income and tax it as such. None of these rates would be high. Broad-base, low-rate would at last be true. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000929\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003ECapital flight is exaggerated. The land, the buildings, the cows, the fish, and the trees stay\u2014even pigs can\u2019t fly. The means of production remains. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000930\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThe very wealthy rich would still be richer than everyone else, but they, or, more likely, their trusts, would own a little bit less. That is, of course, why we have public companies, and they have shares\u2014shares. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000931\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI like success and reward. Mine are not the politics of envy. A good day\u2019s pay for a hard day\u2019s work. Profits for capital taking risk.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000932\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EBut a strong middle class working, producing, consuming, saving, and investing is key to prosperity and cohesion. We\u2019ve been there before, and our country was prosperous. Things would readjust. Homeownership would rise, speculation diminish, and productivity increase.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000933\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EWe would of course need more dentists because more people could afford to get their teeth fixed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000934\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI earlier proposed the variable savings rate alongside Australian work-based savings, as another tool to control inflation. It made The Economist magazine, but did not win the election. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003ESome people call me a wonk. It could be worse. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000936\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI do recommend Bernard Connolly\u2019s book You Always Hurt the One You Love: Central Banks and the Murder of Capitalism. Very low interest rates\u2014sometimes negative\u2014plus enormous liquidity from quantitative easing ruined the creative destruction cycle, inflated capital values, and made already high-wealth inequality massively worse, leading voters to back the policies now flailing the USA. Or has the \u201Cl\u201D already dropped out of flailing? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000937\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EParadoxically, Lord Turner\u2019s Between Debt and the Devil convinced me that if the Alpine or Hikurangi faults rupture, the Reserve Bank should QE (quantitatively ease) into a long-term, low-rate \u201Cprincipal and interest\u201D Government bond held to term, spreading the cost over time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000938\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EElectricity: in competitive, growing markets, prices are set by the long-run marginal cost of new supply. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000939\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI still favour consideration of Onslow, though probably not the biggest version. It\u2019s a simple concept: the Manorburn depression is a giant basin sitting next to a giant tap\u2014the Clutha River. It just needs a plug hole.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000940\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EPerhaps give the job to the Rt Hon Winston Peters. Remarkably, since he arrived here in 1979, he\u2019s done many of the biggest jobs at least twice, so there\u2019s precedent here. He really was a qualified tunneller, first class, on the Snowy River power scheme. So give it some thought, Winston\u2014you could tunnel your way out. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000941\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI recently set out Labour\u2019s foreign affairs policy as the world transitions from one superpower to a multipolar world. A clear-eyed vision for courteous relations with the US and China, close dialogue with the Pacific Rim countries, and with Pacific Island and European friends, and raise official development assistance as we raise defence spending. Help Pacific Islands develop a fishing fleet\u2014leased to them, not gifted\u2014not least to minimise the risk of militarisation in the Pacific via a paramilitary fishing fleet. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000942\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EPaul Krugman famously said, \u201CProductivity isn\u2019t everything, but in the long run it\u2019s almost everything.\u201D Higher total factor productivity in Australia is due primarily to more capital being applied to labour. Their universal work-based savings are why. It\u2019s why those clever Aussies own their banks plus ours, our insurance companies, and much more. It\u2019s why their infrastructure is better, their current account deficit lower, their net international liabilities lower, and their growth rate higher. That\u2019s why their wages and salaries are now much, much higher, and why droves of Kiwis shift across the Ditch each year. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000943\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EWe live in a trans-Tasman market and need to follow suit, with taxing savings less as well by moving to EET (exempt/exempt/taxed), not TTE (taxed/taxed/exempt). Andrew Coleman is an economist with wide respect. He\u2019s written up how this transition could occur. No one is worse off, and the super backstop remains. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000944\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EMy latest project has been pushing for accountability for the internet giants for the harms their dangerous products cause. Young people, investment scams, misinformation, defamation, theft of content, live streaming murders in Christchurch, death threats, and foreign interference. Most of this is anonymous; some is aimed at undermining our democratic way of life and freedoms.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000945\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003ETrust, facts, and science all sit at the heart of democracy and free enterprise. Fascism and dictatorship thrive on lies and propaganda. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000946\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThe statutory exclusion of liability for third-party content is the underlying cause. It\u2019s unusual, wrong, and should be removed. Allow safe harbours. Set a maximum claim, but do allow people to use the Disputes Tribunal and class actions in the courts\u2014importantly, this does not make the Government a censor. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000947\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThe megalomaniacal, tax-avoiding, tech-baron owners are greedy and selfish. They won\u2019t change their practices until liable for the harms they cause. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000948\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EE-commerce, entertainment, and masses of information and point-to-point communication would still flourish. I feel the moment is coming\u2014don\u2019t let it pass.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000949\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003ETo do your job for long in this House, you\u2019ve got to have fun. Question time is best when you\u2019re in a corner. Maurice Williamson, the tosser\u2014of the document. Gerry Brownlee and Brokeback Mountain, the Saudi sheep farm in the desert, Baxter poetry with Nicola Willis, and, most recently, Claire Trevett and the cows.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000950\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EBut it\u2019s not all fun. The Exclusive Brethren\u2014who don\u2019t vote\u2014hired private investigators to dig the dirt on me, David Benson-Pope, and Peter Davis. Unfortunately for them, the PI forgot he was private and gave an interview spilling the beans\u2014weird. And a clip of me saying \u201CJacqui Dean says I hate farmers\u201D cut to \u201CI hate farmers\u201D and circulated on social media. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000951\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EBut the worst stuff happens to our leaders. None of them deserves it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000952\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s our staff who help us get through, and I\u2019ve had wonderful workmates, too many to name. I\u2019ll name those who\u2019ve been with me for over a decade: John Blincoe, rust never sleeps; Corin Higgs, I think the best political adviser in the Beehive, under us\u2014probably under you guys, too\u2014snap for Barry Ebert outside; Deb Thornton, twice, because Deb did nigh on two decades; and Janet Gootjes, of late.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000953\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EIt can be hard for our families, especially when bad news is front page, and my kids have been there. To my beloved Ruby, Molly\u2014both here\u2014and Oscar, who is overseas, today will bring mixed emotions for you, too. You were two, five, and eight at the start and it was different not being together when you awoke, not walking to school, and being away for the bedtime story and casual evening chats, and I\u2019m sorry for missing so many events. You\u2019re each so very special in very many ways, and you know I love you dearly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000954\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003ECan I thank my former wife\u2014a writer\u2014for doing far, far more than her fair share of raising our kids. So very well done.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000955\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThanks to my now deceased parents, and my sisters and our extended families, including Barbara\u2019s. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000956\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003ENow, Barbara is private, but she can\u2019t avoid fame. John and Liesha\u2019s mother, Sadie\u2019s BB\u2014she\u2019s got numerous songs written about her; music videos and paintings. She\u2019s a source of inspiration and strength to many. She\u2019s gorgeous, principled, creative, hard-working, fun-loving, and gorgeous. We\u2019ve been together for 15 years this year. I can\u2019t believe my luck\u2014every day is a treat. And with my kids and Barbara, I reckon I\u2019m the luckiest man alive. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000957\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EAnd my friends\u2014well, they\u2019re my friends. They\u2019re important. I arrived here with many and I leave with more. I acknowledge that politics has unjustly hurt some, but they\u2019re philosophical on that, and life\u2019s good.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000958\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003ETo all the Labour Party activists, the presidents and members, and to my leaders, Chris Hipkins and Carmel Sepuloni, and Labour MPs: you\u2019re a fantastic and cohesive team\u2014keep it up. We\u2019re New Zealand\u2019s oldest political party. We\u2019ve done lots for our country, and there\u2019s lots more to be done.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThanks to all the people who run Parliament. A special call-out to Grant Cleland in the library. To the judiciary and the fourth estate, the public servants, unions, businesses, farm leaders, NGOs, academic communities, the comms gurus\u2014thank you. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000960\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThe artists of all genres, who enrich us all. The scientists who also open up new frontiers. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000961\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EAnd my fellow MPs\u2014the opposition is not the enemy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000962\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003ETo Shane Jones: I love you, but we don\u2019t need more coal. The top te reo student, number one in our land, and a Harvard scholar, he probably read Hansen\u2019s Storms of My Grandchildren, which foreshadowed the furious storms we\u2019re just starting to see.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000963\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EWe are all hostages to MMP. Why else would so much political capital be frittered away on identity politics while others fan culture wars, and society polarises? To be clear, MMP drives these behaviours in main parties, too. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000964\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EUnder first past the post, New Zealand became amongst the best countries in the world, but MMP was meant to be better. Perhaps Dr Hooton is right and MMP gets worse over time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000965\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s the people\u2019s system, not ours. As things polarise and the hard issues don\u2019t get fixed, we should allow the people to again make their choice. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000966\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI\u2019d vote for STV. All 120 of us would have to serve in a seat. That drives behavioural change. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000967\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI\u2019d add in a small Upper House\u201430 people appointed, as in Canada, or voted in STV\u2014and limited to two terms each. And if we become a republic\u2014not high on my list\u2014please avoid giving our president executive powers. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000968\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EArena Williams recently surprised me by saying, \u201CYou\u2019re different.\u201D I asked, \u201CHow?\u201D \u201CYou don\u2019t need affirmation, and so you\u2019re happy to disagree.\u201D It can be a weakness too, yet officials thrived on it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000969\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s who I am: a conviction politician, clear in my values. My ideology: no communist, part capitalist, part socialist, class not race, and I\u2019m 100 percent sure Labour is my place. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000970\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve fought many battles. I\u2019ve stood on principle. I\u2019ve won and I\u2019ve lost, but I leave here knowing that on environment, civil liberties, and\u2014most precious of all\u2014a prosperous egalitarian society, I\u2019ve tried to move the dial.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000971\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI shall be telling this with a sigh\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000972\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003ESomewhere ages and ages hence:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000973\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003ETwo roads diverged in a wood, and I\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000974\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI took the one less travelled by,\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EAnd that has made all the difference. (Robert Frost)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000976\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003ET\u0113n\u0101 koutou, t\u0113n\u0101 koutou, t\u0113n\u0101 koutou katoa. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000977\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E[Applause]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000978\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 6.11 p.m. to 7 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000979\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c1ca0ca2c51a4a8a90f392e82236e731\u0022\u003EEqual Pay Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000980\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00221d7b5eb1736949f5baa9cc1082796557\u0022\u003EThird Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000981\u0022\u003EDebate resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022feb2e3ca-4ad3-4c7c-9958-b10d28c83bc8\u0022 data-id=\u00228100ed5dd50046dcb7b718c52e194c9e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000982\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022feb2e3ca-4ad3-4c7c-9958-b10d28c83bc8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228100ed5dd50046dcb7b718c52e194c9e\u0022\u003EHon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs):\u003C/span\u003E I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the third reading of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. But, firstly, Madam Speaker, if you would indulge me, I would like, on behalf of New Zealand First, as the first speaker after the Hon David Parker\u2019s valedictory speech, to acknowledge his service, his friendship across the House, the strength of his words, his honesty and heartfelt account of an impressive career in politics, which left us somewhat speechless and humbled. I would like to acknowledge his departure from this House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000983\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022feb2e3ca-4ad3-4c7c-9958-b10d28c83bc8\u0022\u003ETo this bill, I would like firstly to revisit the key point that pay equity claims will continue to exist after the passing of this legislation. The framework will be changed and existing claims will be impacted, but, as has been repeated numerous times in this debate, the bill delivers a framework for addressing sex-based undervaluation in remuneration. We are delivering a robust, workable, and sustainable solution that is focused on delivering resolutions. There has been much narrative about the adverse impact on women and how women are being disadvantaged in this process, but this is not the case. We have had a history of hard-fought battles to ensure that women are paid the same for the same work that men do. From my recollection, it was not until the 1970s that the Police delivered an equal pay framework for women. The legacy remained and, when I joined the Police in the 1980s, Police women were still referred to as \u201CWDs\u201D\u2014referencing the Women\u2019s Division. It has been an, at times, hard-fought process to address the system of equal pay, and I think we are in a good place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022feb2e3ca-4ad3-4c7c-9958-b10d28c83bc8\u0022\u003EThis bill is delivering the system that will ensure that pay equity will be resolved, that we will be accountable, and that there will be solutions for real race-based undervaluation in remuneration in female-dominated occupations. This does not alter or impact the process by which a fair day\u2019s pay is provided for a fair day\u2019s work. There are mechanisms and protections to ensure this process is followed. This will drive accountability for the value of work and total remuneration conditions. More importantly, as has been mentioned, it will ensure that private sector employers will not be allowed to perpetuate undervaluing the workforce through an equity system that has a Government-funded backstop. Women are not being undervalued in this legislation. The protections will remain to address sex-based discrimination.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000985\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022feb2e3ca-4ad3-4c7c-9958-b10d28c83bc8\u0022\u003EI have said before that I have spent nearly all my work life in male-dominated occupations and have worked with amazing women who, because of their value and contribution to their employer, have earned incomes well in advance of their male colleagues. There are workforces that are being undervalued and underpaid, and New Zealand First will fight to ensure there are protections to deliver for the hard-working Kiwi battlers, not because of their gender but because we will deliver First World wages as they deserve. But, in this legislation and at this time\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000986\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d0f8442c9579455ebe17650805976183\u0022\u003EHon Carmel Sepuloni\u003C/span\u003E: You\u2019re not going to get First World wages when you can barely lift the minimum wage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000987\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022feb2e3ca-4ad3-4c7c-9958-b10d28c83bc8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228d122a2e88074c598771424e9909d57e\u0022\u003EHon CASEY COSTELLO\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014very vocal\u2014this bill will deliver a robust, workable, and sustainable system to address sex-based undervaluation, and we commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u002255aac246151b4c7981c164ca88eac927\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000988\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002255aac246151b4c7981c164ca88eac927\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The next call is a split call\u2014I call Takutai Tarsh Kemp.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002256295840-7a18-46fb-bbb3-164ac3edf716\u0022 data-id=\u00223ad1f30b1d834398a87a49d53ac56539\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000989\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002256295840-7a18-46fb-bbb3-164ac3edf716\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223ad1f30b1d834398a87a49d53ac56539\u0022\u003ETAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori\u2014T\u0101maki Makaurau):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 t\u0101tou e te Whare. Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori rises in staunch opposition to this so-called Equal Pay Amendment Bill. It is an amendment that tramples on the very name of the bill. In fact, it should be called the \u201CUnequal Pay that Discriminates Against Women Amendment Bill\u201D because that\u2019s exactly what it is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000990\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002256295840-7a18-46fb-bbb3-164ac3edf716\u0022\u003EThis is nothing but a disgusting attack on equal pay that will only discriminate against women and M\u0101ori workers who are taken advantage of. Let me talk to our wh\u0101nau at home and say that this is what this Government thinks about women. We get notice an hour before the bill is being dropped, and this Government used urgency to push this bill through a process that misses out on the voices of our communities and the voices of our wh\u0101nau, and there\u2019s no chance for them to actually have their say.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000991\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002256295840-7a18-46fb-bbb3-164ac3edf716\u0022\u003EI remember on Tuesday when we were in a meeting, and outside the window we could hear the voices of those women chanting, \u201CStand up, fight back.\u201D I remember when, on 4 May, I attended the union demonstration in Manukau, where the same groups of wh\u0101nau were chanting \u201CStand up, fight back\u201D. Why? Because they\u2019re all fighting for the right for equal pay, fair pay.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000992\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002256295840-7a18-46fb-bbb3-164ac3edf716\u0022\u003EThere has been no select committee process, no public submissions, no hearing from the very women that this bill will harm. There has been no scrutiny from M\u0101ori, unions, lawyers, human right experts, or the Human Rights Commission. What else is missing? A regulatory impact statement. There is nothing to show us what this bill will cost. There is no transparency about the risks or benefits, no modelling and no justification. Perhaps most disturbing of all, there\u2019s been no analysis of the bill\u2019s impact on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, no assessment of whether it violates freedom from discrimination, the right to justice, or the right to equality before the law. When a bill has such sweeping consequences for the rights of women, especially indigenous women, that lack of oversight is not just negligent; it is dangerous.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000993\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002256295840-7a18-46fb-bbb3-164ac3edf716\u0022\u003ELet us be absolutely clear: this is not equal pay legislation; this is pay oppression in disguise. The Government has told minorities and women once again to go and stick it, that we are not worthy of due process, that all we deserve is an hour, that all we deserve is actually nothing, and that all we deserve is that they are going to push us backwards on all the work that has been done over many, many years by the women who have stood up to fight back.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000994\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002256295840-7a18-46fb-bbb3-164ac3edf716\u0022\u003ELet us ask why, on the sixth day of May 2025, this Government thinks that it\u2019s acceptable to use its power and oppress\u2014to remove pay equity for women. In 16 days, this Government will announce their Budget. It is clear that they\u2019ve fudged the numbers\u2014that\u2019s right\u2014and they\u2019re coming up short. They\u2019ve given $3 billion to landlords. They\u2019ve cut the jobs of nearly 20,000 public servants, and then we hear the Prime Minister say that this bill will save billions. Well, now we know where the billions are coming from\u2014from the pockets of those that work hard and service this country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000995\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002256295840-7a18-46fb-bbb3-164ac3edf716\u0022\u003EThis bill is a brutal assault of the rights of working women. It tears down the legal pathway that w\u0101hine M\u0101ori, Pacific women, and low-paid workers have used to fight for justice. It guts the definition of women\u2019s work, wipes out every active claim, and gives bosses unchecked power to shut them down with no reason needed. It bans back-pay, delays fair pay for years, and locks women out of raising a claim for decades. Unfair. Unjust. Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori will not stand by this Government to see this happen. Kia ora t\u0101tou.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227a31ee40-34c3-42b0-9459-7a7e9c815d6a\u0022 data-id=\u0022780b736f68574bf1a08edf916561f96b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000996\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a31ee40-34c3-42b0-9459-7a7e9c815d6a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022780b736f68574bf1a08edf916561f96b\u0022\u003EKAHURANGI CARTER (Green):\u003C/span\u003E I rise on behalf of the Green Party to strongly oppose the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. Let\u2019s be absolutely clear: this bill does not modernise or streamline anything. It\u2019s not about improving processes or making things fairer. This bill is a direct attack on the hard-fought rights of women\u2014especially w\u0101hine M\u0101ori and Pacific women, who have, for too long, been underpaid and undervalued in this country. It makes it harder to lodge a pay equity claim. It makes the evidence threshold higher, earlier. It limits what jobs can be used for comparison. It halts claims already under way\u201433 claims of hundreds and thousands of women.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000997\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a31ee40-34c3-42b0-9459-7a7e9c815d6a\u0022\u003ESo what does this mean? Let\u2019s look at a massively female-dominated industry: of secondary teachers. They make up 66 percent of women\u2014but, under the new legislation, there must be 70 percent of women in an industry to make a claim. This is the reality of this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000998\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a31ee40-34c3-42b0-9459-7a7e9c815d6a\u0022\u003EIn September 1893, New Zealand became the first self-governing country in the world which had women have the right to vote in Parliament elections. Almost 32,000 votes\u2014signatures\u2014from women and people all across the country. You can walk over to the National Library and see that scroll of signatures that those suffragettes gathered, showing what a trail-blazing country we were.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd000999\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a31ee40-34c3-42b0-9459-7a7e9c815d6a\u0022\u003EIn 2020, when the Equal Pay Amendment Act passed, under the leadership of our Green colleague the Hon Julie Anne Genter, there was hope in this House\u2014hope that we were finally taking meaningful steps towards pay equity; hope that we were honouring the legacy of the 1972 Equal Pay Act and the activism of trail blazers, like Kristine Bartlett.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001000\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a31ee40-34c3-42b0-9459-7a7e9c815d6a\u0022\u003EBut this Government prioritises greed over women\u2019s rights. This Government is showing that they are more focused on reducing costs than upholding the principle of equality. This Government have said that there is a problem because there has been so many pay equity settlements. They think it\u2019s a problem that women are getting paid more. They think it\u2019s a problem that women are getting paid fairly. The Government are saying, \u201CWe want women to be paid equally\u201D, while also saying that too many women have won the right to be paid fairly\u2014make it make sense.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a31ee40-34c3-42b0-9459-7a7e9c815d6a\u0022\u003EThis bill turns back the clock on the progress that has been made. Let\u2019s talk about that disproportionate impact on women. The pay gap between P\u0101keh\u0101 men and P\u0101keh\u0101 women is 8.1 percent; for Asian women, it is 18.2 percent; for M\u0101ori women, it is 19 percent; and for Pacific women, it is 20.9 percent. Essentially, M\u0101ori and Pacific women, in 2024, worked from 21 October to 31 December for free.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001002\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a31ee40-34c3-42b0-9459-7a7e9c815d6a\u0022\u003ENow, let\u2019s talk about what kind of workers we are talking about. In COVID, we had essential workers who we valued so much because they were the ones out there keeping our country running. We were talking about cleaners, we\u2019re talking about teachers, and we\u2019re talking about at-home carers caring for our disabled and elderly people, and our aged-care workers who were helping those elderly people who were not able to see their families. These are the workers that we were talking about. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a31ee40-34c3-42b0-9459-7a7e9c815d6a\u0022\u003ENow, through that COVID period, we revered these people, and, today, we are turning back the clock on that and saying, \u201CWe don\u2019t value you\u201D. These women have not had their say because you have decided to ram this through without a select committee process, without time to actually have the experts have their say. This is a way of silencing women.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a31ee40-34c3-42b0-9459-7a7e9c815d6a\u0022\u003EThis bill is not just regressive; it\u2019s cowardly, it dismantles a process built through years of negotiation and cross-party consensus\u2014including National\u2019s own support\u2014and it does so quietly, rushed, and without honour. We vehemently oppose the process which this has been passed\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u0022649e7d0a6c3c4c6685a56df0d469ab27\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022649e7d0a6c3c4c6685a56df0d469ab27\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The member\u2019s time has expired.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229634e377-7e76-4353-9662-fb444eb2ec9d\u0022 data-id=\u0022af29e34753ee468f94a05740133425c9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229634e377-7e76-4353-9662-fb444eb2ec9d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022af29e34753ee468f94a05740133425c9\u0022\u003ECARL BATES (National\u2014Whanganui):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Speaker. Enough has been said in this debate during the course of today. I stand here with National\u2019s proud record since 1972 through to 2017. In the words of our female leadership, all we\u2019re doing is correcting what the last Government rushed through, under urgency, without select committee processes\u2014as much has been spoken about in this House today\u2014we\u2019re fixing that to ensure a robust, a sustainable, and a practical system is in place. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022 data-id=\u0022d5a519ae44af4a25a25915de88d4e63b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d5a519ae44af4a25a25915de88d4e63b\u0022\u003EHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I think it says a lot when the members on the other side can\u2019t even give a full speech, in the third reading of what it is a significant piece of legislation, when they didn\u2019t even allow it to go through a select committee process. As I was talking\u2014they\u2019ve just stopped now, but they\u2019re laughing as if it\u2019s funny. I need to say to that member Carl Bates and to the members of the Government that are in the House tonight that this is far from funny for so many New Zealanders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EThis morning, I went to an Auckland event; they were celebrating 15 years since the Supercity was set up, but almost every woman who I saw who spoke to me when I walked in the room talked about the legislation that Government has put in place, and the halting of pay equity. A prominent woman, who\u2019s not actually a Labour Party voter\u2014they know very well; I won\u2019t mention her name\u2014said she could not understand what they were thinking. Now, what does that say? That says that women in all parts of society, on each side of the divide know that this is wrong. But that side of the House don\u2019t know that this is wrong, apparently. They continue to stand up in the House and gaslight us and gaslight the rest of New Zealand, and tell us that we\u2019re wrong; the unions, the workers who are upset about this are wrong; the women\u2019s organisations who are very vocal in their opposition to this, they are wrong; the academics who are speaking out against this Government move, they are wrong. Again, what we have is a National - New Zealand First - ACT coalition telling the rest of the country that they know what\u2019s right, we\u2019re all wrong, and then gaslighting all of us with regards to this issue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EI\u2019m still confused about how this came about, in some ways. It just happened so quickly and then here we are now passing this ugly piece of legislation, and we\u2019ve had different versions of the truths from that side of the House. However, I suspect that the ACT Party leader\u2019s version of the truth\u2014the soon to be Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand\u2014is probably this time, this one time, the truth. He was very clear about the fact that they\u2019ve saved millions of dollars for the Government as a result of this. What a way to make cost savings: taking money away from New Zealand women workers now and into the future, taking money away from their children, from their families, from their communities. And what for? To pay for tax cuts that they were told were unaffordable in the first place, to give $2.9 billion worth of tax breaks to landlords, to give a tax break to the tobacco industry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EYou know what\u2019s most shameful about this is that Government were not upfront with New Zealanders going into the last election. No one voted for this. I don\u2019t recall any of their politicians standing up on a platform saying, \u201CIf you vote us in, we will repeal the pay equity legislation and we can assure you women will be paid less.\u201D Who voted for that? Any woman in this country or any man with a woman in their life that cares about that woman will be regretting their decision if their decision at that election was to vote for that Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EI have to say it\u2019s very clear: it comes down to choices and we can see that women are not a priority for that Government, and now the rest of New Zealand can see it as well. I think they have underestimated the sense of feeling of this issue. What is really difficult to watch is the members on that side of the House quote themselves from how many months or years ago, trying to prove to us and the general public that they support pay equity. Simply not the case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EI think that this is not over, even though the Government would like to think that it is. They think that by passing this legislation, it\u2019ll be done and dusted, they could do it quickly, sweep it under the rug and move on. Well, I can guarantee you that will not be the case at all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EWhat I feel very sad about, actually, is that this Sunday is a significant day. What is this Sunday?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022683900cc134d4012bfd43aaf1bae9178\u0022\u003EHon Members\u003C/span\u003E: Mother\u2019s Day.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002202e3ba5ae15b4249b0ad589ba206d355\u0022\u003EHon CARMEL SEPULONI\u003C/span\u003E: Mother\u2019s Day, and what that Government decided to gift all the mothers of this country was a pay cut. Effectively, that\u2019s what it is. What they have said is to all the teacher mums, all the social worker mums, all the mums out there that are carer and support workers\u2014what they have said to them is that you cannot expect to get pay equity under us or in fact for the next 10 years, and you will continue to fall behind your male counterparts and you cannot expect to be paid fairly. That is the Mother\u2019s Day gift that that side of the House has given every mother in this country. Now, let\u2019s not forget that it\u2019s not just about the women and these mothers; it\u2019s about the children that they are looking after. It\u2019s about the families that they care for. It\u2019s about the communities that they live in. Today, the gift that they have been given for Mother\u2019s Day is a pay cut.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EWe, of course, are opposing this bill, and we can\u2019t help but see so much of a contradiction from that side, with regard to the speeches that they give, with respect to the support they showed, unanimously for the bill when it first went through. We\u2019re sad for Aotearoa New Zealand, because we have had a proud history of being leaders for women\u2014albeit mostly led by this side of the House\u2014and today they take us backwards. Today they reverse that progress. Today they stand against everything that we are so well known for internationally, for standing up for, and the rights and the working conditions and the pays of women are just a few of those things.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EI said it in my first speech and I\u2019ll say it again in the third reading speech: all too often, we see members on that side of the House standing up in front of microphones and international forums, talking about the progress New Zealand has made for women, and I\u2019ve seen women on that side of the House talk about the progress that we have made for pay equity. I don\u2019t want to see any of those women or men stand up and speak to these gains ever again. In fact, when those women take the podium at those international events, what they should be doing is saying, \u201CActually, to everyone in this room, we have to acknowledge that as a country, we\u2019ve just taken significant steps backwards for women.\u201D, and that is because of their Government\u2019s decisions, and you will need to stand up and say that you voted for pay equity to be halted, and you will have to stand up and say, because of you and because of your colleagues, women will continue to be paid less and that gender pay gap will continue to be the persistent pay gap that it is, and you will have to stand up and own that that is because of you. I want to hear those speeches.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EIt is a dark day for New Zealand today and it has been a dark two days as the country has been taken by absolute shock as a result of this. I feel for the women who probably, for many, are still already struggling with the cost of living, rising rents, rising energy bills, and now they are going to be looking forward to very little in the way of pay increases and will not be able to expect to get pay equity any time soon.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002219010efecdb2416499f7e268c0460c30\u0022\u003EHon Andrew Bayly\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s not right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229c75ba0b260d48ddb4fb170abce5f4f6\u0022\u003EHon CARMEL SEPULONI\u003C/span\u003E: That member Andrew Bayly is yelling out in opposition to what I\u2019m saying, but I\u2019m pretty sure no one sees him as the bastion of support or workers\u2019 rights or the person who should be speaking on behalf of or for women. So perhaps that member should remain silent during the duration of the speech and up until I finish, because I don\u2019t think he has much value to add.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EWe oppose this bill. We are ashamed for that Government, and the fight continues because the legislation may pass this evening but that doesn\u2019t mean that we\u2019re going to remain silent on this issue or the rights of women in any area.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u0022964b7b8508b3422ab72cdcdb272353d2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022964b7b8508b3422ab72cdcdb272353d2\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Can I just make the point before I call the next member, that comments across the House should not be personal. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ba29663043d144648a24e6b26f7bfdc0\u0022\u003EHon Carmel Sepuloni\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Madam Speaker. If I\u2019m getting heckled by a member on the other side of the House in an interjection, then I think that I have the right to make reference to the heckling.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227bde468a3df544f1860aea34e358375a\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Absolutely.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022094b0ff4-e404-451b-b4a9-ad12bd4dee56\u0022 data-id=\u00224f916b8c76384e02812f6ef90228a4e3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022094b0ff4-e404-451b-b4a9-ad12bd4dee56\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224f916b8c76384e02812f6ef90228a4e3\u0022\u003ESTUART SMITH (National\u2014Kaik\u014Dura):\u003C/span\u003E Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. It\u2019s a great pleasure to speak on this bill and I\u2019m very proud of this bill; I think it\u2019s a great step forward. I\u2019d just like to say there is a difference of opinion on this bill, and that\u2019s fine. But people should also respect other people\u2019s views. I respect the views of the people on the other side of the House that don\u2019t agree with me, and I think that they really should think about themselves if they can\u2019t respect a different view. Maybe they don\u2019t have a very good argument if they want to attack the messenger. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u00228295617c68e64fb7ab8b0a3fb8438494\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228295617c68e64fb7ab8b0a3fb8438494\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: This is a split call\u2014I call Camilla Belich.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022 data-id=\u0022895bfc14f8044872a4bd4c91af8f437f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022895bfc14f8044872a4bd4c91af8f437f\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think what we need to have in this debate is a bit of perspective. There are differences of opinions, as that last member said. But what we need to look at are the actual facts of what the Government is doing here. This Government is changing the current law on equal pay in such a way that it will make it almost impossible for predominately female groups of workers to make pay equity claims and to receive pay equity claims. Now, that is no joke. That is about recognising the rights of women to have their work valued and to live free of discrimination. This is a human rights issue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EI want to talk briefly, if I can\u2014I do have a short call\u2014about the impacts of a settlement. I have a study here on the NGO social worker settlement. The results of when women received the settlement was: 52 percent decrease in employees who skipped a meal; 55 percent decrease in employees who went without groceries; 51 percent decrease in employees struggling to make essential payments or mortgage payments; 91 percent increase in employees who reported that they had other money available and nothing left in their account; 37 percent decrease in employees who required other sources of income\u2014e.g., Working for Families tax credits\u201440 percent of employees reported they could save more for their KiwiSaver. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EThis is about dignity. This is about recognising the work of underpaid women in our society, and this is why this legislation was first brought to the House. The changes that this Government is making today will make these types of outcomes for our lowest-paid women, for the work that is undervalued, less likely\u2014very less likely.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EI want to acknowledge the people who brought this to the House. When I was first a lawyer, I did research on the Kristine Bartlett case. In my maiden speech, I acknowledged John Ryall, I acknowledged Peter Cranney, I acknowledged Kristine Bartlett, and I said, one of the things I was proudest of, of that Government, was the work they\u2019d done to value the work of women. It is a shameful day to be in the House to see that wiped away today, because I have met so many people in my career who have gone through pay equity processes, and, for the first time in their lives, they look objectively at the work that they do and they realise that what they actually are doing is highly skilled. It is important. It is not low-level work; it requires a lot of intelligence, a lot of emotional intelligence, to do the work\u2014a lot of heavy lifting. They realise that they are, and their work\u2014and some of them have been working in these jobs for 30, 40 years. They realise their value, and this is what is being taken away today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EI know the Government says that there is still an Act in place, but let me tell you a few things. This Act will bring in a higher threshold for making a claim. They will quash review clauses. Care and support workers, of which Christine Barlett was one, have a claim in the authority. That claim will be extinguished when this bill is passed, and all of her colleagues will have to wait until 2027 before they can even raise a claim. Now, when she first brought her claim in 2013, it wasn\u2019t resolved until 2017. So how much longer will these people have to work on the minimum wage without access to pay equity? They have removed back-pay. This is really important. Currently, if you have an equal pay claim, if it\u2019s not settled, you\u2019re not disadvantaged during the negotiations because you know you\u2019ll get back-pay. What incentive is there to negotiate in good faith, when every single day you are losing an extra dollar? It is absolutely ridiculous, and it absolutely proves that this Government is changing equal pay and they\u2019re making it a lot worse and they\u2019re making it more disadvantageous to women.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EEven if that wasn\u2019t the case\u2014even if the things to do with retrospectivity, extinguishing claims, and removal of back-pay weren\u2019t bad enough\u2014the hierarchy of comparators that this Government is putting into the legislation will make it impossible for people to prove that they have a pay equity claim. And it also doesn\u2019t make sense. Why are people who work in close proximity to you more likely to be able to help you prove that you\u2019ve been systemically undervalued? It\u2019s more likely if it\u2019s in another industry. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EThis is a fundamental problem with this Act and it will disadvantage women. It is a huge step backwards. This bill is taking money out of the pockets of working women in New Zealand. We won\u2019t see pay equity settlements. We won\u2019t see rises in pay. All we will see is what we have seen throughout the history of New Zealand, which is consistent undervaluation, consistent not valuing of women\u2019s work, and consistent pay discrimination against working women. It is absolutely shameful. The National Party should be ashamed of letting this bill go through the House. It is absolutely terrible, and I think you\u2019ll live to regret it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002239b9bac1-a992-4ccf-a473-9591aeb3a298\u0022 data-id=\u0022c1907ff7ad9b4e8f928eedd0b5759f4c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002239b9bac1-a992-4ccf-a473-9591aeb3a298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c1907ff7ad9b4e8f928eedd0b5759f4c\u0022\u003ERIMA NAKHLE (National\u2014Takanini):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to contribute to the third reading of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. I\u2019d like to just say to anyone listening in our public, our neighbours, at home, around the world, actually, that I\u2019m talking to you, dear listeners. I don\u2019t care to refute what has been said and the scaremongering taking place on the other side of the House. I\u2019m talking to you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002239b9bac1-a992-4ccf-a473-9591aeb3a298\u0022\u003EThe National Party always has\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ff7281aeb16f4120bf2a822b4f8c2301\u0022\u003EHon Dr Megan Woods\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. The speaker has repeatedly brought the Speaker into the debate. She may wish to speak to \u201Cdear listeners\u201D but maybe she could leave the Speaker out of it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224ebc8b1466734e518ad3888358c84dbe\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Point understood. I was signalling to the member to not bring the Speaker into the debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002239b9bac1-a992-4ccf-a473-9591aeb3a298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022abc1fa9d41d74d99b772e0f34d408da3\u0022\u003ERIMA NAKHLE\u003C/span\u003E: My apologies. I\u2019d like to speak to those that are beyond these walls, and I\u2019d like to say that the National Party has, always will, and does support equal pay based on genders; pay equity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002239b9bac1-a992-4ccf-a473-9591aeb3a298\u0022\u003EBut what I would like to say is when something has ballooned out of control, out of what it was initially intended to address\u2014that is a lack of pay equity based on gender\u2014then we are stepping in and saying, \u201CLet\u2019s take it back to basics.\u201D That\u2019s what we\u2019re doing with this bill here. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002239b9bac1-a992-4ccf-a473-9591aeb3a298\u0022\u003EI heard constantly about how people across the House are very angry. They\u2019re filled with anger. I wonder where this anger was when they voted against the Gangs Act. I wonder where this anger was when they voted for sexual abuse and against victims when they voted against the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Act. I wonder where this anger was when they voted against adjusting tax brackets\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225fe4c5a44e4640e1b9b53ee46b79fb15\u0022\u003EHon Dr Deborah Russell\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. I have taken deep personal offence that that member has said that people on this side of the House voted for sexual abuse. That\u2019s outrageous.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a31ee40-34c3-42b0-9459-7a7e9c815d6a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b03c2397410b49d7b69a4b21ac76eb36\u0022\u003EKahurangi Carter\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order, I find it deeply, deeply offensive and I am personally offended at her saying that we support sexual offenders. That is deeply offensive and completely untrue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b3d2c9fa8f2d41a38d65fbd79949c6fa\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I will ask the member to stand, withdraw, and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002239b9bac1-a992-4ccf-a473-9591aeb3a298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227f031052285f4f0eb770b12e246fb499\u0022\u003ERIMA NAKHLE\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw and apologise. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022 data-id=\u0022c94695df61ee41bca1caa63a77a9845c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c94695df61ee41bca1caa63a77a9845c\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram):\u003C/span\u003E Earlier this evening, just before the dinner break, the Minister of Finance stood in this House and cried crocodile tears. We know the National Party know they\u2019re in trouble when they send down the Minister of Finance to speak on a bill which is not her piece of legislation at third reading. She waxed lyrical about the greatness of Kristine Bartlett and how proud she was to have voted for that. The only problem for Nicola Willis and every other member of the Government is what Kristine Bartlett herself has been saying. It is that woman\u2019s words that count. She says, \u201CIt\u2019s hurting. It\u2019s really hurting. I feel as though women have just been let down so terribly today. It\u2019s just so sad. I don\u2019t know what is going to happen in society.\u201D They are the words of Kristine Bartlett, the New Zealander of the Year who crusaded and fought hard and crusaded with so many other women and men to ensure that women were paid decently and women were paid fairly by valuing their work and rectifying historical wrongs that had seen the undervaluation of women\u2019s work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EThe National Party voted for that, but, over the last 24 hours, we\u2019ve seen a National Party that has ripped that up, and, with that, they have ripped up the hopes and aspiration of women across this country, and men who also work in those industries that have traditionally been women\u2019s work\u2014work that is undervalued. We\u2019re talking about teachers, we\u2019re talking about Plunket nurses, we\u2019re talking about nurses, midwives, care and support workers, hospice nurses, healthcare assistants, librarians, and admin assistants. These are just some of the people in the 33 claims that are getting thrown on a scrap heap by this Government. These are the real people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EWhat we\u2019ve seen is that the Public Service Association have calculated that for one group of these workers\u2014the care and support workers\u2014by tossing out their pay equity claim, they are going to be $148 a week worse off than they are. When you are on a limited income per week, $148 is a huge amount of money. And this Government under urgency has passed this law that takes away the opportunity for those workers to earn that money. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EI have been sent something by someone in my electorate who voted National at the last election. She sent me the pat reply that she\u2019s received from a National MP that she contacted when she expressed her disgust. What are the lines they\u2019re sending out? The National Party\u2014and it\u2019s Vanessa Weenink, in this case\u2014are saying that they\u2019re amending the Equal Pay Act to make the process more robust, workable, and sustainable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003ELet us be very clear: sustainable means billions and billions of dollars saved so they can make their Budget add up, because at the core of this is what David Seymour said yesterday, what Christopher Luxon said on the tiles on the way in, and what Nicola Willis had to admit in question time today. This is about freeing up billions of dollars for a Budget that is on the tails of a Budget last year that gave billions to landlords and tobacco companies, and somehow it has to be paid for. It is some of the lowest-paid workers in our country, and particularly women, that are paying for this year\u2019s Budget. Let us be incredibly clear about that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EThe pat reply that\u2019s being sent out also says that claims have been able to progress without strong evidence of sex-based undervaluation. Well, we have asked\u2014we have asked and asked and asked through the committee stage; we have asked in question time\u2014what are the examples of this? What are the examples of these claims that have been able to progress? Which of the 33 is so egregious that you\u2019re having to let down 150,000 workers in this country? Not one answer. This Government has not gone through the scrutiny of a select committee process. They have refused to answer the questions in the committee of the whole House stage. We and the country are still none the wiser of what the claims that have been able to progress are. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EWhat is the problem we are trying to rectify? If we start from the basics of policy formulation, problem definition, we\u2019re still in the dark. We still don\u2019t know what the problem is. Only we do, because David Seymour let it slip out. The problem is making the Budget stack up and paying for the things that it squandered the money on tax cuts in last year\u2019s Budget for, because that, in reality, is the critical problem definition.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EThen the condescending email that is being sent out to people goes on to say, \u201CIt is difficult to compare pay rates from across different industries.\u201D That is correct. Is it a surprise to anyone that rectifying sometimes centuries of undervaluation of women\u2019s work is not an easy task, requires complexity, and is difficult? It\u2019s the very reason why we set aside the money when we were in Government. What is more\u2014as my colleague Camilla Belich rectified\u2014we also said, \u201CYou know what? We will back-pay this while we work this through, because it is complex, it is going to take time, and nobody should pretend that rectifying centuries of the undervaluation of women\u2019s work is going to be done in the flick of the switch. It is going to be hard.\u201D But this Act that we are debating today\u2014or this bill, which is soon to become an Act\u2014takes away that back-pay. It takes that away and it puts it back into the Budget. It puts it back, essentially, into tax cuts for landlords, and tax breaks for tobacco companies, because this Government cannot make its Budget add up. These are the kinds of lines that this Government is peddling.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EBut let\u2019s take this back to the humans that are at the source of this. In a second reading speech yesterday, I talked about sitting down with some rest home workers in my electorate many years ago and them telling me about the fact that they could finally afford the bus fare to get to work\u2014but, more importantly, the bus fare to get home from work. They weren\u2019t having to walk 40 and 45 minutes home at the end of an incredibly hard shift, and I think any of us in this House that have spent, either as elected representatives or as family members, time in rest homes have nothing but awe for the workers who work in rest homes. None of us can imagine having to walk home 45 minutes after the kind of graft that those people do\u2014the kind of hard work that they do. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EThese are the very workers that this Government is letting down. They are saying to the midwives, to the hospice workers, to the care and support workers, to the teachers, to the nurses, and to the admin workers, \u201CYou don\u2019t matter. Balancing our Budget is more important. We squandered the money at the last Budget and, I\u2019m sorry, you\u2019re going to have to be the sacrificial lamb.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EWhat we have from the National Party is a whole lot of excuses and a whole lot of women MPs who, frankly, will not front on this. The challenge for every National woman MP is to get out and explain to women why they think it is OK to use their position of power to legislate away their rights and their dignity, because that is what this Government is doing. They are taking away the rights of women to be valued the same as their male counterparts by getting rid of pay equity. This is not easy work. No one ever pretended that it would be. But this is nothing short of taking money out of the pockets of women.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EOne of the things that we do know is that there are 150,000 workers across the 33 claims that are going to be impacted by this, and what the National Party need to realise is that for every one of those 150,000 workers, they have family. They have children. They have partners, husbands, wives, parents, sisters, and brothers. The ripple of this change will be enormous. When I think about what $140-odd will do for families that I represent in Wigram each week\u2014the difference that that would make that this Government has ripped away from them. Let\u2019s even just put to one side the fact they\u2019ve let them down over the promises they made about support for early childhood education and the fact that hardly anyone\u2019s receiving that. This is nothing short of a betrayal of women.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u00224c4a50a4d72240dc880fa4a4f7d1a2d6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224c4a50a4d72240dc880fa4a4f7d1a2d6\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The member\u2019s time has expired.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228ba11b3f-65ea-4f86-92e4-fe78ea522647\u0022 data-id=\u0022eeefb2387ebf4aa28284c337c9dd0152\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ba11b3f-65ea-4f86-92e4-fe78ea522647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022eeefb2387ebf4aa28284c337c9dd0152\u0022\u003EDANA KIRKPATRICK (National\u2014East Coast):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thought that I might just repeat my speech from last night, but I think it\u2019s already been said many times. Just a couple of things from me: the Government supports women, it\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fbe65f63bca5406bbbafed97c51ac108\u0022\u003EHon Dr Megan Woods\u003C/span\u003E: Read it like you mean it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ba11b3f-65ea-4f86-92e4-fe78ea522647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a3f8432a5f8840f7bb3b778c85936f0c\u0022\u003EDANA KIRKPATRICK\u003C/span\u003E: The Opposition enjoyed my speech so much last night, it is almost worth repeating! The Government supports women, it supports gender equity and pay, and it supports equal pay. The National Party began this journey in 2017, to introduce the legislation, and now we are continuing to ensure it is workable and clear. We support the legislation, and we commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001061\u0022\u003EBill read a third time.\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022fb74dabf571f48069a5a947dd489a04a\u0022\u003EWildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022082b41e885d648a79cfcded94d5d4527\u0022\u003EFirst Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022 data-id=\u002270e800fcd9ee4e37a7306e1e8933ae9f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002270e800fcd9ee4e37a7306e1e8933ae9f\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation):\u003C/span\u003E I present a legislative statement on the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022963cf16e56704764b42f53c2868d65f2\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e0a7a779503e41a797ccb820ee26cf45\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA\u003C/span\u003E: I move, That the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThe Government has introduced this bill today because we need to fix an issue with the operation of the Wildlife Act 1953. The Act is an important piece of legislation, but it\u2019s old and creaking. The Act provides for the protection of wildlife through Aotearoa New Zealand, including some of New Zealand\u2019s most at-risk species. It protects our precious wildlife, and it also recognises the need to regulate human interactions with them so that our actions do not negatively affect protected species in the long run. However, an urgent issue has arisen as a consequence of a High Court decision in March that significantly limits the ability of the Department of Conservation (DOC)\u2014Te Papa Atawhai\u2014to authorise and regulate the incidental killing of protected wildlife under the Wildlife Act. The issue is preventing people and organisations from having the confidence to continue with their mahi, their developments, and their infrastructure projects because of concerns that they may be inadvertently breaking the law. It\u2019s also affecting important conservation activities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EIncidental killing can occur during many a lawful activity, such as housing, transportation, energy, infrastructure, and pest control. The harming or killing of wildlife while doing these activities is unintended but foreseeable. It\u2019s also often unaffordable. Without a Wildlife Act permit, it\u2019s illegal to harm protected wildlife. Prior to the court\u2019s decision, DOC regularly provided wildlife permits that authorised incidental killings so long as permitholders met the conditions in their permit. These conditions were designed to maintain the viability of effective wildlife populations and to protect individual animals as much as possible. Through these conditions, infrastructure providers, developers, and others could ensure that their mahi proceeded responsibly while supporting the long-term viability of wildlife populations. This bill addresses the impacts of the recent High Court decision and will enable projects to happen while protecting our precious wildlife. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThe High Court ruling in March this year deemed the authorisation of incidental killing of protected wildlife during construction of the Mt Messenger highway in Taranaki to be unlawful. The decision has two significant implications: (1) it means that DOC are now unable to authorise and manage incidental harm to wildlife that is likely to occur during various activities; and (2) it creates significant uncertainty for those with existing Wildlife Act permits. They are now unsure if they can continue their activities lawfully. Without a lawful permit, harming protected wildlife is an offence. This is problematic for managing risks to threatened wildlife, because it prevents new wildlife permits from being issued, and these permits would normally include requirements to protect wildlife during their mahi. It\u2019s also problematic for infrastructure providers and developers who are supporting our growing economy. They need assurance that they can carry out their activities lawfully. And it negatively impacts crucial conservation work, such as pest control and wildlife research. These activities may sometimes harm individual animals, but they are important as they benefit native species and ecosystems as a whole.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThe bill is needed under urgency to restore certainty and confidence. Those who have been granted an authorisation in the past have relied on those authorisations to undertake their activities in good faith. We need to fix this problem, this raruraru, so that they can quickly continue their activities lawfully and limit any flow-on impacts on wildlife and, ultimately, our economy. There are over a hundred active authorisations that could be affected. These authorisations apply to developments and infrastructure activities such as subdivisions, construction projects, solar and wind farms, and road and rail projects, to name a few. Other types of projects could also be influenced and affected by this situation, such as pest control to control bovine tuberculosis, also known as the TBfree programme. On top of this, many applications for planned future activities that may require wildlife permits are currently stored. We urgently need to enable those applications to be processed so activities can go ahead with appropriate safeguards to protect wildlife. The bill makes specific targeted, focused changes to fix this problem.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThe Government\u2019s intent with the bill is very, very focused: (1) to restore people\u2019s confidence that they can carry out their activities lawfully; and (2) to enable the Department of Conservation\u2014Te Papa Atawhai\u2014to regulate incidental harm to wildlife so that activities do not cause permanent harm to the viability of protected wildlife. The bill does not make fundamental changes to the Wildlife Act. As I\u2019ve said, the Wildlife Act has a very important role. It protects almost all our native birds, native reptiles, mokomoko, frogs, whiti poraka, and bats, pekapeka-tau-poto, also known as Mystacina tuberculata\u2014the short-tailed bat\u2014and a few specified native invertebrates and marine fish. Many of these animals, these kararehe, are at risk. It ensures wildlife cannot be lawfully taken, harmed, or killed without a permit, and these permits in turn protect the wildlife by including requirements designed to minimise adverse effects to individual animals and their species.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThis bill addresses the issues at hand, following the court decision, while maintaining the existing foundations of the Act. It does not change the purpose of the Wildlife Act or water it down. It does not affect all decisions and permits under the Act but focuses solely on permits for incidental harm. Instead, the bill, essentially, restores the understanding to be the status quo prior to the court\u2019s decision. The court\u2019s decision that authorising incidental harm is unlawful under the Wildlife Act was based on the view that every act of killing individual animals must be consistent with the Act\u2019s purpose of protecting wildlife. However, prior to the court\u2019s decision, DOC had interpreted the Act to mean that a permit could meet the Act\u2019s protective purpose by addressing effects at a population level\u2014for example, a wildlife permit might allow an activity to harm some individual animals but require the permitholder to undertake activities such as habitat improvements or pest control that supported the population of that wildlife. The bill clarifies the ability to authorise incidental killing. It now clearly allows DOC\u2014Te Papa Atawhai\u2014to authorise an activity to incidentally kill some animals if the wider affected population is protected. This will remove the block preventing applications for activities being processed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EBut let me be clear: these changes do not change or lower the bar for the protection of wildlife. The bill still requires that making and authorising wildlife permits be consistent with protecting wildlife. Permitholders must still take reasonable steps to avoid, minimise, and mitigate harm to wildlife. The bill also provides some clear guidance on how decisions should be made\u2014for example, it requires DOC\u2014Te Papa Atawhai\u2014to consider what potential impacts the activity might have on the effect of wildlife populations and, of course, the viability of their species and the extent to which the permit will manage these effects. The bill also validates authorisations that have been previously granted for incidental killing. These validations will give those who already hold wildlife permits the confidence and the assurance that they can carry out their activities lawfully. It will not be an offence to incidentally kill wildlife during these activities, this mahi, provided that the permitholders comply with the conditions that are part of their permit. So if you\u2019ve been given a wildlife permit already, ka pai; as long as you\u2019re following its conditions, you do not need to do anything differently.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s more work to be done on the Wildlife Act, as my colleague Minister Jones has irregularly mentioned. This bill deals with an immediate problem, a key focus, but there\u2019s much more work to be done. The legal problem this bill deals with has arisen in part because the Wildlife Act is over 70 years old. It\u2019s older than nearly everybody who sits in this House. We know that there are many issues with this legislation, and with age comes wisdom. We need to modernise the Act and ensure it is robust and fit for purpose. I\u2019m not proposing to make fundamental changes to the Act in an ad hoc way right now\u2014no. This would risk making the Act even less coherent, less effective, and more difficult to work with. It\u2019s not a replacement for a full review of the Wildlife Act. A full review remains a priority\u2014I expect it will start very, very soon\u2014but it will be complex and take a little bit of time. In the meantime, this bill is a first step. It fixes the current issue, a very narrow issue we have, while maintaining appropriate safeguards to protect wildlife and, of course, to enable people to travel throughout the country, for the TBfree programme to continue, and a number of other important infrastructure projects, such as renewable energies, to carry on doing what they\u2019re doing. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u0022983c6640f2184c36918341713e5d5551\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022983c6640f2184c36918341713e5d5551\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022 data-id=\u00227eb4d85535454e978c5d816cc3a38cf2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227eb4d85535454e978c5d816cc3a38cf2\u0022\u003EHon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E It does give me a little bit of comfort to hear the Minister saying that it is still a priority to rejig the Wildlife Act. It is from 1953; it is outdated. It would have been good, given this Government has had a year and a half\u2014they\u2019ve gotten started on it\u2014and given that our Government did a fair bit of legwork in terms of looking at what a review could entail and what it needs to consider. So all they needed to do was to pick that up and run with it. But, sadly, that hasn\u2019t happened. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EWhat we see today with the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill is a knee-jerk reaction to a High Court decision. It has been introduced to Parliament today with no accompanying RIS\u2014there is no regulatory impact statement. It\u2019s being passed through all stages under urgency. The Minister has not laid out why there\u2019s such a huge rush for this bill under urgency. He has been quoted in the media as saying that the economic development needs to continue. No one was actually questioning that. What everyone\u2019s questioning\u2014those who are opposing this bill\u2014is the way in which this is being done. As the Minister said, in a decision that was released just in March this year, the High Court set aside an authority that was granted by Te Papa Atawhai\u2014the Department of Conservation\u2014under section 53 of the Wildlife Act to Waka Kotahi\u2014the New Zealand Transport Agency\u2014for its Mt Messenger Bypass in Taranaki.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EThe issue that many have is with the way that this bill is being shepherded through the House under urgency, but also the fact that it tweaks a couple of sections\u2014well, basically, section 53. As the Minister said, to go back to what was happening prior to the High Court decision is disappointing. As the World Wide Fund for Nature New Zealand has laid out really well and really clearly, \u201CThese changes are the antithesis of good lawmaking. It is abundantly clear that the Conservation Minister has no genuine interest in conservation, or New Zealand\u2019s unique and threatened biodiversity - despite it being the bedrock of our economy, wellbeing, national identity, and way of life.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EShe then goes on to say that all of us understand the legal uncertainty that the High Court decision had presented. But what really needed to change was that new legislation. As I mentioned, there\u2019s already been a review of that. The Minister just needed to implement changes and to, potentially, do a little bit more work to finesse it, but that could have been done in the last one and a half years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EAlso, if targeted amendments are to be progressed, the Government could have included, or chosen to include, nature-positive changes that would require any activities for which section 53 permissions are issued, to have an overall positive impact on New Zealand\u2019s indigenous biodiversity. But it doesn\u2019t really do that. I go back to the Environmental Law Initiative\u2019s submission on this as well\u2014or it would have been a submission if we\u2019d had a select committee process, but, unfortunately, we don\u2019t. Basically, their win in the High Court meant that developers needed to take reasonable steps to avoid killing wildlife, rather than simply being permitted to kill wildlife. Now, this piece of legislation, shepherded through the House by the conservation Minister, actually goes against the purpose of the bill. That is basically what the High Court ruling was. The primary purpose of this bill is to protect wildlife and to regulate human interactions with wildlife, not just to carte blanche allow the various developments this Minister wants to push through to allow them to do whatever they want. That is not the point of the Wildlife Act. Unfortunately, it is a shame that this piece of legislation, rather than making any meaningful change that would protect our biodiversity, just allows what was happening before, that the High Court has pointed out was unlawful, to be lawful by changing the law. It is a sloppy piece of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EBut, again and again, this Government has shown us that they are committed to waging a war on nature. Biodiversity and climate change are the two biggest issues that affect our environment and us as a country. Now, whether it\u2019s through repeals and deferrals of regulation that protects fresh water and native species, their proposed repeal of the ban on offshore oil and gas exploration, setting climate targets so low that they violate our commitments under the Paris Agreement, not to mention this conservation Minister\u2019s priorities, as he himself has laid out. He says, in his Cabinet paper, and I quote: \u201CMy vision for conservation is to encourage more visits by tourists and New Zealanders to our iconic landscapes, to activate more commercial opportunities on public conservation land, and to ultimately enhance biodiversity across our country.\u201D Says it all\u2014I don\u2019t commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022 data-id=\u00227f69dc23584d495c9e30dce1acc1da2a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227f69dc23584d495c9e30dce1acc1da2a\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Kia ora, thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a dark day in the Parliament, I would say. There are two pieces of law going through the House that will have the effect over the course of yesterday, today, and\u2014if we get through to it\u2014tomorrow, in the words of Strictly Obiter on Bluesky, who tweeted expressing the Government\u2019s view that they \u201Cwanna kill Kiwi and pay women less for doing it\u201D. That\u2019s basically what the Government will achieve today. They will take the extraordinary step of, while we have an underfunded Department of Conservation\u2014in the words of the World Wildlife Fund, \u201CNew Zealand has the highest species extinction rate in the world, with more than 4,000 of our native species at risk or threatened with extinction\u201D. And they want to reorient the Department of Conservation\u2019s focus from protecting wildlife to killing wildlife, literally issuing permits and authorities for developers to kill wildlife. Well, in the headline of the Newsroom article, \u201CLaw change protects vulnerable roads and mines from skinks, geckos and frogs\u201D. That\u2019s what this does.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003EExcept, I would say it actually has this kind of Orwellian, dystopian effect\u2014you know, we seem to be living in this new-reality world where you might think you\u2019ve walked into a Franz Kafka novel, you might think you\u2019ve walked into the Margaret Atwood novel The Handmaid\u2019s Tale, because we seem to be being convinced that destroying the American economy makes America great again, and that you need to commit genocide in an act of self-defence, and here in Aotearoa New Zealand you need to kill kiwi to protect Kiwi. Wow. I mean, honestly, it is discombobulating.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f429fecb-a955-4d95-8105-e5144e651204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ca21e44f6f724e09abfa763f8f270653\u0022\u003EDan Bidois\u003C/span\u003E: Very easy if you\u2019re a Green.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227a7ecff1e8ee45678d13de7f14659225\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: \u201CVery easy if you\u2019re a Green.\u201D Interesting. That\u2019s an interesting thing to say. One thing I think is fascinating about this Government, as my colleague just across mentioned, is they do seem hell-bent on destroying nature. Their priority in the time of a biodiversity crisis and a climate crisis is not to take into account the existential necessity of a healthy ecosphere for all of us. Their priority seems to be to take us back to a 19th century extractive mentality, where nature is expendable, and the only way for us to have a meaningful existence is by destroying it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s a saying that when a clown enters the palace, he does not become a king; rather, the palace becomes a circus. We have a Government led by three clowns. This is truly a circus Government, and this piece of legislation is one of the strongest examples of what a circus it is, because it may well be that, extraordinarily, this legislation actually makes it more complex. It actually may have the effect of increasing blue and yellow tape in terms of people doing developments\u2014because who is going to assess all of these instances of incidental killing and when it\u2019s acceptable and when it\u2019s not? Actually, if you read the existing Wildlife Act, you will find that section 68AB says that reasonable steps taken to protect wildlife are a sufficient defence against incidental killing. So this legislation actually could well be creating a heck of a lot more bureaucracy for our underfunded Department of Conservation, that we want to be focused on actually protecting wildlife, and now it\u2019s going to be focused on providing \u201Cpermits to kill\u201D to developers. It seems like an extraordinary twisting of the purpose of this legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003EThis is a strange day, and indeed, it\u2019s going to be an interesting evening, as we ask a lot of questions about this quite clumsily written piece of legislation. Honestly, I\u2019ve read it over and over, over the course of the day, and it is really messily drafted; it is very confusing and tautological. I suspect the Government might well find that it is making a bigger mess than the one it is trying to solve. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cfc7092e-b202-4acf-aa9c-8aebd551cc39\u0022 data-id=\u0022747cc58d7e084486820d09bda80352b9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfc7092e-b202-4acf-aa9c-8aebd551cc39\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022747cc58d7e084486820d09bda80352b9\u0022\u003ECAMERON LUXTON (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Speaker. It\u2019s a pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of the ACT Party on the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill. I think the Minister summed up very well the situation he\u2019s trying to amend and repair. An event happened in March, earlier this year, where a court decided, as is its right, to make it clear the way these laws are interpreted. But it\u2019s not really going in the way this country needs to go, where we can build infrastructure and manage our pest eradication in a way that is in a legal framework. So the Minister of Conservation has done the right thing. He\u2019s brought something along to repair this piece of legislation. It\u2019s a fix. It\u2019s going to allow the active authorisations to continue. Basically, the court said something was illegal. We\u2019re changing the law back to February 2025, not the 19th century, as the previous Green speaker, Steve Abel, said.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfc7092e-b202-4acf-aa9c-8aebd551cc39\u0022\u003EI won\u2019t take too long on this call. I just want to add a little story. In select committee the week when the court decision came down, we were assessing some renewable energy. People were coming and submitting on renewable energy. The member Stuart Smith did some very astute questioning of these submitters, just to ask how they thought this change was going to affect them. I hope Stuart Smith is going to take a call and explain the shock that these submitters had at the situation that was developing in New Zealand. Thankfully, this Government and this Parliament are taking steps to address it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022 data-id=\u00226827d0d70bcc4e0fb5a2fe5673e8d26d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226827d0d70bcc4e0fb5a2fe5673e8d26d\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries):\u003C/span\u003E These changes\u2014the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill\u2014remind the decision makers and other stakeholders in the world of infrastructure that there\u2019s a rare mammal that must not be overlooked, known as a human being. This actually allows human productivity\u2014the quality of our life, the ability of our economy to flourish\u2014not to play second fiddle to a set of narrow considerations where legislation has been weaponised by shadowy groups, including the environmental entity funded by we don\u2019t know who, wandering around the country littering the courts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EThat is why this piece of legislation shows the sovereignty of Parliament in our constitution is paramount. Yes, you may have a random decision come from the judiciary, but this Parliament is empowered to restore clarity, certainty, and order, because there has been an immense level of disorder due to the weaponisation of an outdated piece of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EWe need, obviously, to have guardrails around the protection and the safeguarding of various species, but don\u2019t for a moment think that in the development of our country we have not dislocated species, we have not incidentally killed species. Sure, providing the overarching population has expanded in wellbeing, which is still possible\u2014all this piece of legislation does is restore to those entities who believed that they had legal authorisations the ability to get on with their projects.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003ERoading is essential for the development and the productivity of New Zealand. Economic development, including my beloved industry known as the mining industry: I want to see a growth in mining that is not hobbled or held hostage by foolish, unworkable interpretations under this statute, which is why this statute by and large should be stripped away with. Most of it should be dealt with under the Resource Management Act, but that\u2019s for the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EI do want to say that with development comes certainty; with certainty comes investment and the surplus to look after the features of our environment that are important, including the iconic species known as the kiwi. So no more catastrophisation; no more moral hysteria from the other side of the House. These are modest improvements. All this does is restore a level of lucidity to the law that we have always known should\u2019ve been there in the first place, and that will ensure the agenda of the Government, shared by the community, to go ahead and invest and create jobs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003ELook, in terms of jobs, I used to say I wanted the nephs off the couch. Well, I want the nephs off the meth, and that\u2019s not going to happen until we have clarity and certainty for more ongoing growth, and a surplus will be available in a sensible way now that we are able to validate authorisations, clarify the confusion which emerged as a consequence of the High Court decision driven by a shadowy, unaccountable unknown. I call upon the media to actually investigate who this environmental group is. Who\u2019s funding it? Are they even New Zealanders? They, in my view, represent a major threat. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022 data-id=\u002245d2a496c1a4417e918fdcd3e4e9d2ac\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002245d2a496c1a4417e918fdcd3e4e9d2ac\u0022\u003ET\u0100KUTA FERRIS (Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori\u2014Te Tai Tonga):\u003C/span\u003E Me p\u0113hea nei te whakautu i ng\u0101 k\u014Drero kua horahia ki mua ki te aroaro o te Whare? Ng\u0101 mema o te Whare e noho whakapapa M\u0101ori ana e k\u014Drero ana m\u014D te muku i te w\u0101hi ki te ia, te t\u0101tai whakaheke o ng\u0101 uri a T\u0101ne. \u0100e, he manu \u0113tahi, ka mutu ko t\u0101ua te tangata \u0113tahi. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003EEngari p\u0113nei an\u014D i ng\u0101 karawhiunga o t\u0113nei Whare, k\u0101re he w\u0101hi t\u014D te whakaaro M\u0101ori, ahakoa te m\u0101ngai nui o t\u0113r\u0101 taha me \u014Dna e pahupahu nei m\u014D te iwi M\u0101ori me \u014Dna m\u014Dhiotanga. E kore ana k\u014Drero e whai kiko taketake ki te \u016Bnga mai o te iwi M\u0101ori i roto i \u0113nei t\u016B \u0101huatanga. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003E[How is one to respond to the statements that have been laid before the House? The members of the House that have M\u0101ori genealogy are speaking about deleting the role of the procession, the line of descent of the descendants of T\u0101ne. Yes, some of them are birds, but also some of them are us people. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003EBut this is similar to the vigorous activity of this House: there is no place for M\u0101ori ideas, despite the big mouth and company on that side droning on about the M\u0101ori people and their knowledge. His comments will have no real substance to them regarding the engagement of the M\u0101ori people with this domain.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003ESo, just where to start? Killing the kiwis. I mean, get real. Get real. There was clear decision from a court, and so we just bust a sidestep and go around it; we\u2019ll just make it OK. But we\u2019re talking about killing a kiwi. I mean, it\u2019s got to be one of the most stupid things I\u2019ve heard this House consider to date.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227600399-0a88-4371-a784-b5a7bc7afc37\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d992019b24a04a73933da8749ffdc53b\u0022\u003EMariameno Kapa-Kingi\u003C/span\u003E: There\u2019s more to come.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002218b9d74c586248b886900788440f09d3\u0022\u003ET\u0100KUTA FERRIS\u003C/span\u003E: There\u2019s more to come, no doubt. But\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfc7092e-b202-4acf-aa9c-8aebd551cc39\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229826027757344d869956a343bd4d9d11\u0022\u003ECameron Luxton\u003C/span\u003E: Four kiwi died in the Bay of Plenty this year.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226248ad807298406aa8f1f647e03028e1\u0022\u003ET\u0100KUTA FERRIS\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Kiwis die all over the place. Endangered animals. We\u2019re really getting to the place of biodiversity. The place of biodiversity\u2014let\u2019s talk about that. Let\u2019s not put a mine or a road in front of the value of biodiversity. What comes from biodiversity? Everything you rely on. What comes from biodiversity? Every medical advancement that\u2019s ever happened. What comes from biodiversity? Our national identity. All of these things are folded into this convo, but the Government\u2019s happy to just say, \u201CWhack! Nope, we\u2019ve just got to get around this so we can build mines and roads.\u201D How much care do you think those road builders and those mine diggers will take?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227dbfbd83-6770-4555-8477-85fa01511504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221a262973035a4c12b0aaa7c71fae2c49\u0022\u003EAndy Foster\u003C/span\u003E: Quite a lot.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225301be6fc40c4a82a77422431d22988d\u0022\u003ET\u0100KUTA FERRIS\u003C/span\u003E: None\u2014oh, quite a lot, quite a lot. I think they were taking a lot while they killed those other kiwis. So, I mean, we\u2019ve got Ministers over here who are complete natural-world denialists. You\u2019ve got a Minister of Fisheries who denies that the M\u0101ui dolphin exists. We\u2019ve got a Minister of Te Papa Atawhai\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225b5cd37ce57b476cbc34cf23e78085cb\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Hector.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022144a6a02d43c42dd9c7541d7da566ea5\u0022\u003ET\u0100KUTA FERRIS\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, yeah, \u201CHector\u201D, he calls it. Te Papa Atawhai is OK for kiwis to be incidentally killed along with pekapeka, along with poraka, along with ngata\u2014all of the taonga species protected by Waitangi claims. No, no, it\u2019s all right!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227dbfbd83-6770-4555-8477-85fa01511504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e5d13da4aaeb4dab847013871f8d1f68\u0022\u003EAndy Foster\u003C/span\u003E: Oh no, they\u2019re not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b2e0fb262f374e7e9df14e76c7dffa89\u0022\u003ET\u0100KUTA FERRIS\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, that tells me how much you know. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227dbfbd83-6770-4555-8477-85fa01511504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226a5d1759754b4578a0e52fe9a9faa3b6\u0022\u003EAndy Foster\u003C/span\u003E: A lot more than you do, mate. You haven\u2019t got a clue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222dfd45aa68ab43a29158cc16489f70c5\u0022\u003ET\u0100KUTA FERRIS\u003C/span\u003E: You might want to catch up. You might want to learn what taonga species are. But I guess all the k\u014Dhanga reo all around the country one day will have a new book called Tama the Kiwi Killer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e397dbe2c10c4bd684a00394800f82f4\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Relevance?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022919f3a593ac4469cab1a4af3c6e8e536\u0022\u003ET\u0100KUTA FERRIS\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, it\u2019s relevant all right. Ng\u0101 mokopuna. Ng\u0101 mokopuna. P\u0113hea nei \u014D mokopuna, e te uri o Te Aup\u014Duri, i te korenga o te kiwi, i te korenga o te pekapeka, o te ngata r\u0101nei? \u0112nei ng\u0101 mokopuna i heke mai i ng\u0101 t\u0101tai a T\u0101ne. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003E\u0112nei t\u016B k\u014Drero e kaha nei t\u0113nei tokorua ki te karawhiu ki runga i te mata o te motu, engari ki konei, huri tuar\u0101 atu ai. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003EN\u014D reira kei te pai, haere me t\u014D tuar\u0101. Ko t\u014D iwi M\u0101ori t\u0113r\u0101 e nohonoho nei i roto i ng\u0101 w\u0101 k\u0101inga o t\u0113nei whenua e tohe ana kia mau, kia pupuri te mauri o te whenua. \u0100e. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003EHaria \u0113r\u0101 whakaaro ki te moe, e Shane, k\u014Drua ko Tama. K\u014Drua ko Tama. K\u0101re an\u014D kia pau taku hau, t\u0101ria te w\u0101 kia heke ki te kore, k\u0101tahi ka heke. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003E[The grandchildren. The grandchildren. What about your grandchildren, to the descendant of Te Aup\u014Duri, without the kiwi, without the bat or the snail? These grandchildren that descend from the lines of T\u0101ne. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003EThese types of statements that these two so often throw around over the face of the nation, but here, they turn their back. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003EAnyway that\u2019s OK, carry on with your back. It will be your M\u0101ori people that are living in the settlements of this country that fight to preserve and hold on to the life-force of the land. Yes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003ETake those concepts with you to sleep, Shane, you and Tama. Both yourself and Tama. I have not run out of wind just yet, wait for that time that drops to zero and I will sit down.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003EHeoi an\u014D r\u0101, heoi an\u014D r\u0101, ahakoa ng\u0101 hiahia [However, however, despite the desires], and despite what your hopes for development might be, if you just leave the door open to eradication, that\u2019s what your whakapapa will\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u0022a44f4e1867eb4b42acd9e46cc0e0491d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a44f4e1867eb4b42acd9e46cc0e0491d\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The member\u2019s time has expired. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a00bf4f5-c63a-49a0-b0e1-d3b37311377b\u0022 data-id=\u002240f47a62c26a4c8696a29de749eb09f5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a00bf4f5-c63a-49a0-b0e1-d3b37311377b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002240f47a62c26a4c8696a29de749eb09f5\u0022\u003ECATHERINE WEDD (National\u2014Tukituki):\u003C/span\u003E Look, I rise to support this bill. It\u2019s a practical bill. It\u2019s common sense. It fixes an urgent issue which we have, a technical flaw in the Wildlife Act, and a technical flaw which is preventing already authorised projects like solar farms and wind farms from going ahead. We need this development. We need to be progressive while also protecting the environment. So I absolutely commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022 data-id=\u00225d0bd4ffd3f7473ab578944f495bc010\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225d0bd4ffd3f7473ab578944f495bc010\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you. I\u2019m interested in that last comment about protecting the environment, because that does not seem to be what this bill is doing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EI want to start by responding to the Minister for Resources\u2014which I presume is why he was speaking on this bill\u2014the Hon Shane Jones. He told us what he really wants in his speech, and that is one of the reasons why we will be opposing this bill tonight on what is 6 May, according to the parliamentary calendar, even though in other parts of the town it\u2019s 7 May. But we\u2019re in urgency here because this Government has decided that two bills need to go through all-stages urgency. That is a despicable thing to do when there is no emergency or real reason to do so.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022161ff92c334443c0b2ea72751f5e823b\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: What about COVID?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002254683bf8f78b451da9aa29e18ecb0289\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: It would be\u2014oh, \u201CWhat about COVID?\u201D the Minister says. I think COVID might have been an emergency, and that is quite different. But I\u2019m glad that the Minister has brought up COVID, because I will have questions in the committee of the whole House stage about review of these changes. Because there\u2019s nothing in the commencement of this bill, nor the one that\u2019s just been through, about a requirement for a review of the legislation\u2014which can actually take some proper time and have some proper consideration rather than us getting the bill just before we have to speak to it. In this case, we did get it a whole day ago, so we\u2019ve had a little bit more time with it, and it is shorter than the last one. But this is very bad process, and it is not necessary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EThis bill is about a court case\u2014a decision that was made in March, and it is now May. So there has been a couple of months that have passed since this decision was made, and the world has not ended. Another week\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022344199f88b9543a3a78781775004ac8e\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Parliament is sovereign; Parliament\u2019s in charge. Not the courts\u2014Parliament.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002239627033b2ba480eb00258f749176170\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I would say to the Minister, who\u2019s saying that Parliament is sovereign and it\u2019s not the courts that are in charge, that it would be good if Parliament had a chance to properly examine the legislation, because what is happening here is the executive is in charge. That is all that this Government does, is make the executive in charge, and it makes\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222befd1878846484aab12310d66b7e31e\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Democracy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022885347b107254aa9aa0fb8007b97dbbe\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister says it\u2019s democracy. They are breaking constitutional conventions day after day, and it is putting our democracy in real jeopardy. They should take this matter a whole\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002244967dc4-6cc7-4567-b8ef-cc3a9b354544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228d46bb21d3bc48fbab2d9da02a112713\u0022\u003EGrant McCallum\u003C/span\u003E: Look in the mirror.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221f5f5bff519f4996b8297525b7fb0dda\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014lot more seriously. Oh, I\u2019m told now to look in the mirror. Well, I\u2019m going to give that member from Northland an example of what you can do if there is a real emergency. We\u2019ve worked out that there\u2019s not an emergency here. We\u2019ve worked out that there\u2019s not an emergency because this decision was made two months ago\u2014it is not an emergency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EThis bill could be sent to a select committee for a week\u2014for a week. It could have been sent for two weeks. That is a short amount of time, and we know that it is a small bill that a lot of people are very interested in. When I say, \u201Ca lot of people\u201D, there are a number of people\u2014we can probably name most of them. There will be environmental groups, there are developer groups, there are people who work with the Department of Conservation, who would be able to submit on this bill and give some thoughtful analysis, and the members on that select committee could ask some questions of officials.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EWe do not have that opportunity with all-stages urgency, and so that is why this bill is a disgrace. Again\u2014again\u2014we have a disgraceful bill from this Government, and it does not need to be, if you follow the logic of their arguments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003ENow, going to that logic, there\u2019s a complaint about the High Court case. The High Court case was implementing the precedence from the Supreme Court in the case about the sharks. So, again, this is not an issue in terms of needing to pass this bill today; it could be passed next week. What we\u2019ve heard the Minister Shane Jones say is he\u2019s called the group that took the case a \u201Cshadowy group\u201D, that they\u2019re unknown. We don\u2019t know where their funding has come from. Well, I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that this group did not donate to my campaign. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u0022402a1585fada41a4b9caf2b297e10732\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022402a1585fada41a4b9caf2b297e10732\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The member\u2019s time has expired.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002244967dc4-6cc7-4567-b8ef-cc3a9b354544\u0022 data-id=\u0022c804e52fcb5c4b23afed5492929d4c7e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002244967dc4-6cc7-4567-b8ef-cc3a9b354544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c804e52fcb5c4b23afed5492929d4c7e\u0022\u003EGRANT McCALLUM (National\u2014Northland):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Speaker. It\u2019s interesting, as I sit and listen to the Opposition\u2019s views on this very important and urgent bill, and a couple of names spring to mind. One of them is Eugenie Sage, a former Minister of Conservation from the Green Party. And guess what! She was a Minister of Conservation and oversaw the use of just these instruments to allow people to do things\u2014just to do things. And, then, interestingly enough, I\u2019ll give you another name: the Hon Kiri Allan, another member from the other side of the House, who was a member of the Labour Party and a Labour Party conservation Minister. It\u2019s interesting, isn\u2019t it? So they suddenly forget about all the things they did, and they think, \u201COh, well, here we go; let\u2019s have a crack at these guys.\u201D I certainly think that they need to think about what they\u2019re doing, and I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022 data-id=\u0022988b37451a884cf492144fbf4e0cfaf6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022988b37451a884cf492144fbf4e0cfaf6\u0022\u003ERACHEL BOYACK (Labour\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E I just want to start by pointing out the irony: today, little spotted kiwi are being translocated from K\u0101piti Island tonight to the Brook Waimarama Sanctuary in Nelson Whakat\u016B\u2014and I congratulate the Brook\u2014the very same day we\u2019re passing legislation that makes it easier to kill them. It\u2019s just so ironic, on a day that we\u2019re celebrating such a momentous occasion for such a precious taonga in our motu.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003EI just want to reflect on some comments made by my colleague Rachel Brooking but also the member opposite who\u2019s just sat down, Grant McCallum, to whom I\u2019m just going to give a little bit of education around process here and then talk a little bit to the bill. We had an emergency, members of the House will recall, in 2023, which was Cyclone Gabrielle. It created a massive mess on the East Coast. Following that, we had to put special legislation in place to ensure that agencies could act. We needed them to be able to act quickly, to be able to make decisions quickly. We put it through a shortened select committee. So even though it was an emergency, even though it was urgent, we sent the bill to a select committee, which I sat on, and we reached out to stakeholders and we heard from them in a shortened select committee process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003EThe issue with this bill is that it\u2019s going through all stages tonight, under urgency. As my colleague Rachel Brooking has so correctly pointed out, if it is so urgent, why wasn\u2019t it brought to the House back in March? Why wasn\u2019t it brought back to the House in March? Now, we in the Opposition do agree there are some issues that need to be addressed as a result of\u2014[Interruption] Absolutely, but with a proper process. With a proper process\u2014this is not a proper process. The High Court ruling does need to be examined by the Parliament at select committee, with input from officials, with input from stakeholders. We don\u2019t even have a regulatory impact statement (RIS). We don\u2019t\u2014again, the second bill during urgency\u2014have a RIS in front of us to be able to consider.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002262ff759d-9586-405a-a6e6-208ad65adeb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022672122d16f214af4a350ab0e45930480\u0022\u003ETangi Utikere\u003C/span\u003E: Process, process!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d63ba83ecd54431988a2ce88824efc59\u0022\u003ERACHEL BOYACK\u003C/span\u003E: Process matters. It is important that on matters like this, we\u2019re able to actually properly examine the bill, actually write to the relevant stakeholders, and seek advice and suggestions from officials.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003ENow, I do want to talk a little bit about the bill, specifically around the Act because, as I\u2019ve said\u2014and I know they\u2019ll yell across the House back at me\u2014the Labour Party does believe that there needs to be wholesale reform of this Act. It is 70 years old. In fact, I\u2019m looking here at a press release from one of our former Ministers, my colleague Willow-Jean Prime, in 2023, saying that the Wildlife Act will be replaced with modern, fit for purpose legislation to better protect native species and improve biodiversity. So when we were in Government, Labour had actually begun this work, but we haven\u2019t seen that put under urgency, we haven\u2019t seen that work continued.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002272ee3a02c8ff4acd923d6c9d7a26114b\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Shane Jones wants to get rid of the whole Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229ea212398b2a4a88b217756c46a2a1ad\u0022\u003ERACHEL BOYACK\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, he does want to get rid of the whole Act. OK.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220d68c73689ad4e45b15f3199f8654e0a\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s what Tama said.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002236c136e3544b43b3904e0daab246258a\u0022\u003ERACHEL BOYACK\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, that\u2019d be interesting, to find out about conversations between the two Ministers there, because, actually, New Zealanders do believe in protecting our wildlife\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022154da8e3fd0f46f384cd306917e5c59d\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: We do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f4d4bf0e0a3b4629b8d1d38afc2f3096\u0022\u003ERACHEL BOYACK\u003C/span\u003E: They do, and it\u2019s important that they do. But the situation with this particular bill is it does respond to a High Court ruling, which has found that the Department of Conservation has been using the wrong permits. I accept that that is the ruling and that it has gone on for some time; that is what the court has found. It does need to be addressed\u2014I\u2019m not going to stand here, as animal welfare spokesperson, and say that it doesn\u2019t need to be addressed. But this is not the way to address it. The way to address it is to actually send it to a select committee\u2014[Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db602f64ab4a4030ac5044940e6bfd9a\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: Process?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224fc1720ed00c4d468281ad29f3afc252\u0022\u003ERACHEL BOYACK\u003C/span\u003E: I know! Process, process\u2014I know. We know that when transport projects are being put in place, there actually is a significant amount of surveying that goes on. I\u2019ve even spoken to one of the people who does it, recently, who lives in my electorate, who goes out and does surveying of lizards before roading projects go ahead. I accept\u2014I\u2019ve spoken to him about it\u2014it can actually be a time-consuming process, and it does need to be looked at to ensure it\u2019s fit for purpose. But what this bill is doing is, basically, saying the lowest standards that we require are actually going to be OK going forward. We need to examine this properly and thoroughly at a select committee. I do not commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002294b52412-f97b-4bbd-8009-5dc49520f7f4\u0022 data-id=\u0022ee752441183d4209988501dd9cf5d875\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002294b52412-f97b-4bbd-8009-5dc49520f7f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ee752441183d4209988501dd9cf5d875\u0022\u003ERYAN HAMILTON (National\u2014Hamilton East):\u003C/span\u003E More than 300 applications are currently with the Department of Conservation, around half of which involve incidental harm. Without this fix, they are in limbo. We\u2019re tired of New Zealand being in limbo. We\u2019re here to fix it. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022abfa1f380240454f9e0b265dfaf2b697\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001156\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001157\u0022\u003EBill read a first time.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u0022dfcbe95c17f44e129d28787ef71a8f81\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dfcbe95c17f44e129d28787ef71a8f81\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: This bill is set down for second reading immediately. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ffbf45f6acb34817be38f6e77cdc4be2\u0022\u003ESecond Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022 data-id=\u0022b78ae3e30b4f48579de62e60125b50ba\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b78ae3e30b4f48579de62e60125b50ba\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EFirstly, I\u2019d like to acknowledge and thank the members for their insightful feedback and time under urgency as we progress with this crucial fix to the Wildlife Act. I also note the spirits of the predecessors of those various parties who endorsed the understanding of the Wildlife Act that this bill proposes to return to, whether or not that was from Norman Kirk to Bill Rowling, David Lange, Helen Clark, and of course, Jacinda Ardern and Chris Hipkins, amongst others: Eugenie Sage, Te Ururoa Flavell, Dame Tariana Turia, and Matua T\u0101 Pita Sharples, who all endorsed the approach that we are now proposing to return to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThe Wildlife Act is an important piece of legislation. It\u2019s not perfect, it needs some mahi ASAP, but for the time being it provides the protection needed to ensure the persistence of our precious indigenous species. The Act protects our wildlife, and it also recognises the need to regulate human interactions with them so that our actions do not negatively affect protected species in the long run. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThe High Court decision has impacted on the ability to issue section 53 authorities. As I mentioned earlier, the High Court recently decided that it was unlawful to authorise the killing of protected wildlife under section 53 of that Act unless there\u2019s a direct link between that killing and wildlife protection. This decision has wide-ranging impacts that could delay or stop many important projects at the heart of our environmental protection, such as TBfree\u2014bovine tuberculosis\u2014and also other broader, larger projects around our economy. Infrastructure development projects, future projects that would require authorisation under section 53 of the Act, such as wind farms, power line maintenance, housing development, roads, tourism activities, and many others that are important for our society, our communities, jobs, and the economy. Other conservation work, like pest control and research, could also be impacted. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThe bill makes specific, targeted changes to fix this problem\u2014to fix this challenge. The Government\u2019s intent for the bill is to restore people\u2019s confidence that they can carry out their activities lawfully, and to enable DOC - Te Papa Atawhai to regulate incidental harm to wildlife so that activities do not cause permanent harm to the viability of protected wildlife.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThe bill validates section 53 authorities, those that are existing. There are between 100 and maybe up to over 500 active authorities that could be impacted by this decision. These authority holders are impacted through no fault of their own. These people need certainty that they are not breaking the law. This bill validates these existing authorities by inserting a new schedule to the Wildlife Act to provide this certainty. The validation will generally apply to all authorisations granted under section 53 of the Wildlife Act before 5 March 2025 when the High Court made its decision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThese validations would mean that it would not be an offence for holders of the authorisation to incidentally kill wildlife as part of their mahi, provided that they undertake that mahi in line with the authorisation and any conditions in it. The bill still requires that making and authorising wildlife permits be consistent with protecting wildlife. That is the purpose of the Act. Permitholders must still take reasonable steps to avoid, minimise, and mitigate harm to wildlife.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThe bill does not green-light development projects. I want to be clear, the changes that are proposed in this legislation will not green-light major construction projects that are a threat to our endangered wildlife and precious taonga species, and the protective purpose of this Act remains the same. Some development or infrastructure projects may pose threats to wildlife, as may many other human interactions with wildlife. Having section 53 authorisations helps to manage those risks and ensure that conservation efforts are integrated into the planning and execution of such projects. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThe changes being made to this bill will ensure that our treasured species continue to be protected, even in cases when we know that some harm may occur. While this might initially seem contradictory to the goal of protecting wildlife, these authorisations are designed with tailored safeguards. The changes proposed to section 53 will only allow incidental harm under strict conditions so that the actions do not negatively affect protected species in the long run.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThe bill restores what was understood to be the status quo before the court\u2019s decision. The bill does not limit the existing powers under the Act to expand on how they are exercised. Instead, the bill provides clarity on the types of conditions that the director-general may impose as part of an authority for incidental killing. These include measures to avoid making a species more threatened or extinct, measures to avoid, minimise, or mitigate harm to protected animals. These measures are consistent with the types of conditions that the director-general has previously set for authorisations to incidentally kill wildlife over 70 years. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EPrior to the court\u2019s decision, DOC - Te Papa Atawhai regularly provided wildlife permits that authorise incidental killing, so long as permitholders met the conditions in their permit. These conditions were designed to maintain the viability of affected wildlife populations and protect individual animals as much as possible. Through these conditions, authority holders could ensure their projects proceeded responsibly, while supporting the long-term viability of wildlife populations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EWe should be able to continue with projects that provide essential benefits to the lives of New Zealanders without compromising our indigenous species. This balance is key in the protection and conservation of wildlife populations and key to protecting the world that our mokopuna deserve.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s more work to be done on this legislation. It\u2019s been articulated very well in interjections even to my k\u014Drero by Matua Minita Jones. These changes are targeted to address the specific issues read by the court decision. They address a symptom of a bigger issue, and might I recount that in the previous Government\u2014and majority Government at that\u2014they were unable to carry out and expedite the changes, but we will do this in due course.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThe Wildlife Act is old, it\u2019s lost coherence over time, and that is a key reason why we are sitting here today having to make these urgent amendments to ensure that our treasured species and taonga continue to be protected. Not like that Caulerpa I saw up at Omakiwi and R\u0101whiti last week\u2014no, that\u2019s gone.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a57ad9ee8d22442ba7fc5d943ee64a37\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Labour done it\u2014Labour did the Caulerpa.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cf4a1bccccb04038a22a3346c758ed0e\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA\u003C/span\u003E: This 70-year-old Act needs replacing, Matua. But along with 70 years of amendments, there have been 70 years of establishing processes and systems. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EI\u2019m not proposing to make these fundamental changes to the Act in an ad hoc way now. This would risk making the Act even less coherent, less effective, and more difficult to work with. A full review remains a priority. We will crack on with that very shortly, but it will be a little bit complex and take time. As the Opposition knows, they took three years and couldn\u2019t make a decision. In the meantime, this bill is a first step. It fixes the current issue, the current raruraru we have, while maintaining appropriate safeguards to protect wildlife. On that note, I commend this bill to the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022 data-id=\u0022444f52f63eee417889b4a86c4c68e258\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022444f52f63eee417889b4a86c4c68e258\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022 data-id=\u0022587b55c9ba5d4bf1a82d7f273ac33d7f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022587b55c9ba5d4bf1a82d7f273ac33d7f\u0022\u003EHon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Speaker. I began my contribution in the first reading of this bill, saying that I had some hope because Minister Potaka talked about the fact that he is still committed to, and still prioritises\u2014I think the word was that he used\u2014a full review of the Wildlife Act 1953. Then, if we have heard correctly on this side of the House, Minister Jones then said he wants to do away with Act in its entirety.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003ENow, I have way less hope than I did about half an hour ago that this is ever going to get done, and I\u2019ll tell you why, because when we were in Government, my colleague the Hon Willow-Jean Prime had requested Te Papa Atawhai - Department of Conservation (DOC) to undertake a review of the Wildlife Act 1953. It was in the Labour Party manifesto where we committed to do that, and she undertook that. Now, all this Minister had to do, all this Government had to do, was to pick up that work and progress it. They are halfway through the term, and what does Minister Potaka say? Very shortly they will commence work on reviewing the Wildlife Act, which then says to us, on this side of the House, that they haven\u2019t even started\u2014they haven\u2019t even started.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EThis Minister then goes on to say that he doesn\u2019t want to make changes in an ad hoc way to this piece of legislation, it is old, and it is outdated, and what is he doing today? A knee-jerk reaction to the High Court ruling of just two months ago, which makes this bill even less coherent and less potentially relevant. It definitely dilutes the purpose of this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003ENow, generally at a second reading speech, we would be feeding back to the House, to Parliament, what submitters have said, what the select committee process was, what did we hear from the officials, how do we genuinely work across the House to finesse a piece of legislation. We can\u2019t do any of that today, because there has been no select committee process. As my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking outlined in her contribution at the first reading speech just about half an hour ago, this could have taken a week or two. There is no urgency to this. The High Court ruling was just in March this year. There are a number of permits that are potentially facing legal uncertainty as a result. We accept that on the side of the House, but there was no urgency to push this bill through all stages with no select committee process at all, and the Minister has not been able to give us any clear rationale as to what that emergency was that is putting us in this position.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003ESo why are we here today? In that decision of March this year, the High Court set aside an authority that DOC had granted under section 53 of the Act to Waka Kotahi. That was for, as we\u2019ve mentioned previously, the Mt Messenger Bypass. It was a project in Taranaki that passed through areas of native habitat and proposed extensive ecological mitigation and offsetting. Now, as part of that process, various protected species were proposed to be caught and to be relocated. Authority was also sought to kill protected wildlife\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bed2b6d5b4874aba9064262a6381c11a\u0022\u003ESteve Abel\u003C/span\u003E: 46 species.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228b99c62d1dd7454abb2dc448dc13be39\u0022\u003EHon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN\u003C/span\u003E: 46 species. Unlimited amounts from memory, as well, of 46 species of protected wildlife during that construction period. This was in the context of them saying that it wasn\u2019t possible to trap and to relocate every individual of that protected species.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EAnyway, this was then challenged. What is the actual crux of the problem definition that brings us here today? DOC approached applications for wildlife permits under section 53 by looking at whether the projects as a whole and whether the viability of a population was either maintained or was improved through the actions or through some other unrelated action, whether it was a mitigation or something else. They looked at it at a population level. Now, the High Court found that section 53 of the Wildlife Act, that authority, or the way that it was prescribed, permitted, given, or granted was, in a sense, illegal overreach, and that a section 53 permit is unlawful and cannot purport to authorise the killing of protected wildlife if the primary purpose of that killing doesn\u2019t have a direct nexus to the purpose of the Act, and so that was the problem. The High Court\u2019s ruling or finding was, basically, that the permit that was granted under section 53, in that case and potentially in these other cases, goes against the intention or the purpose of the legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003ESo, then, the Government of the day has a choice to make. Do we then do this properly? Do we redraft? Do we review and rewrite the Wildlife Act so that, actually, then the permits that are granted, whether through section 53 or section 71\u2014the latter was not found to be unlawful in this case. Do we rewrite legislation to actually work in a way that it promotes the principal purpose of the Act, which is to promote wildlife and to regulate human interaction?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003ETo Minister Jones\u2019 point, nobody on this side is standing up to say that we don\u2019t need economic development. What we are saying is that those who then build roads or mine, in the case of Minister Jones\u2019 example, need to take reasonable steps to protect biodiversity. I don\u2019t think that\u2019s an unreasonable ask. So we could have changed legislation so that the activity, the behaviour, is in line with the purpose of the Act. But, oh no! This Government doesn\u2019t want to do the hard yards; they just want to tinker around the edges and make it now lawful to do what the High Court said was unlawful. That\u2019s the fix that this Government is\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b9dc1924-4df4-4d8f-91ec-8a0f29348308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f20ffe37872e4379a85dd5cc5c13f56b\u0022\u003ETim Costley\u003C/span\u003E: You did nothing!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002270ff4defd446438b8ea48eff7e530ebc\u0022\u003EHon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN\u003C/span\u003E: We did nothing? The High Court ruling was in March this year. So you might just want to, if you\u2019re heckling from across the cross benches, maybe actually do some reading first.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003ESo back to the purpose of the Act. Now, section 71 of the Act allows for things like roads to be built. Permits can be granted in circumstances where the activity is otherwise subject to one of the Acts that\u2019s listed in schedule 9, which lists a whole bunch of Acts, legislation, that is exempted. It\u2019s an exemptions regime, basically.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EOne of the questions that I will get to in the committee stage of this bill, which we will get to very shortly no doubt, is to ask the Minister why some of these other options weren\u2019t considered. Why is it just tinkering around the edges to make what the High Court said was unlawful now lawful? Why is that the best fix that this Government can come up with?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003ETo go back to this, now, as I said previously, at my second reading speech, usually we would be talking about what submitters have said. We don\u2019t have that. The best that we have is press releases by those who are concerned by this piece of legislation. I have shared some of what the World Wildlife Fund has talked about in terms of this change, both the process of lawmaking, which goes against the very democracy that Minister Jones seems to be so invested in, because it doesn\u2019t allow for New Zealanders to have a say. Internationally, we are regarded to have such a transparent process where every New Zealander can have a say on every piece of legislation that they care about. It\u2019s lauded internationally, but not today, because we\u2019ve got significant pieces of legislation, twice, sitting here for over 30 hours to consider significant pieces of legislation that are being rushed through, rammed through, in urgency for absolutely no reason at all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EThe other point that I wanted to make in the time that I have remaining is the fact that those who have, I will say, submitted, because what they have done is to put out press releases about this. They have pointed out that New Zealand has the highest species extinction rate in the world, with more than 4,000 of our native species at risk or threatened with extinction. Not only is, now, DOC woefully underfunded to be able to take on this work, but I would really like to know from the conservation Minister what he is doing in terms of improving biodiversity in New Zealand, because I haven\u2019t seen anything. There\u2019s no Cabinet paper for this piece of legislation that we could find publicly or proactively released. As I mentioned previously, there\u2019s no RIS\u2014there\u2019s no regulatory impact statement. I haven\u2019t seen a single Cabinet paper that this Minister has taken or considered that actually improves biodiversity or extends, for example, marine protection, even though he said that 30 by 30 was just aspirational. We\u2019ve seen all of the targets towards meeting our climate change goals diluted, watered down, as well. So is this Minister\u2019s legacy going to be making it easier to kill kiwi?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022 data-id=\u002229d3fbfaef2e4e03ae390af3a060e306\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002229d3fbfaef2e4e03ae390af3a060e306\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Steve Abel.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223970abb5597b48e8b9424a9584b4442a\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, a calm, measured speech, no doubt!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022 data-id=\u002249cd17f4e754499a915960824e8a1319\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002249cd17f4e754499a915960824e8a1319\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you. I appreciate that. It will be a calm, measured speech because I genuinely think that the Government is making a big mistake here. It\u2019s actually tying up all sorts of processes in blue and yellow and black tape.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227dbfbd83-6770-4555-8477-85fa01511504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002256372b06128c44d19b572404cb252aca\u0022\u003EAndy Foster\u003C/span\u003E: Just copying now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002233b881e246ba4dd88c1a07f2096ceed3\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: Pardon me? Let\u2019s be clear about what the decision that has precipitated this knee-jerk piece of legislation was. Justice McHerron highlighted that section 53 permits can only be issued if their purpose is to protect wildlife. In a previous case, the Court of Appeal suggested that one such purpose could be culling of some individuals to prevent the spread of a disease to a wider population. That\u2019s obviously protective, right? The other obvious instance would be using baits or poisons to kill predatory species for the purpose of protecting wildlife but you may incidentally kill some of those native species in the process. But the overall purpose\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f8e7a5e90b2446e1b40ecca4723cf9ea\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: What about people?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002233d2520610bc4ce1ac5f4fbbb2cb0a28\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m getting to that, Minister. The Environmental Law Initiative challenged the decision to grant\u2014[Interruption] I\u2019ll give a calm and collected speech if there\u2019s less interruption, Mr Speaker. It challenged the decision to grant the New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi authority to kill 46 species of wildlife, including North Island brown kiwi, short-tailed and long-tailed bats, Archey\u2019s frog\u2014the Minister\u2019s favourite frog\u2014as it constructed the Mt Messenger Bypass in north Taranaki. The advocacy group argued that the Department of Conservation (DOC) was only able to grant permits to capture or kill wildlife if it furthered the purpose of the Act, which is protection of wildlife.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003EThe judge found that he did not accept the Crown\u2019s submission that the legislation can authorise the killing of wildlife for any purpose merely if the viability of populations of wildlife that any animals killed belonged to are otherwise being maintained or improved through some other related or unrelated action. Basically, he\u2019s saying that DOC cannot give a licence to kill wildlife\u2014i.e., DOC doesn\u2019t have the power to override the purpose of the Wildlife Act, which is to protect wildlife.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003EBut get this, here\u2019s the nub of it: the problem is not that there will be incidental deaths of wildlife in the building of motorways\u2014and one question that I\u2019ve got for the Minister when he gets up in the chair at some point is, how is it this Act has been in place since 1953 and we haven\u2019t built any roads since then? How is it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227dbfbd83-6770-4555-8477-85fa01511504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002222289a1525c64d40ae8f5ffcf978f777\u0022\u003EAndy Foster\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019ve built lots of roads.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b535a947e89b4b65a3507a7ce222801a\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: Exactly. So how is it that a correct interpretation of this law means that you can\u2019t build roads? It\u2019s a serious question\u2014it\u2019s a serious question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b9dc1924-4df4-4d8f-91ec-8a0f29348308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e64d46312772478e8af9ad7f51063e58\u0022\u003ETim Costley\u003C/span\u003E: You\u2019re smarter than that, Steve.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221175f9fa81ed42dd9d697fe672b70a06\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: I am smarter than that, and I want to say that the Environmental Law Initiative said\u2014[Interruption] Listen to this; you might learn something here\u2014\u201CThere was never any credible risk of developers being prosecuted for incidental killing of wildlife, provided all reasonable steps were taken to prevent that.\u201D This is the Environmental Law Initiative. These \u201Cforeigners\u201D that the Minister accuses of being \u201Cshadowy\u201D\u2014they\u2019re saying that there was never any credible risk of developers being prosecuted, provided all reasonable steps were taken to prevent that. In that sense, this was not a question of whether development projects could go ahead or not; it was about making sure all reasonable steps are taken to protect what we have left of our wildlife. That is what I would think most New Zealanders would expect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003EJust to be clear, in the Wildlife Act, at section 68AB, \u201CMens rea and strict liability offences\u201D, in cases where it is alleged that anything required to be done\u2014i.e., to not kill wildlife\u2014was not done, the defendant took all reasonable steps to ensure that it was done. That is a defence in the Wildlife Act as it stands: in any case where it is alleged that anything prohibited was done, that the defendant took all reasonable steps to ensure that it was not done.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003EIn other words, according to the Environmental Law Initiative, who brought this case and won this case, the problem was not that you couldn\u2019t build roads and have incidental killings, the problem was that DOC was issuing permits to kill\u2014issuing permits to override the Wildlife Act. They should not have been issuing those permits.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002244967dc4-6cc7-4567-b8ef-cc3a9b354544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022da886cf39c9349c0b985245320feb218\u0022\u003EGrant McCallum\u003C/span\u003E: And, therefore, you couldn\u2019t build the road.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022721777c3de6a4f55a885b88a803eb992\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002244967dc4-6cc7-4567-b8ef-cc3a9b354544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223da4ab55f31d4b8d8a794a7b3b9bad92\u0022\u003EGrant McCallum\u003C/span\u003E: And, therefore, you couldn\u2019t build the road.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bfad95f0e9134875942b3b9d4a775683\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002244967dc4-6cc7-4567-b8ef-cc3a9b354544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002268ce02e54dae4ed4bca8e951ddbb4456\u0022\u003EGrant McCallum\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022150eea52986e49f6a036b495c927e835\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Could I ask members not to have conversations across the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0f78f60-c2fd-46f4-8138-72f39692fc20\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002227f844831ec54f5abd9c38dd19b3fdbc\u0022\u003EHon Todd McClay\u003C/span\u003E: But it\u2019s more interesting than the speech.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223d5345638cc34d74ba517af1d324f68f\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: That may be so, but if you want to do that, I\u2019ll invite you to step outside.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002203c5fddb882d4b4e829066dfd7acb449\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m actually trying to cut to the chase, in a sense, Mr Speaker, because I genuinely think that this legislation is a mess, and it doesn\u2019t solve the problem that the Government thinks it\u2019s solving. It\u2019s actually creating more of a complexity, because now, what is the Department of Conservation to do? For example, if I\u2019m to plough my field, and perhaps I\u2019m going to incidentally kill some skinks, do I need to get a permit to do that now? It\u2019s a question\u2014it\u2019s a serious question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003ELet us remember the purpose of the Wildlife Act, because we are a nation that has these extraordinary indigenous species unique to our part of the world, the endemic ones, and 4,000 of them are threatened and endangered. That situation is not getting any better. We set up things like the Wildlife Act, we set up agencies like the Department of Conservation, and their purpose is to protect wildlife. This legislation is saying that their purpose is now to issue permits for developers to kill wildlife. It\u2019s absolutely extraordinary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227dbfbd83-6770-4555-8477-85fa01511504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022803ca4f160a14158888e9080f8cb69dc\u0022\u003EAndy Foster\u003C/span\u003E: Not deliberately. Just accidentally, occasionally.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022368a73e19bcb46f092035e60c3828c17\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, and currently under the Wildlife Act, if you take all reasonable steps and you incidentally kill wildlife, you can\u2019t be prosecuted. It\u2019s a defence against prosecution.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003ESo that\u2019s why this legislation is actually a massive waste of time\u2014a massive waste of time of the House. Had there been some consultation on it\u2014some external consultation\u2014perhaps the Government would have found out that, actually, the best solution to the problem was to just stop the Department of Conservation issuing these licences to kill, which were found to be unlawful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003EAll this legislation does is it retrospectively validates existing authorities to kill wildlife under section 53, and it provides authorities granted under section 53 are not unlawful, when, in fact, the court found that they were unlawful, because it doesn\u2019t make any sense that the Department of Conservation has the right to tell a developer that they can break the law. This is about building a motorway through a rainforest.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003ENow, in the broader sense, as my colleague from Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori spoke about earlier, you can somewhat judge a society by its hierarchy of values in terms of what it determines to protect and what it is prepared to destroy. [Interruption] Pardon me?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b53a1c1f895446e1851143177d75e98c\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Keep the interjections down, please. Just keep them rare and infrequent, and, at 9 o\u2019clock at night, witty. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002285c4a1b2a6c742ccb0c3e008cac9a408\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: You can judge as a society by what it chooses to protect and what it\u2019s prepared to destroy. We as a society have consistently, over the course of many generations, chosen to destroy rainforest. We have now 6 percent of our lowland rainforest left. Most of it\u2019s been cleared for pasture; 40 percent of our nation is pasture. But also to this day\u2014and Mt Messenger is an example of it\u2014this rainforest was going to be destroyed and the 46 species impacted to build a road through a rainforest.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003ENow, the important thing here is that we actually need the forest more than we need the road\u2014[Interruption] You can sigh, Grant, but it is actually science, my friend. Do you realise that rainforests are the cause of the amount of oxygen in the planetary atmosphere that makes the Earth habitable for Homo sapiens? You cannot replant ancient rainforest. You cannot replace extinct species. We are in a mass extinction event on the planet right now because of the mind-set of extraction and destruction of nature and contamination of water and pollution of the atmosphere, and we have to change the mind-set.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003EThat is why we need things like the Conservation Act, the Wildlife Act, and the Department of Conservation to be properly funded and supported, and we need mechanisms for making sure that our means of living and surviving and thriving on this planet is consistent with every other species on this planet living and thriving and surviving. The attitude of this Government, to declare war on nature, to go rip, shit, and bust and destroy rainforest or destroy ecology for the benefit of Australian miners for coal, for gold, for whatever\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002244967dc4-6cc7-4567-b8ef-cc3a9b354544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a54223cb2113497da11057616c66f6c4\u0022\u003EGrant McCallum\u003C/span\u003E: Jobs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022731d8fd010964a23b8545b71c6afb64b\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014is so backward. There are no jobs on a dead planet, Mr McCallum.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cfc7092e-b202-4acf-aa9c-8aebd551cc39\u0022 data-id=\u00227316106df7f14341ae4b4e237210e38c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfc7092e-b202-4acf-aa9c-8aebd551cc39\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227316106df7f14341ae4b4e237210e38c\u0022\u003ECAMERON LUXTON (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Speaker. It was interesting to hear a soliloquy there about the hierarchy of what we prioritise. I would have appreciated hearing the member Steve Abel elucidate more where he prioritises humans getting the infrastructure we need to have a country where we can get around, visit our friends and family, where we can go to work, and where we can get things that we need. Yes, from out of the ground; yes, from out of the air; yes, we need to produce stuff to pay for our way in the world. It\u2019s not just some Gaia utopia where humans can\u2019t go about producing for ourselves. That\u2019s what we have to do. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfc7092e-b202-4acf-aa9c-8aebd551cc39\u0022\u003EBringing it back to this bill: the Wildlife Act, which this bill is amending, is 70 years old. In a tangled fleet of old legislation, this is a standout. It is quite old. So perhaps it was unsurprising that with such an old piece of legislation, issues like this have sprung up. But we are here tonight because the Minister has brought an amendment to the House that will go about remedying this situation that has occurred\u2014and I remind the House\u2014in March this year. It is not a thing that has been intended by the bill. It may have been what the court read into the description of the bill, but this House is going in another direction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfc7092e-b202-4acf-aa9c-8aebd551cc39\u0022\u003EWe want to be able to allow developers and builders and engineers\u2014people trying to get out there and create a country of infrastructure\u2014to have the confidence that this Government has their back, that they can go out and apply for consents, they can get people employed, and they can do some stuff to build this country up. The case that started this, yes, is still happening under another section of the Act\u2014section 71. So there has been a change in that. So Mt Messenger is still going ahead with the extreme costs that went into getting it to this point. I\u2019m glad to hear that it is still going ahead.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfc7092e-b202-4acf-aa9c-8aebd551cc39\u0022\u003EThe Wildlife Act, it is designed to protect our valued species. It is there because New Zealanders\u2014as has been elucidated\u2014value our biodiversity. We value what we have in our country. That hasn\u2019t always been the case. There\u2019s been a time in our history when it wasn\u2019t valued highly enough, but New Zealanders have taken that into account. We\u2019ve gone through this House and we\u2019ve gone through processes to value it. The court made a decision that sits at odds with what New Zealanders want from their country\u2014a country where they can afford to pay for conservation because they have an economy. That\u2019s what we\u2019re putting back in place tonight. Thank you, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227dbfbd83-6770-4555-8477-85fa01511504\u0022 data-id=\u00223e2b077daec54a299c0d0a52e6f1d960\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227dbfbd83-6770-4555-8477-85fa01511504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223e2b077daec54a299c0d0a52e6f1d960\u0022\u003EANDY FOSTER (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E Thanks, Mr Speaker. Look, we are here, as we\u2019ve heard, because of a High Court decision. That decision was about the Wildlife Act, which is a very important Act. I think we\u2019ve all said that it\u2019s very, very important we look after and protect native wildlife in New Zealand, and that Act has been happily helping to protect wildlife since 1953. Possibly one of the surprising things is that there hasn\u2019t been a challenge to it in this light before this\u2014if it was a problem\u2014but what the ruling did is it upset the long-held understanding. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227dbfbd83-6770-4555-8477-85fa01511504\u0022\u003EIt has been 70-odd years that the understanding has been that the director-general could issue authorisations for the accidental, the incidental\u2014not the deliberate. We\u2019ve heard about 46 species. Nobody is going out there trying to kill 46 species. They\u2019re not even going out there trying to kill one species. What they\u2019re trying to do is avoid that. They\u2019re trying to put conditions in place to avoid that. But, just in case it happens, the authorisations by the director-general are about protecting those people who are doing that work from the liability of that accident or incident. So this bill is really, essentially, about putting back the understanding that has been in place for 70 years. It\u2019s not about going through a big select committee process, etc. It\u2019s not doing something radical; it is just saying we want to go back to what we understood the situation to be since 1953\u2014since 1953.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227dbfbd83-6770-4555-8477-85fa01511504\u0022\u003ET\u0101kuta Ferris, in his speech in the first reading, told us that the road builders don\u2019t care. Well, I don\u2019t know, T\u0101kuta, how many of these projects you\u2019ve been to. I\u2019ve been to this one and many others, and what I can tell you is that the people who are working on this project take great pride. There are a lot of conditions. There\u2019s a lot of work going on to protect\u2014to protect\u2014indigenous wildlife and the indigenous environment and to make it better. That is what they\u2019re trying to do. They\u2019re not trying to wreck the place; they\u2019re trying to make it better. That is what the authorisation allows them to do\u2014to say, \u201CWe want to build this road. We want to try to make the environment better around there as well.\u201D But, sometimes, something might go wrong, and they simply need the protection against that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227dbfbd83-6770-4555-8477-85fa01511504\u0022\u003EThe Environmental Law Initiative won this case, and we\u2019ve heard the reasons for that. Basically, what the court decided\u2014they looked at the Supreme Court and they said, \u201CWell, the Supreme Court has said\u2014and we have to agree with that because we\u2019re the court below that\u2014that it doesn\u2019t matter that section 53 at the moment doesn\u2019t put any real conditions on that.\u201D The problem is that they read it in the context of the Act, and they said that the Act actually says it\u2019s all about protection\u2014it\u2019s not about anything else; it\u2019s about protection. If you do anything which is not about protection of species and about individual creatures, you are ultra vires. They use the words \u201Cunlawful\u201D and \u201Cultra vires\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227dbfbd83-6770-4555-8477-85fa01511504\u0022\u003EThere is a constitutional point that I wanted to make, and that is that this is a classic case of a court making a decision and then Parliament saying, \u201CActually, we\u2019ve got a problem with that decision, and we need to fix it.\u201D For those who are first-term MPs, we had the pleasure\u2014and I understand it\u2019s the first time this has been done; some of the MPs who have been here longer said it had never been done before\u2014of being invited to the Supreme Court last year. We met with the heads of each of the levels\u2014District Court, High Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court\u2014and our Chief Judge was quite specific\u2014it was in the context of the Resource Management Act, but quite specific\u2014in saying that, the role of Parliament is to make law, and the role of the courts is to interpret the law. If Parliament doesn\u2019t like the interpretation\u2014and we can all think of plenty of really important areas where we might not like the interpretation\u2014it is Parliament\u2019s job to be able to fix that by passing new legislation so the court then needs to give effect to a new piece of legislation. So I think there is a very, very important constitutional issue here, and that is that it is Parliament\u2019s job as the sovereign of the country to fix things that need to be fixed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227dbfbd83-6770-4555-8477-85fa01511504\u0022\u003EWildlife protection is very important. It\u2019s very important to all New Zealanders. It is very important to me. It is also important for its intrinsic sake. I used to give\u2014and would if I was invited to give them again\u2014speeches about what we\u2019ve done to our indigenous biodiversity in this country. We have a very, very high level of endemism\u2014that is, species which occur nowhere else on the planet. That is because these islands have been separate from any other area for something like 70 million or 80 million years. That means they have evolved in isolation. There have been no mammals, other than a few bats\u2014and Dana tells me she doesn\u2019t like bats particularly\u2014that makes our indigenous wildlife unique. But since human beings have arrived here\u2014and what I used to say is that, if you take that 80 million - odd years as a 24-hour day, human beings have been here for, guess how long, one second. One second of that 24-hour day, and we\u2019ve done an enormous amount of damage since then. I think New Zealanders understand that. I think New Zealanders really, really care for wildlife, and New Zealanders really, really want to look after wildlife. This bill doesn\u2019t change that at all. There are condition which have got to be wrapped around it. It still says that we\u2019ve got to look after that native wildlife, but it does provide protections against something going wrong, which, from time to time, it will. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227dbfbd83-6770-4555-8477-85fa01511504\u0022\u003EThere are two ways in which the existing Wildlife Act allows the director-general to give some dispensation, some authorisations: section 53, and we\u2019ve also heard about section 71. So let\u2019s have a look at section 71 and say, \u201CWhy couldn\u2019t you just rely on section 71?\u201D Well, the problem is that section 71 says you can only give effect to, effectively, about 16 different Acts. In the case of Mt Messenger, they actually went back and they did a retrospective consent. Do you know who did the retrospective consent? Who did the retrospective consent? The Hon Willow-Jean Prime was the Minister of Conservation, and the Hon David Parker was the Minister of Transport. They authorised this particular road, which is the subject of this case, to go ahead under section 71. They could do that because the Wildlife Act includes, in its Schedule, a number of different Acts, one of which is the Government Roading Powers Act. So they were able to use that. But think of all the times, all the projects, all the things that we would like to see happen in this country, that cannot rely on those 16 Acts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227dbfbd83-6770-4555-8477-85fa01511504\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll just give you a little bit of a list before I sit down. Think about building a road by a local authority or by a developer. That\u2019s not covered by any of those. Think about laying a pipe\u2014not covered. Think about creating a subdivision\u2014not covered. Think about building a dam\u2014not covered, unless it\u2019s under the Public Works Act. Think about building and operating a windfarm. My colleague Cameron Luxton said exactly that when we were considering the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill\u2014very important stuff. Think about operating a farm, clearing vegetation, and pest control. I\u2019ve done pest control for quite a number of years, and you might catch hundreds of rats but you might occasionally catch a protected species in there. You didn\u2019t want to do that, but that would fall foul of this, potentially. Think about predator-proof fences and seeing birds which have flown into those predator-proof fences and killed themselves. Do they fall foul of the Act as this it? So it is important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227dbfbd83-6770-4555-8477-85fa01511504\u0022\u003EWhy is this urgent? Because of a whole lot of action that is going on, a whole lot of projects that are going on around this country at the moment, which are then put in limbo\u2014projects which would be going on around this country and are then put in limbo\u2014and it is important that we fix this, give them certainty, and, as the Minister has said, there will be further legislation, undoubtedly, to come to clear all of this up to modernise the legislation, and I look forward to that. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022 data-id=\u0022268331a570ec42df8ef4914f23baa6e3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022268331a570ec42df8ef4914f23baa6e3\u0022\u003ET\u0100KUTA FERRIS (Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori\u2014Te Tai Tonga): \u003C/span\u003ET\u0113n\u0101 koe e te P\u012Bka. E t\u016B ana ahau ki te tuku i \u0113tahi t\u0101piritanga whakaaro ki ng\u0101 k\u014Drero kua hora ki mua ki te aroaro o t\u0113nei Whare i t\u0113nei p\u014D m\u014D t\u0113nei o ng\u0101 pire, te Pire Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003E[I stand to offer some additional thoughts to the comments that have been spread before this House tonight regarding this bill, the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003EAs I think about the title of the bill, it strikes me that the authorisations being given are to kill protected wildlife. It seems a little bit of an oxymoron but it is what it is. Whilst many of the issues have been vigorously debated, I want to cut to what is ultimately one of the major problems with all the issues we\u2019re dealing with, and that is that you have a Government who believe in deeming themselves above the courts. Case in point: there\u2019s a ruling by the High Court that says, \u201CYou\u2019re out of line. You\u2019re outside the law.\u201D, and so the Government just moved to override that and do something they want to do and just continue to do it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003EToday, we had the pay equity bill rushed through as quickly as you could possibly do it\u2014just wiping out active cases before the courts. We had the takutai moana saga last year, with iwi and hap\u016B who have been fighting to get their rights recognised in their own rohe moana. They won those cases, and then this Government decided they didn\u2019t like that ruling so they went over the top of it. So the consistent theme is that we have actions from a Government who deem themselves to be above the courts of the country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002244967dc4-6cc7-4567-b8ef-cc3a9b354544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022384ab0676f5947388baaee5721236c33\u0022\u003EGrant McCallum\u003C/span\u003E: We are above the courts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224c4347a1e7564b4eb8c2db7591337cc8\u0022\u003ET\u0100KUTA FERRIS\u003C/span\u003E: This guy doesn\u2019t know what sovereignty means\u2014he\u2019s got no idea what sovereignty means.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003ESo that\u2019s the problem, right? That\u2019s the problem, and we keep coming back here and having this circular debate that goes nowhere, and that side of the House just rushes laws through. No public opportunity to comment. No public opportunity to input. No public opportunity to interrogate. No public opportunity for democracy. I truly believe that that\u2019s the root cause of most of the rubbish this House is dealing with now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003ESo how can you fix that? Well, it seems there aren\u2019t a whole lot of levers available to this House other than an election that\u2019s coming up. So I hope that the people at home are paying tight attention to what\u2019s going on, very close attention, because it is truly undemocratic.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022beebfd52ad4d48d7846b2e72659e5ba4\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: One person, one vote. All equal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228acc69129efc43b4b5827f7e39e20335\u0022\u003ET\u0100KUTA FERRIS\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, there they go. So here we are debating whether or not it\u2019s OK for the Minister of Conservation, of Te Papa Atawhai and all of the good work that Te Papa Atawhai and its leaders have done over the last 30 or 40 years to claw out the space for M\u0101ori views, M\u0101ori ways of being, the importance of the relationship between people\u2014we\u2019re talking a lot about people over here\u2014and the natural environment, and here we have a Minister making a call to just cut straight through all of the guts of that work. I\u2019m talking about 40-odd years of work, a lot of which was championed by my late uncle Piri Sciascia in times when these conversations weren\u2019t had, weren\u2019t cared about, weren\u2019t ever entertained. And here we are today, 40-odd years later, with the understanding that we have about te ao M\u0101ori, the place of the natural world, the place of people in it, and we\u2019re dealing with this tonight. It is truly astounding, it is truly shameful, and it will be that Minister\u2019s legacy. Kia ora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229fa4845f-2fb3-4c2c-828a-40a363d3a159\u0022 data-id=\u0022c1a46368a0fb4934af23505f7c9af62a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fa4845f-2fb3-4c2c-828a-40a363d3a159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c1a46368a0fb4934af23505f7c9af62a\u0022\u003ECELIA WADE-BROWN (Green):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to express staunch opposition to this Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill. It legalises destruction of wildlife, it erodes protection, and it circumvents accountability. It betrays the values that we all claim to uphold. It\u2019s ironic that this bill is introduced under urgency the same week that the public is called to consult on Action for nature: Implementing New Zealand\u2019s Biodiversity Strategy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fa4845f-2fb3-4c2c-828a-40a363d3a159\u0022\u003EWell, now we can recognise the worst predators on nature. With over 4,300 species now at risk or threatened with extinction, Aotearoa\u2019s taonga species need protection, not a licence to kill. We know what triggered this bill: the Mt Messenger Bypass, an infrastructure project bulldozing its way through ecologically sensitive land. I\u2019ve walked among the beautiful kahikatea and swamp maire that will be destroyed for less than 10 minutes time saving. This bypass is a huge dollar cost blowout from 2016. It\u2019s gone from $90 million to $280 million. It\u2019s now more than $365 million. That\u2019s a million dollars a day for a year. It\u2019s now become the catalyst for much wider cost implications if you count the value of things beyond the dollar. It creates much greater damage through triggering this law change.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fa4845f-2fb3-4c2c-828a-40a363d3a159\u0022\u003EThe Environmental Law Initiative, made up of Kiwi lawyers, took Waka Kotahi to the High Court and they found that Department of Conservation had acted unlawfully. But those same good lawyers say the existing law gives protection from prosecution, as my colleague Steve Abel said, if all reasonable steps are taken to avoid harm. It is a myth that this would halt renewable energy projects. It is a myth that predator control would be threatened. I have probably killed more rats and stoats than anybody else in this House and fed them to the eels.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ba11b3f-65ea-4f86-92e4-fe78ea522647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225b8d636e23a540b6b1b41c6591a48c5e\u0022\u003EDana Kirkpatrick\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s a big call, Celia.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002272cd2fe59a904622be9aded82d16adcf\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s a big call\u2014you can talk about it afterwards, but if we could keep the remarks down so we can hear Celia Wade-Brown.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fa4845f-2fb3-4c2c-828a-40a363d3a159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a6b8739aa95b44a685df5ff502b56b51\u0022\u003ECELIA WADE-BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: This Government has not strengthened protection; it\u2019s done the opposite. It\u2019s rewritten the rules to make that breach legal, defensible, and it has made it retrospective. So what are we really trading here? We\u2019re trading kiwi for concrete; we\u2019re trading long-tail bats for a few minutes saved in travel times, and we\u2019re trading integrity for expediency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fa4845f-2fb3-4c2c-828a-40a363d3a159\u0022\u003EThe Mt Messenger Bypass alone put at risk the critically endangered Archey\u2019s frog, the North Island brown kiwi and the pekapeka\u2014all of them, Freddie or Frida alike\u2014were promised protection under the law and they can now be killed under licence. Minister Potaka said in his introduction to Action for Nature: \u201CWe need to focus our minds on protecting this taonga now and into the future.\u201D This wildlife amendment bill is short-sighted. It\u2019s myopic, not focused. No Minister is asking the public to volunteer money for the billions of dollars on roading. No Minister is asking the community to volunteer money for military helicopters, but coalition partners constantly suggest that the Department of Conservation puts out the begging bowl, and now they give them a whole new administrative burden.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fa4845f-2fb3-4c2c-828a-40a363d3a159\u0022\u003EThis is not protection of wildlife; it is protecting the powerful and releasing them from a duty of care. The Green Party will vote against this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002244967dc4-6cc7-4567-b8ef-cc3a9b354544\u0022 data-id=\u00221266a3f1450a4fc3b2fd8ecce3c691a0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002244967dc4-6cc7-4567-b8ef-cc3a9b354544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221266a3f1450a4fc3b2fd8ecce3c691a0\u0022\u003EGRANT McCALLUM (National\u2014Northland):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Speaker. Speaking as somebody who has for many years on our family farm worked very hard to improve the biodiversity and remove pests, I get really frustrated. One of the reasons that we\u2019re able to do that is because we\u2019ve managed to run an economic, profitable business, and one of the key things about that being able to happen is, and I want to talk about it, and that\u2019s a road, OK. And, no, it\u2019s not the Brynderwyns; that was for another\u2014no, that\u2019s another day. No, it\u2019s actually about the Dome Valley, because 100 years ago this year, a bloke called Gordon Coates, a former Prime Minister of this country, opened that road, 100 years ago today, and that was what connected Northland to the rest of the country. Guess what! Unless we make these changes, the road that we want to build next year to replace that road, a new road through the Dome Valley, will struggle to be built. So that is why it is so vital that we make these changes, so that the people of the North can have economic opportunities and get ahead and have jobs. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022 data-id=\u0022e2601c1b77e3451290e32e11501d91e8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e2601c1b77e3451290e32e11501d91e8\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Speaker, for an opportunity to speak at this second reading. There\u2019s quite a lot of noise in the House this evening but I\u2019m not criticising that at all; in fact, I\u2019m delighted that so many of my colleagues from this side of the House, and the other side of the House, want to be the member who has killed the most\u2014what was it that you were killing? Rats? Mustelids? Let\u2019s go with mustelids. And they\u2019ve killed the most rats. Great work, colleagues. Well done. Now, they, of course, are not indigenous species, and it turns out that they aren\u2019t protected by the Wildlife Act, these rats, because the Wildlife Act is a curious Act. We\u2019re going to traverse the ins and outs of this bill later, in the committee stage. As many members have said, it\u2019s an old Act, and old doesn\u2019t mean bad, but in this case it does mean convoluted and difficult to follow, which, of course, was why, when Willow-Jean Prime was the Minister of Conservation, she announced the work on the changes, and that was in the Labour Party\u2019s manifesto as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EWe accept, in the Labour Party, that the Act that we\u2019re dealing with, passed in an important year, needs some attention. What the Act does\u2014it\u2019s curious in terms of the fact that it doesn\u2019t really have very many purpose clauses or anything like that that starts it up. The scheme of the Act is that at section 3, wildlife is absolutely protected, but then there are a whole lot of exceptions to that statement that work through in various different schedules. I\u2019m not going to go through that, except to say that we get to this point where the wildlife that is protected is important indigenous wildlife, and, of course, some of them are mammals, in the form of pekapeka.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EWe know and accept that the Act needs changing and needs reform. And we\u2019ve heard from the Minister of Conservation that the Act needs some mahi\u2014that\u2019s what he said. We ask that Minister to do that work, because we\u2019re now at least halfway through this term of Government, and it seems, from what he is suggesting, that it\u2019s still something that he intends to do at some point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EWe encourage that Minister to do this work, because the protection of this wildlife is important, and he is in a coalition Government with another Minister who has already spoken on this bill, being Shane Jones, who told us that he just wants to get rid of the whole Act itself. He said, \u201COh, just rely on the RMA.\u201D And what does this Government want to do with the Resource Management Act (RMA)? Well, we\u2019re not quite sure, because when we were in Government, we got rid of it and replaced it with the Spatial Planning Act and the Natural and Built Environment Act. This Government came in and repealed those changes and brought us back to the RMA, and we all know that the RMA does not do well enough in protecting our environment. It also does not do well enough in having efficient processes. There are two problems with the RMA, and both need to be addressed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EWhat this Government did was repeal those changes so we\u2019re back to the RMA, and then they introduced the fast track, the fast track that is nothing to do with speed but is all to do with overriding environmental protections. I mention this because it goes to the cynical and dangerous approach that this Government has to the environment and anything to do with the environment. We\u2019ve seen that with cuts to the funding for the Department of Conservation. We\u2019ve seen that with funding cuts to the Ministry for the Environment, for all community groups, the ending of Jobs for Nature. Yes, that was due to end anyway, but in Labour\u2019s manifesto it was going to continue, and we haven\u2019t seen anything about the continuation of that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EThen we\u2019ve had changes to the waste levy. So the waste levy can now be spent on anything to do with the environment. The relevance of waste reduction and waste minimisation does not have to be there; there doesn\u2019t have to be any nexus with waste. We\u2019ve seen this Government tell regional councils who might want to implement some up-to-date rules and plans, \u201CNo, you\u2019re not allowed to go ahead and notify that plan that might do that, because we\u2019re going to change the national policy statement on fresh water at some point.\u201D\u2014who knows when?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EThis is the context of, now, this bill coming before us and why it is passing through all stages in urgency. We have no regulatory impact statement, we have no opportunity to ask officials questions. We will, of course, ask the Minister questions, but we do not have the opportunity to ask officials questions. We know that there is a clause in the bill specifically about the impact\u2014well, I\u2019ll ask the Minister questions\u2014of the Environmental Law Initiative\u2019s case and what happens with that, but we\u2019ve not seen, in the documents that I\u2019ve seen\u2014there\u2019s been no examination of the shark case, and that\u2019s where the Supreme Court was really talking about the importance of decisions made under the Wildlife Act\u2014it has to be consistent with protecting wildlife, which is what, of course, the Act is all about. It\u2019s because of that shark case and the Supreme Court decision, that, then, the High Court, obviously being subservient to the Supreme Court, made its decision on this specific case that we\u2019re now seeing the legislation for. The legislation does not appear to make any changes to section 71. So we also know that we have this departmental disclosure document that talks about there being no consultation as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EWhat we\u2019ve been saying on the Labour Party side of things is we know that there are problems with this bill, and we want a commitment from this Government that we will go ahead and do that reform, in some sort of good faith to the environment, to make it workable. We know\u2014we\u2019ve heard from the other side as well\u2014that the Ministers who made the decision under the Wildlife Act were Labour Party Ministers, and that was what was appealed. The problem is that this is an all-stages urgency process. So we could go to select committee for a week, we could even go to select committee over a weekend. Having some opportunity for the thoughtful people who are involved in the environment sector, the thoughtful people who are involved in the infrastructure sector\u2014they can tell us how the wording could be improved and what some of the issues are that might arise from it. I will be asking questions in the committee stage about how these new sections will work with the prosecution section because I\u2019m not sure that they\u2019re consistent; in fact, I think a lot of the clauses are in conflict with each other. That process could happen. We could have it go to a select committee quickly and come back. It doesn\u2019t have to take the six months of the normal procedures. But there needs to be something that is not all-stages urgency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EWe also will need to discuss in the committee stage the role of section 71 versus the role of section 53 and the amendments in this bill to section 53. So section 71 allows\u2014and we\u2019ve heard from the New Zealand First member\u2014two Ministers, normally the conservation Minister and the one that\u2019s doing the development; so, in the case that was before the High Court, that was the Minister for Conservation and the Minister for Transport, because it was a road. For projects that come under different Acts that are listed in the Schedule\u2014and the Schedule is old and most of those Acts are out of date, but the roading one isn\u2019t. So that is why section 71 can be used, but it\u2019s cumbersome because, of course, it requires two Ministers to make a decision, and that takes, normally, quite a long time, whereas section 53 is one that the director-general can make. So what will the role of section 71 be if section 53 is still used? I\u2019ll come back to that in the committee stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b9dc1924-4df4-4d8f-91ec-8a0f29348308\u0022 data-id=\u002282d7849cf536432b95af0727ea5659e4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b9dc1924-4df4-4d8f-91ec-8a0f29348308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002282d7849cf536432b95af0727ea5659e4\u0022\u003ETIM COSTLEY (National\u2014\u014Ctaki):\u003C/span\u003E I was chatting with a developer the other day, who was building 130 new houses\u2014much-needed houses for us\u2014in \u014Ctaki. They have been held up for more than half a year because the wildlife permit\u2014that was always issued by the Department of Conservation and always used to be fine, and successive Governments, Labour and National, have supported\u2014could now not be done because of a legal decision which needed to be\u2014hence we bring this bill to change it. The kicker is that they went and consulted a wildlife expert to say these are just your Janet and John ordinary skinks; they\u2019re not protected. But they all said, \u201CHow can we do the best thing for them?\u201D And they said, \u201CMove them in May, because with the breeding cycles and mating habits, this is the safest time of year to move them.\u201D But, for more than six months, they have been held up because they can\u2019t get the wildlife permit that they need. So not only are we missing out on houses but we\u2019re missing out on the best course of action for the animals that will be impacted. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b9dc1924-4df4-4d8f-91ec-8a0f29348308\u0022\u003EThese people are trying to do the right thing for our community. They are trying to do the right thing for our wildlife. But we just need to reset the settings to what they always were and what they were always understood to be. So I support this bill because it\u2019s sensible. Yes, it\u2019s allowing people like this, who want to build houses for us, to go and do the best thing for animals, but it\u2019s doing something even better in that it\u2019s providing houses for mums and dads and Kiwi kids right across this country. This isn\u2019t something we should be scared of. I know, over the other side, they only have one setting, which is \u201CNo.\u201D, but, actually, we can do some sensible things there, and one sensible thing would be commending this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022 data-id=\u0022b8cfbd1953c8423ba9a4e28ddf5bc0e5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b8cfbd1953c8423ba9a4e28ddf5bc0e5\u0022\u003ERACHEL BOYACK (Labour\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Speaker. I\u2019d like to just start by traversing a little bit the problem that has occurred through the court case and just talk to that\u2014because I do want to put on record from the Labour Party the challenges that have appeared as a result of the court case ruling in March\u2014and then talk to some of the concerns that we have, including around the process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003EAs people will be aware, there was a court case that found that permits that had been issued were potentially unlawful. The particular thing that was found was that the killing of wildlife needed to have a nexus or a connection with the protection for wildlife that is found in the Act, and so there was that inconsistency found in the application of the Wildlife Act. What that has meant is that there is some uncertainty\u2014and we accept that, in the Labour Party. There is some legal uncertainty for the permitholders, especially because a number of those permits have been granted for a long period of time, and this has been what has been in operation for around 20 years or so. So we accept that that point is a real legal point that has occurred, but what we don\u2019t accept on this side of the House is that we can\u2019t take a short period of time to examine this in great detail in a select committee process. That is the point that we have some real concerns around. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003EThere are a number of good legal experts out there who work in this area, but there are also a lot of organisations that work in this area that I would like to be able to ask questions of. I mentioned a constituent of mine in my previous speech, who I often bump into because he flies around New Zealand from Nelson, doing really important work surveying where lizards are prior to roadworks and other operations taking place. He\u2019s exactly the kind of person I would like to be able to sit down with and actually talk to about this bill, but we don\u2019t have the opportunity to do that. He is the actual expert on this, but we don\u2019t get to hear from him. We don\u2019t get to ask some questions around how we could make the bill workable, because he\u2019s a person who works, obviously, to identify where lizards are so that prior to work happening, mitigating steps can be taken to protect them. He has the expertise, but he also has a strong understanding of how the permit process works and that interaction with the likes of the New Zealand Transport Agency. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003EI\u2019m frustrated that I\u2019m not, as a member of Parliament, able to make a good decision here in the House, because that is what the public of New Zealand expects us to do. They expect us to make good decisions based on evidence. They don\u2019t expect us to turn up here with one day\u2019s notice on an urgent bill that\u2019s actually an important matter. Protecting our wildlife, our native species, is an important matter. It speaks to who we are as New Zealanders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003EHaving the Government members getting up and passionately giving their short calls about particular projects\u2014that\u2019s fine. But you actually have to think about what could be the unintended consequences of the way that the bill has been drafted\u2014and we will get to that in the committee stage. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003EThe other point I wanted to note is the retrospective part of this. Whenever we are making legislation that has retroactive application, we should take more care. We should give more scrutiny to it, and that is a principle that is important in this House. When we are looking at decisions that have been previously made and then we take urgent action to change that, we actually need to take more time to do due diligence on it, and that\u2019s a principle that I\u2019m concerned this House is abandoning tonight. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003EWe will get the opportunity during the committee stage to interrogate the Minister, but, again, that does not satisfy us in terms of being able to hear from experts and from stakeholders, and to hear from the officials who have drafted this legislation and their intent. From the way that the clauses have been written, we can\u2019t engage with the Parliamentary Counsel Office on that, for example. I think that that is an error, and so I do not commend this bill to the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d4f894dc-da63-4b45-9c2a-c07b41a65e64\u0022 data-id=\u00223eb562eedec54d7d85ec5a91f23fecc1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d4f894dc-da63-4b45-9c2a-c07b41a65e64\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223eb562eedec54d7d85ec5a91f23fecc1\u0022\u003EDr VANESSA WEENINK (National\u2014Banks Peninsula):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Speaker. It\u2019s an honour to speak in support of the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill. In my electorate of Banks Peninsula, we\u2019re currently still in a state of emergency in parts of the electorate, and I think that that really highlights the fact that, actually, climate impact is here right now. We have to be able to do everything that we can to mitigate and protect against that. One of the things we need to do is adapt: build houses in different places, we need to be able to build wind farms and solar farms, and other ways of producing energy. When we have processes that block the way, we need to clear them out. This is a pragmatic way of setting back the rules to the way they were expected for the last 20-odd years or more. I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022 data-id=\u0022723b8c4b0d6b469ea1754c23e98dac2b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022723b8c4b0d6b469ea1754c23e98dac2b\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B):\u003C/span\u003E This is not my area of specialty, but I have been listening to the debate and I have yet to hear, from any of the contributions, any kind of credible justification for the fact that this bill is being pushed through under urgency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EI have to mention the fact that pretty much all of the time of the House today has been spent debating a momentous piece of legislation, the theft by the Government of a massive amount of wealth of this country that is owed to women workers and has been taken from those people through this Government\u2019s destruction of years of work that has been done on pay equity. It\u2019s an absolute scandal that that was pushed through this House under urgency, a real travesty of democracy. Now, you can\u2019t make the same claim about this modest Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill, but nevertheless, why\u2014why\u2014is this being pushed through under urgency? What possible justification is there? Goodness knows we spend enough time in this Parliament fixing the mistakes caused by rushing law in an ill-considered way through the legislative process, and yet here we are doing it again. This Government is addicted to pushing through legislation under urgency with no reason.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EI was the transport Minister for part of the time that the Mt Messenger road was in gestation, and it was a cause of great frustration to me at the time that we weren\u2019t able to make more progress more quickly. After my time, David Parker, as transport Minister, was the one who signed off with the conservation Minister the permit that allowed the incidental killing of wildlife that was a necessary corollary of the construction of that road. That is the story, really, that underpins this debate tonight. Labour is supporting the bill, albeit with reservations, and fundamentally about the process\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b7987c0b8d8a40af8e262c2de86c21f7\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: No, you\u2019re not. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224815e9a831f14776bb776f537e90c48f\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, aren\u2019t we? OK, sorry\u2014I misspoke; I misspoke. We have fundamental reservations about the process associated with this bill. There has been no consultation. It\u2019s clear that, because it\u2019s going through under urgency, there will be no real scrutiny, no expert opinion, and no opportunity for the public to have their say on this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EPutting aside the rhetoric in the debate tonight, the competing claims of who has killed the most rodents, who is the most pro-development\u2014the constant sort of enthusing from the Government benches that they are the most pro-development, they want to see the most houses built, the most roads built\u2014there is a basic truth that underpins this bill, and that is: we do have to be able to build infrastructure, we do have to be able to build roads, we do have to be able to build houses and industrial development, and from time to time, that will have a negative impact on our environment. When that infrastructure does actually cause habitat destruction, where it cannot be built without the incidental killing of wildlife, there needs to be an evidence-based and a considered decision-making process so that the right trade-offs can be made.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EI don\u2019t think New Zealanders want to see development at all costs; New Zealanders prize our natural environment, they want to see it protected; they don\u2019t want to see, whether it\u2019s a frog or a bat or any other native species, the unnecessary loss of our biodiversity. What this bill does is return to the status quo before the court case that stopped the progress on Mt Messenger and the permit that was issued there. That\u2019s all very well, but we need to know that this mechanism will work, that it won\u2019t actually end up creating more legal uncertainty, and because of the very poor, rushed process associated with this bill, it\u2019s very hard to have that confidence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002294b52412-f97b-4bbd-8009-5dc49520f7f4\u0022 data-id=\u00225297a9a576d042bb8595b68a66631e8c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002294b52412-f97b-4bbd-8009-5dc49520f7f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225297a9a576d042bb8595b68a66631e8c\u0022\u003ERYAN HAMILTON (National\u2014Hamilton East):\u003C/span\u003E The reason why we\u2019re doing it under urgency is because we just can\u2019t wait any more. We don\u2019t want development to be in limbo. This country\u2019s been in limbo for too long. And if all else fails, I\u2019ll go to the bill where it actually says, \u201CThe Bill ensures that activities, such as development and infrastructure projects, and conservation work, such as pest control, do not cause permanent harm to the viability of protected species.\u201D I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001289\u0022\u003EBill read a second time.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022 data-id=\u00229ff78225f8324c2db456563e8e9bd2d5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229ff78225f8324c2db456563e8e9bd2d5\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for the consideration of the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ce98cd91847c419d80fe582a1faea80a\u0022\u003EIn Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d28e89149f87499a9eda7950b03a65fb\u0022\u003EPart 1  Amendments about authorisations\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022 data-id=\u00227516ff479e29481b990c22d286b2393b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227516ff479e29481b990c22d286b2393b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the House is in committee on the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clause 4, \u201CAmendments about authorisations\u201D. The question is that Part 1 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022 data-id=\u002272adbb3b686c4764b3571d15226ce17d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002272adbb3b686c4764b3571d15226ce17d\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it would be very useful for the Minister of Conservation to go through this part very carefully with us. As you just said, we\u2019re just talking about one clause, clause 4. But this is a very important clause\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002244967dc4-6cc7-4567-b8ef-cc3a9b354544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a70b4f8bf5f14d508922b6e47fe4572d\u0022\u003EGrant McCallum\u003C/span\u003E: Very short clause.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c8a3053fe46340368bfe2ca4a5990c65\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014and where we\u2019re talking\u2014the member opposite is saying it\u2019s a very short clause. It\u2019s not a short clause. It\u2019s a couple of pages clause, but it is only a couple of pages. So I think the Minister will have time to go through it with us slowly and deliberately. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003ESo this is inserting some new provisions after section 53 and what my questions will be about is how these new provisions interact with each other. Section 53 of the Act is not being amended and that says, \u201CThe Director-General may authorise taking or killing of wildlife for certain purposes.\u201D Then it goes on to say, \u201CThe Director-General may from time to time in writing authorise any specified person to catch alive or kill for any purpose approved by the Director-General any absolutely protected or partially protected wildlife or any game or any other species of wildlife the hunting or killing of which is not for the time being permitted.\u201D So that is a very wide power that is given in section 53. Section 53 has not been amended by this bill, but it\u2019s important because the context is there, setting up that the director-general can make an authorisation to kill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EThen we know we\u2019ve had this case with the Mt Messenger Bypass where the judge said, \u201CI\u201D\u2014the judge\u2014\u201Chave to look at what the Supreme Court has said in the shark diving case.\u201D That is that we have to import the purpose of the bill, which is about protecting wildlife, into that section. So a decision maker using this section can\u2019t just look at the words by themselves and go, \u201COh, I can do whatever I like.\u201D It\u2019s got to be in the context of making a decision that is consistent with the scheme of the Act. So, hopefully, nobody\u2019s disputing what I\u2019ve just said\u2014setting out, that is, section 53.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EWhat this bill is then doing in clause 4 is inserting a whole lot of other things which the Government will say is for clarity and is to allow an authority under that section 53 to kill wildlife incidentally. I\u2019ll ask questions about the relationship of section 53 to section 71 later\u2014well, my colleagues might\u2014but now if we go through section 53A which is being inserted after section 53, which is the director-general can make a decision. Then it says\u2014and there are a whole lot of terms here that I would like the Minister to focus on. So it starts with \u201CWithout limiting section 53\u201D, the section 53 that is very broad and that we\u2019re about to limit in the subsequent sections. Why is that phrase there: \u201Cwithout limiting section 53\u201D? Surely the whole purpose of what comes after in clause 4 is to limit section 53.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003ESo then it\u2019s \u201CThe Director-General may grant an authority\u201D\u2014so it\u2019s discretionary, that makes sense\u2014\u201Cthat authorises the killing of wildlife that is incidental\u201D. Then for it to be incidental it has to be, \u201Cis not directly intended but is unavoidable and foreseeable as a consequence of carrying out the lawful activity.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003ESo there is a question in here as well about what sort of activities has the Minister received advice on that would be both unavoidable and foreseeable? So that\u2019s one question. The other question on 53A is, why is the phrase \u201Cwithout limiting section 53\u201D there when the whole scheme seems to be to limit to section 53?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EBut then we move on to these other clauses, and I think we\u2019ll probably have to spend a bit of time on those, so I\u2019ll come back to them in a moment if the Minister is of a mind to answer those first two points.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223ef0b8b30c914fb5b2c91c538595794f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Take your next call while the Minister is debating.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225230593f6e4e48819f0aaf294393b552\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. The question is about the set-up and the consistency of these different clauses together. We then have section 53B inserted by clause 4, which is \u201CTo avoid doubt, the Director-General may grant an authority referred to in 53A only if it is consistent with the protection of wildlife.\u201D That \u201Conly\u201D seems to be very important and seems to be a limitation on section 53. The \u201Conly if it is consistent with the protection of wildlife\u201D does also seem to be incorporating that Supreme Court shark case and the more recent one. So I\u2019d like the Minister to comment on the word \u201Conly\u201D there and tell me if he agrees that this is the very important clause that incorporates that case law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EBut then we go to section 53B(2). It\u2019s that \u201CThe authority is to be treated as consistent with the protection of wildlife\u201D\u2014which is the only\u2014\u201Cif in granting it, the Director-General is satisfied that its overall effect would be consistent with the protection of populations and individual wildlife.\u201D So it appears then we\u2019ve got this at subsection (1), only if it\u2019s consistent with protection of wildlife. But, actually, then it says at subsection (2) that it\u2019s not what we might all think is the protection of wildlife, it\u2019s the overall effect. So what then? How do you interpret an overall effect?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EThen we go to subsection (3), which is about that overall effect. So when \u201CIn determining whether\u00A0the overall effect of the authority would be consistent with the protection of [a population] of wildlife rather than the individual wildlife\u201D\u2014and both are to be considered\u2014\u201Cthe Director-General must have regard to (a) any potential adverse effects of the lawful activity on (i) [the] populations \u2026 and; the viability of the species to which that wildlife belongs; and (b) the extent to which the authority addresses those potential adverse effects;\u201D, and any other matters.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EWhat sort of circumstances are foreseen then in the drafting of this that we have\u2014you\u2019ve got to protect the wildlife, but we\u2019re diluting that by talking about an overall effect and then there could be potential adverse effects on those populations of wildlife. So what sort of adverse effect would be acceptable on that population of wildlife that somehow isn\u2019t an overall effect? That\u2019s the question here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EBut then we go on to subsection (4), and \u201CThe Director-General may be satisfied that the overall effect of the authority would be consistent with the protection of the individual wildlife\u201D\u2014so until we hear about individual wildlife rather than populations, subsection (3) is about populations; subsection (4) is about individuals\u2014\u201Conly if satisfied that the holder of the authority will take reasonable steps \u2026 to avoid, minimise, and mitigate the adverse effects of the lawful authority on the individual wildlife.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003ENow, this again seems to be a dilution of the general idea of protection of individual wildlife because that \u201Cavoid, minimise, and mitigate any adverse effects\u201D is a hierarchy that we see in the Resource Management Act (RMA). There is case law in the Resource Management Act to say it is a hierarchy. That you have to do the avoiding first and if you can\u2019t do the avoiding, then you do the minimising and then you do the mitigating. So that is the hierarchy in the RMA.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003ESo another question here is: does this hierarchy of effects from the RMA\u2014is that supposed to apply here in this Act as well? But if it does\u2014or even if it doesn\u2019t\u2014why would we only be looking at mitigating adverse effects that may have something to do with an overall effect and a negative impact on the viability of an individual animal? So that\u2019s another question. Then we go to\u2014[Time expired].\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022 data-id=\u002296b9ad1b4fb74d39a08d96a266ad512e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002296b9ad1b4fb74d39a08d96a266ad512e\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you. Look, really pleased to be able to speak to this tonight and get some really, hopefully, clear answers from the Minister with such an important bill that has such a change in the full purpose of the Wildlife Act. So I really want to start at that broader level where Part 1 starts to unpick it, because right here already in Part 1 it\u2019s talking about the \u201CAuthority may be granted under section 53 to kill wildlife incidentally\u201D. So this is new section 53A in clause 4.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003ENow, in general, what I would really like to hear from the Minister\u2014and, Madam Chair, should I continue when the Minister\u2019s talking to officials?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db04a74dc2144665869b61ba05223aa1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah. Just ask the question. We can pass them on. Yeah, the officials are listening too.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002289af761de20c4d8a8c1a7da1e3885c1c\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM\u003C/span\u003E: OK, great. Thank you. So, initially, I would be really interested to hear from the Minister why he and his Government feel that the Department of Conservation (DOC) actually needs\u2014that there is a requirement and a justification for them to actually authorise the killing of protected species. I ask that question because the Wildlife Act, as I understand it, already includes a defence to prosecution. It applies to anyone already who kills protected wildlife unintentionally, so long as they took all reasonable steps to avoid it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003ENow, this to me seems like a better situation to be in, simply because of the fact that these amendments will be changing the entire purpose and implementation of the Wildlife Act in a way that is no longer protective. The whole point of the Wildlife Act is the protection of wildlife. This change, quite contrary to the claims of making sure there is certainty and protection for developers or anyone who\u2019s carrying out activities\u2014which, by the way, is something we all want. We know that there are situations where this unintentional killing happens and we\u2019re simply asking: what is the pragmatic way to do this?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003ENow, the Government should not be putting the Director-General of Conservation in this situation to actually be in the position of permitting the killing of protected species. This is really tricky. This, in terms of actually reading the situation, could cause the uncertainty that this Government is actually trying to fix. As far as I\u2019m aware\u2014and my understanding of this, and I\u2019d love more information about it, because there\u2019s no regulatory impact assessment, there\u2019s no experts that are coming in\u2014DOC are the prosecuting authority when it comes to situations under the Wildlife Act where, for example, unintentional killing or deliberate killing takes place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003ENow, because they have this prosecution responsibility\u2014and, as far as I understand, no other authority does\u2014why then, again, to the Minister, does the justification exist to complicate the Wildlife Act and change its purpose from so clearly being protective to suddenly having these additional authorisations that actually change it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003ENow, the preliminary commentary in the bill kind of touches on this. It seems just blatantly wrong. It says it \u201Crestores the regulatory approach that had been taken by the Department before the judgment.\u201D, and that it \u201Cenables the Director-General to continue to authorise the killing of wildlife\u201D. Now, as far as I\u2019m aware, that is categorically wrong because the director-general has never been able to do that. That is what the High Court decision was saying. This change in legislation will now be the first time that this is put into the Act and therefore complicates the purpose and the implementation of the Act. I would really like some clear answers from the Minister about that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022 data-id=\u00224b3bda9ea1df4ca288da78bcf96107fc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224b3bda9ea1df4ca288da78bcf96107fc\u0022\u003ERACHEL BOYACK (Labour\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m going to continue with a series of questions that continue on from where my colleagues have begun, because what is really obvious reading through the existing section of the bill\u2014so section 53\u2014and the new sections being inserted is that is becoming more complicated. So I have a lot of questions for the Minister about how these clauses\u2014because my prediction is that if this passes in its current form, it\u2019s going to create even more legal uncertainty, and so the winners of this are going to be the lawyers and the courts who are going to spend even more time going through to interpret it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003ESo if I read out 53 from the Act: \u201CThe Director-General may from time to time in writing authorise any specified person to catch alive or kill for any purpose approved by the Director-General any absolutely protected or partially protected wildlife or any game or any other species of wildlife the hunting or killing of which is not for the time being permitted.\u201D Now, what the High Court found was that they took that section and then considered it alongside the purpose of the Act around wildlife and protecting species as a whole. So it said there needed to be a nexus or a connection between the two Acts. What has now happened is instead of amending section 53, it\u2019s added section 53A and 53B and 53C, so what the Department of Conservation is going to have to do and the director-general is going to have to do, and then, ultimately, the courts are going to have to do is read those two sections together, which creates the complication. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003EI\u2019m just going to basically refer back to what I just read out and the pieces where I think we\u2019re talking about them; really complicated parts, now. If you look at 53B(1)\u2014well, 53B talks about the consistency with the protection of wildlife. So, again, we\u2019ve got that piece that actually caused the High Court case in the first place, which was the interaction between 53(1) and the purpose of the Act, and we\u2019ve actually gone and added the purpose of the Act part in here. So, in my reading of it, it actually looks like we\u2019re reinforcing and accepting the court\u2019s decision and putting it\u2014my colleague Lan Pham has made this point. But my reading of it, the reason I want to raise it again is that we\u2019ve got to hear from the Minister because when the courts are interpreting this, they will read the Hansard to see the Parliament\u2019s intent, and if we don\u2019t have the Parliament\u2019s intent from the Minister on the Hansard, we are going to have court cases coming out the wazoo, actually.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003ENo, I haven\u2019t finished; I\u2019m going to go to another piece. Sorry, I\u2019ve got a lot more questions; I\u2019ve only just started, sorry. If I then look to 53B(2). To me, this goes on about the interpretation of that piece about the protection of wildlife. Now, the protection of wildlife, if you consider the actual bill, is mostly talking about the species as a whole. What it does in 53B(2) is says \u201CThe authority is to be treated as consistent with the protection of wildlife if, in granting it, the Director-General is satisfied that its overall effect would be consistent with the protection of\u2014(a) populations of wildlife; and\u2026individual wildlife.\u201D It\u2019s not \u201Cor\u201D. It\u2019s not looking only at the species; it\u2019s actually looking at each individual piece of wildlife and the population of wildlife as a whole. To me that feels stronger than what we currently have in the Act, potentially. That\u2019s my question to the Minister: is it actually making it even harder than what the bill wording currently says and which led to the court judgment?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003EAgain, I say we need to have this on the record and in some detail because lawyers will be combing through this, NGOs will be combing through it, and that\u2019ll then be leading to court cases. So I\u2019m really concerned. I have some more questions, but I\u2019m actually, I mean\u2014the drafting, and I say this with respect, I mean the actual Act is a hot mess, in terms of its writing. But it\u2019s confusing in its writing, especially when you put the two together. So I\u2019m going to have to sit down. I\u2019ve got some more questions around 53B that I\u2019m going to come back to in a future call. And it looks like the Minister may finally have an answer for us.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022 data-id=\u0022ba274c697d8848458bbe967a7e480d1b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ba274c697d8848458bbe967a7e480d1b\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation):\u003C/span\u003E Madam Chair, thank you for this opportunity to respond to some of the inquiries and questions. You know, our forefathers and foremothers in this House many years ago saw the importance of protecting wildlife but also the pragmatism that must go with protecting wildlife. For example, the bovine tuberculosis TBfree kaupapa, which a good friend, Minister Hoggard, and others look after, and also the building of roads and, more latterly, renewable infrastructure, that is well supported across the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EBut that pragmatism required for protecting wildlife enabled the incidental killing, with the appropriate conditions\u2014reasonableness, hierarchy of effects that apply within that\u2014to enable that incidental killing to take place. So we should be absolutely clear about the intentions of this Government to continue to protect wildlife by way of the Wildlife Act and the authorisations that go with it, to ensure that the existing authorities are validated, that the understanding over many, many decades, not only under National conservation Ministers but also those from the Green Party and the Labour Party\u2014we enable new authorities to be issued. The wording that has been proposed enables this as a set of targeted amendments as a solution for a very narrow court decision that has created uncertainty, ambiguity, and the need for assurance across both environmental and economic activities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003ENow, we can all admit and acknowledge that the Wildlife Act is old and creaky, and matters such as the defences will be looked at in any comprehensive review. It\u2019s not timely for that right now. What\u2019s timely is a set of targeted amendments for the immediate issue that we have at hand and, of course, restoring, by way of these targeted amendments, the understanding on the status quo prior to the court decision. Whilst there has been comment around the complications that are perceived to arise from the proposed amendments, I think that those amendments that have been proposed are very clear\u2014very clear about the intentions of this Government and soon to be, I intend, this Parliament to ensure that the Wildlife Act is focused on protecting wildlife but captures the intent, the pragmatic intent, of our forefathers and foremothers in this fine House to ensure that incidental killing can take place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EYes, the director-general has been authorising the incidental killing of species over many, many years\u2014a couple of decades, in fact, within the ministerial leadership of conservation Ministers from different musters and parties of this House. The director-general can set conditions, and that\u2019s why we have this hierarchy of effects set out in new section 53B(4), inserted by clause 4. That\u2019s why we have the \u201Cavoid, minimise, and mitigate any adverse effects\u201D phrase set out in that subsection. Of course, it must be consistent with species protection at a species level, not just at an individual animal level. That\u2019s what we are focused on this evening.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s a whole range of organisations that are involved in upholding and satisfying conditions within authorisations that are issued under this Act, whether or not they are infrastructure developers, pest controllers, kaimahi out on the conservation and other estates throughout the country, acting in a manner to uphold the TBfree aspirations. They do sometimes, and foreseeably, kill wildlife; that has been undertaken for many, many years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022 data-id=\u00221ca75582b81c4b6cb318b6edeb5ff334\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221ca75582b81c4b6cb318b6edeb5ff334\u0022\u003EHon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the questions that my colleagues have asked going to the heart of clause 4, and new section 53 and the different parts of section 53A, B, and C, because there is no appeals process in the Wildlife Act. So if Parliament doesn\u2019t get this right tonight, then the only recourse again is judicial review. So it is important that we nut out some of the detail. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EI don\u2019t agree with what the Minister said at the start that this clarifies the process, and I think as many of us have been reading the detail it actually muddies the waters, and that\u2019s why we\u2019re drilling into the detail of section 53A, B, and C in relation to the existing section 71, and how those parts interact with section 71.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EHowever, I want to zoom out a little bit in my line of questioning, and I do have a number of detailed questions as well for the Minister, but I want to zoom out a little. The fact that we\u2019re doing this under urgency, the fact that we don\u2019t have a select committee process tonight\u2014the Minister has been quoted in the media, pointing to the legal uncertainty that exists as a result of the March 2025 High Court ruling, and he talks about the different projects that have been given permits by the Department of Conservation (DOC) and are coming through the pipeline as well and the fact that they might have to wait a little bit before conducting the construction work and the rest of what\u2019s required for those projects. But that doesn\u2019t necessarily mean a process of passing this bill, all stages under urgency with absolutely no select committee process. It could have been, as we\u2019ve pointed out already, one or two weeks. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003ESo I\u2019d really like a bit more of a rationale from the Minister in terms of what are those projects? What is the urgency there? What would have happened if we had had one or two weeks of a select committee process to consider and to hear from those who\u2019ve been working for many years on reviewing and redrafting the Wildlife Act in a way that permissions granted through section 53 are more robust. So that is my first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EI would also like to know: what are some of the other options that the Minister has considered? So this is a piece of legislation that\u2019s come to us under urgency that fixes\u2014well, it doesn\u2019t actually fix anything because what it does is, essentially, disagree with the High Court ruling and to return the interpretation of the Act to what DOC had interpreted it as before the High Court ruling. So it kind of reverts to earlier practice. The High Court ruling pointed out that those permits that were granted were not in accordance with the purpose of the Act, which was to protect biodiversity. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003ESo I\u2019d like to know from the Minister: which part of that High Court ruling does he disagree with? Why has the Minister decided to take an approach that is, frankly, reasonably sloppy? All it does is revert. It doesn\u2019t improve the Wildlife Act at all. The principal purpose of the Wildlife Act is to protect biodiversity. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EOthers have pointed out, and I agree, that this particular piece of legislation dilutes the very purpose of that Act. So why? What were some of the alternatives? We don\u2019t have a regulatory impact statement, so we can\u2019t consider that. There is no proactively released Cabinet paper, so we don\u2019t actually know what the rationale was or what the Minister\u2019s thinking was in landing here, where we\u2019ve landed today. What were some of the other alternatives or options that officials might have provided to the Minister? What has been considered and why was, then, the decision to land on just this one targeted piece of legislation that, frankly, doesn\u2019t clarify the purpose of the Act any better and muddies the waters even further?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve got a couple of questions also around section 53A, B, and C specifically, but for now, the other question that I\u2019ll leave the Minister with is this: the Environmental Defence Society, for example, has done a fair bit of work on what a review of the Wildlife Act could look like. It\u2019s quite a lengthy document. One part of that was to actually bring in an appeals process. Were those sorts of considerations things that the Minister looked at when looking at how to improve the Wildlife Act, or was it just to revert to behaviour that the High Court has actually ruled against and said is not in accordance with the principal purpose of this Act?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EI would like to come back, though, to some of the questions that I have, specifically around section 53, as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022 data-id=\u00222140ff3512ae4e0d93ac7a27fb3e2792\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222140ff3512ae4e0d93ac7a27fb3e2792\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to talk. I\u2019m hoping the Minister\u2019s going to give more in-depth and substantive answers in the course of this process, because there are a lot of serious questions here and we\u2019ve got a piece of legislation that has not had any external consultation on it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003EThe questions that my colleague has just been asking about the advice the Minister has received would be very useful to hear. I have a few relatively quick questions on that, in a general sense. What advice has the Minister received on how this bill aligns with New Zealand\u2019s international conservation treaty obligations? How do other jurisdictions deal with this challenge of incidental killings and development processes?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002262828428-6565-42b4-bd4d-fa3b12531f88\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f40adf79aa8b463ca34cc66372a533dc\u0022\u003ESimon Court\u003C/span\u003E: Good question, Mr Abel.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a3a62ce261fb420b9394ea8fd1cffbe4\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Court. And how do they grapple with this problem of a piece of legislation like a Wildlife Act, whose primary purpose is to protect wildlife, and then a conservation authority being given the task of issuing permits to go against the purpose of the Wildlife Act\u2014the primary purpose\u2014which is what has been deemed to have been unlawful by the court?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003EJust while I remember, the Minister said that for 20 years these unlawful permits have been issued. I wonder, given the Wildlife Act has been around for best part of 70 years, or more, what was done prior to 20 years ago when roads were being built and other forms of development being enacted, which would have involved incidental killing of wildlife. I think this perhaps captures the nub of our question here: is the action taken in this legislation necessary? Were those permits that have been issued for 20 years even necessary? That is the speculation of the Environment Law Initiative, that perhaps it wasn\u2019t even a necessary measure to take.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003EMy other question, in a general sense, is: how has Te Tiriti o Waitangi been considered in the drafting of these provisions, particularly regarding customary wildlife protections? As my colleague T\u0101kuta Ferris was pointing out in his earlier speech, these are taonga species we\u2019re talking about. Those species that are absolutely protected by the Wildlife Act include kiwi, kea whio, t\u016B\u012B, fantail, p\u012Bwakawaka, toroa, tuatara, jewelled gecko, moko k\u0101k\u0101riki, Hochstetter\u2019s frog, Archie\u2019s frog, long-tailed and short-tailed bats, flat snails, and many other species. Numerous species\u2014manta ray, basking sharks, and sea turtles.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003EFinally, in terms of broader questions: what opportunity was provided for stakeholder engagement, both tangata whenua stakeholder engagement, in terms of those customary wildlife protections, but also engagement between iwi, conservation, and non-governmental organisations? What consideration was given to the perspectives of how to reasonably manage this challenge of incidental killings? It\u2019s obviously a thing that we\u2019ve been grappling with for some time, and, in fact, one would argue\u2014and it hasn\u2019t really been answered by the Minister yet\u2014that it\u2019s covered already by section 68AB of the Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003EA key question I\u2019ve got on new section 53A, in clause 4\u2014now that we get to the key parts of Part 1 after those broader questions\u2014is: how does it not weaken the protective purpose of the Act to make these changes to Part 1? The clear intention of the Act is to protect wildlife. So I\u2019d just like a very straightforward answer from the Minister: how can it not possibly weaken that protective purpose? Is there not a risk, Minister, that these provisions will create a more permissive killing regime under the guise of being incidental killing? When you have issued a licence to kill or an authority to kill species incidentally, have you not therefore created a circumstance where there will be a more laissez faire attitude to the possible impact of activities that have been undertaken in the process of development? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003ETo give an example that specifically could relate to the Mount Messenger bypass example, say one is building a road and comes across a large mature native tree species where, because of bat surveys, one is highly aware there are likely to be endangered native bats living, but you\u2019re talking about a very large tree. If there was not an authority to kill but a requirement to meet the obligations of the Wildlife Act and protect those species, then greater effort may be taken to relocate them. Whether that relocation would be successful or not is another question, because obviously where a species has been relocated and, in the process of that relocation, one of them dies, who is going to be prosecuting somebody for that? It is not credible that that\u2019s going to be happening, but it is credible that when presented with the challenge of a large tree that has bats at the top of it in a nice woody rotten knot, if the operator has a licence to kill, they may as well just knock that tree down and incidentally kill those species. They will not take that extra effort.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003EUnder a direct interpretation of the Act, through working with the Department of Conservation, a given developer could take all necessary steps or reasonable steps to protect species. But is there not a risk, Minister, that you\u2019re creating a more permissive regime for developers to be more reckless in their efforts or less concerned in their efforts to protect wildlife, because they\u2019ve already got a ticket that says they can incidentally kill wildlife and they get to say when they\u2019ve done that? Realistically, Minister, who is going to be watching every single day of work on a given project to make sure that the killing that was incidental was legitimately incidental? How will the monitoring and how will the actual observation be taken to make sure that it is appropriate incidental killing?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003EAnother question I\u2019ve got regarding new section 53A is: why is there a difference between a foreseen but undesired killing of a native species and a foreseen but supposedly desired killing? I sort of infer that what is being got at here is the difference between direct and indirect intention, but both have the same effect and neither is protective. So, in meeting the requirement of any legitimate activity that is incidental and the purpose of the Act to protect wildlife, why is there a difference between foreseen but undesired killing and foreseen but supposedly desired killing?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003EHow is the authority to kill wildlife incidentally consistent with the purpose of the Act? That\u2019s another part of that same question of how does it not weaken the protective purpose of the Act. How is the authority to kill wildlife incidentally consistent with the purpose of the Act? The reason I ask that question, Minister, is because I think it will help take us on the mental journey through the deeper question of what the purpose of the Wildlife Act is and how these changes in new section 53A fundamentally, in my proposition, undermine that purpose in a way that ties the legislation in knots, frankly, and makes a real mess for the Department of Conservation to deal with and the courts to deal with in the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003EI actually think that this legislation has the potential to create a lot more headaches for the courts and for the department. Thank you. I hope you can answer some of those questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022 data-id=\u0022f608a57e00964a74becf0a20f9defd5b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f608a57e00964a74becf0a20f9defd5b\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. It feels like I\u2019m not unlike a hobbit that I\u2019m on an intrepid journey this evening. In response to the comments by my colleague Mr Abel and the question that was posed: \u201CHow does it not weaken the protective purpose of the Act?\u201D, we all understand that the key purpose of the Wildlife Act is to protect wildlife. But without the ability to grant authorisations, Te Papa Atawhai\u2014the Department of Conservation\u2014will not be able to properly regulate and ensure the protection of wildlife.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThere is a question posed or offered regarding the international obligations. I\u2019ll just refer to the Convention on Biological Diversity; our view is that the actions that are being taken\u2014the provisions of this bill, as proposed\u2014are consistent with that set of international obligations because we are able to clarify and reinforce already established conservation processes and balance protection and human wildlife interactions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThere was a comment about how these provisions are muddying the waters. Members opposite offered those comments\u2014albeit that my view is that the only waters that are being muddied at the moment are the convection and the complications that the members are introducing to this discussion in the committee of the whole House. Government can disagree with High Court rulings. I mean, talk about the 2003 foreshore and seabed matter as an example. But killing must relate to protecting wildlife under certain conditions. Pragmatism in these matters is very, very important. The court\u2019s view that killing must relate to protecting and there\u2019s got to be a very clear nexus does not reinforce the status quo and the understanding prior to that court decision, whereby the director-general enabled incidental killings under certain conditions. This is what is proposed to be restored under the proposed legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThere was a question posed around the options that were considered. Yes, we did consider appeal for the decision, but that would take a very long time. To be fair, we\u2019ve got to get on with a lot of mahi, whether or not that\u2019s in the environmental space, in the infrastructure space, or in the housing space that has been well trumpeted by the previous Government that also used a number of wildlife authorisations with the understanding that we\u2019re trying to restore now. Amazing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s a question about Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Well, we think this is a valid exercise of k\u0101wanatanga and we\u2019re quite comfortable in saying that and stating that. We expect many iwi have also used wildlife authorisations in their housing developments and their logistics developments at Ruakura, or Waikato-Tainui out there in Kirikiriroa\u2014city of the future. So, no doubt, there are many iwi who have endorsed the understanding that we are now seeking to restore by way of these proposed amendments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EMonitoring\u2014that was another issue that was raised. Usually, especially if you had the chance to actually read conditions of these types of authorisations and permits, there is monitoring expected. I certainly would have expected that those who have quite deep and meaningful comments this evening on these authorisations have actually taken the time to read the conditions of these types of authorisations so that their questions are informed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022 data-id=\u0022f92aadd4532044f483c637bbd64dcbd8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f92aadd4532044f483c637bbd64dcbd8\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I note that it\u2019s interesting that Government members are already seeking calls, and I hope that they will be\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222170b5bd-171f-4d9f-bfa6-cab72178f108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a5e68083f0ce4a5db436bd2860d57f65\u0022\u003EJoseph Mooney\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s been 40 minutes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002226fbb9f31c05464db6949c4ee628ce7c\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, we\u2019ve been here for 40 minutes, we hear, when we\u2019re in an all-stages urgency\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ffbcf4a5b0534cd995061a1174a09e39\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Can I just get the Clerk to stop the clock. At the moment, the 40-minute call is\u2014this is a bill under urgency and there has been no select committee, so we\u2019re not focusing on the 40 minutes. We\u2019re focusing on the questions from the members to the Minister. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022de495f9abdc442ae832ed4f383bd3d56\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair, for that reassurance. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EI asked the Minister of Conservation a lot of questions about the meanings of words and how it is that these different clauses in front of us, on these two pages, are consistent in how they relate to each other, and he did not answer that question. I heard him say one thing that was useful, and that was when he said that there is a hierarchy when you have the avoid, minimise, and mitigate, and that is supposed to be a hierarchy. That\u2019s useful to have on the Hansard. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EI also heard him say in answer to, I think, Rachel Boyack that the decisions have to be made both about species, he said, and individual wildlife. I do want the Minister to clarify that statement, because what this bill talks about is populations of wildlife, rather than species. Populations of wildlife are a subset of the species, so I presume the Minister\u2019s point was just that there is an \u201Cand\u201D in new section 53B(2) in clause 4, between paragraph (a) and paragraph (b)\u2014\u201C(a) populations of wildlife; and (b) individual wildlife.\u201D\u2014and the statement about species wasn\u2019t to denigrate from the word \u201Cpopulations\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003ENow, just in that last contribution, the Minister said something about there\u2019s got to be a nexus with the protection of wildlife for this, and I\u2019m not asking any questions about anything outside of these clauses and how they work together. No big-picture questions here; just: how do these clauses interact? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EIt was interesting that the Acting Prime Minister in the House in question time today said in the first answer about this bill that it was to do with the culling of wildlife, and that makes some sense. If you look at it on the face of it and you think that section 53 in the Wildlife Act says that you can consent to killing, but then there\u2019s a big \u201Cbut\u201D added in these new clauses and we\u2019ve got to look at the overall effect\u2014but, clearly, we\u2019ve then heard other Ministers say that, no, a whole lot of this is to enable a whole lot of other activity, as well, and that it\u2019s not just about culling. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EThe Minister has just said, \u201COh well, everybody should read the conditions of these wildlife permits.\u201D Well, it would be useful if he could take us through where he thinks the thresholds are and if he can go back to saying why new section 53A(1) says, \u201CWithout limiting section 53,\u201D. Does section 53 itself need to change, because it\u2019s not changed with this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EBut where I was getting to before, before I lost my call, was subsection (5) of new section 53B in clause 4\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222170b5bd-171f-4d9f-bfa6-cab72178f108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228d0f779f1d804e01b79a47de7fc6cca7\u0022\u003EJoseph Mooney\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s only 314 words. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223eef42e9501f482894981388b8a5ef56\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014and that was that \u201CIn granting the authority, the Director-General is not required to be satisfied\u201D\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222170b5bd-171f-4d9f-bfa6-cab72178f108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223c97149100e64412956fd12784ba6aec\u0022\u003EJoseph Mooney\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019re debating 314 words\u2014314 words. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c7e2b2a4df6843988700958b363ebd8c\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m sorry, Madam Chair, but I can\u2019t concentrate at the moment on this because I am so angry that members on the Government backbenches are heckling with things I can\u2019t hear when we do not have a select committee process. I am being criticised for going through the words in these clauses, which are very important, and I would ask that\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222170b5bd-171f-4d9f-bfa6-cab72178f108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002223ef20a8e9ec41879fcdaf2037f40c36\u0022\u003EJoseph Mooney\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s 314 words. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a9347f09f1a74afeaa8840016238c4ea\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: No, we\u2019ll have some respect, please. Interjections are fine. I haven\u2019t felt yet that it was a barrage, but there has been a bit of talking going on. But I do understand your question, so continue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ac7c54b59a71408699a3bfd925cb28d9\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair, and it\u2019s particularly egregious when we do not have a select committee stage that I am being heckled for asking about the words when the Minister is not answering about these exact words. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EThe Minister is giving us political answers, so the question here is that we\u2019ve got at paragraph (b) in subsection (5) that \u201Cthe Director-General is not required to be satisfied\u2014 \u2026 (b) that each individual act of killing, viewed in isolation, would be consistent with the protection of wildlife.\u201D So how does that paragraph (b) relate back to subsection (4) where it says that the director-general must be satisfied that the overall effect would be consistent with the protection of individual wildlife; how do those two subsections about the individual act of killing work together? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002262828428-6565-42b4-bd4d-fa3b12531f88\u0022 data-id=\u00227f12d379b19e48bc852c562e49692e9e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002262828428-6565-42b4-bd4d-fa3b12531f88\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227f12d379b19e48bc852c562e49692e9e\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. To the Minister of Conservation, I\u2019m really interested in your previous comments about how the management plans around effects on wildlife are actually designed to mitigate the effects and reduce the risk of harm, and that it appears that my learned colleagues in the Opposition tonight haven\u2019t adequately reflected on all of the protections that are in place. So when we consider that authority may be granted to kill wildlife incidentally, while that sounds extreme, dramatic, and really, really awful, in fact the existing management plans that are already issued for projects like Mount Messenger clarify that is certainly not the intention of the ecology, the scientific, the wildlife protection professionals who work on New Zealand\u2019s major infrastructure projects\u2014who left school, went and studied a science degree, love nature, probably spend most of their weekends in the outdoors looking for little creatures on their walks, and go to work five, six, or seven days a week to protect wildlife on the projects they work on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002262828428-6565-42b4-bd4d-fa3b12531f88\u0022\u003ESo, Minister, I\u2019m really interested, do you see that the amendments about authorisations are really intended to kill more creatures or are they in fact intended to give effect to and support the fantastic planning that already occurs? Because when I read the species-specific measures to avoid or minimise effects on bats, for example, on the Mount Messenger project, it says quite clearly that when removing vegetation, it could potentially support bat roosts, and further detail is required before this happens. The primary mechanism to avoid any harm to bats is, firstly, listening to them to see if they\u2019re in the tree, and visual inspections and ensure any trees that represent potential bat-roosting habitats are only felled if it can be confirmed they\u2019re not occupied by bats. Now, that\u2019s here in black and white in their consents that were applied for in 2017. So if having gone through all of these measures and having turned up to work, wanting to save every single creature on the project because that\u2019s what you truly believe in while you work for a business that is building infrastructure, how is it that this bill is going to do harm, Minister?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002262828428-6565-42b4-bd4d-fa3b12531f88\u0022\u003EThe way I understand it, and I\u2019d appreciate if you confirm it, it\u2019s simply confirming that best practice when it comes to managing the risks to New Zealand\u2019s precious indigenous biodiversity are simply to be accepted and recognised as lawful, rather than it being some catastrophe that is highly unlikely and certainly not intended to befall our threatened species. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022 data-id=\u00224ffdaabc33a54e9aa5134e27270174dc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224ffdaabc33a54e9aa5134e27270174dc\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Rachel Brooking\u2014no, sorry, Rachel Boyack. Apologies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022 data-id=\u0022bb66fff560b84e61a561b2a306f96d93\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bb66fff560b84e61a561b2a306f96d93\u0022\u003ERACHEL BOYACK (Labour\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair\u2014it\u2019s not the first time, that\u2019s for sure\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227030c513f3454c49bcfa46ca73ce8e55\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: No, it\u2019s not the first time; that\u2019s why I\u2019ve apologised.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002249a51a250d0c489ab73f73a6c6081334\u0022\u003ERACHEL BOYACK\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014and I\u2019m sure it won\u2019t be the last! I just want to make an initial comment, I guess in frustration, that this isn\u2019t going through a select committee process, and so a lot of the questions I\u2019m asking tonight I would normally have the opportunity to ask officials and particularly the Parliamentary Counsel Office. The reason we\u2019re going to dig into the detail and actually come back to the Minister of Conservation when the statements have been so broad and, quite frankly, vague is that we\u2019re not getting the answers, and, actually, the concerns we\u2019re raising\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002262828428-6565-42b4-bd4d-fa3b12531f88\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022817d02817a774cb4836d6d192f508754\u0022\u003ESimon Court\u003C/span\u003E: You\u2019re asking the wrong questions, that\u2019s why.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222e05ad8e5a1940d481e8f2d0c6d2a3ba\u0022\u003ERACHEL BOYACK\u003C/span\u003E: I am\u2014I\u2019ll get there, don\u2019t you worry. I\u2019ve got plenty of questions\u2014plenty of questions. There is a genuine issue to be resolved, and we accept that, but actually getting this right is important, because otherwise we\u2019re going to end up back in court\u2014like, that\u2019s my prediction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002262828428-6565-42b4-bd4d-fa3b12531f88\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b9bda94fee3841a8b9dd383c60ea0108\u0022\u003ESimon Court\u003C/span\u003E: Are you going to support the bill because it\u2019s practical?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022058872e4a3fa43f0ba9e5878a4342f49\u0022\u003ERACHEL BOYACK\u003C/span\u003E: So\u2014if you\u2019ve been listening to our speeches, you\u2019ll hear that we\u2019re not, because the process is so poor, Mr Court. So, again, I do think it\u2019s\u2014yeah\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c069cdb-968c-4f11-b126-92f9c655148b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228a1c134d8a0047a090e7f19abcb34d8b\u0022\u003EShanan Halbert\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. I think you know what I\u2019m going to say here, that, in fairness, we are here under urgency. We haven\u2019t had the opportunity to take this through select committee. There is a barrage of shouting coming down from the other end, and I\u2019d just ask that our members have the right to put our case forward, to put questions to the Minister, that he answers them in detail fairly, and that we treat this process with respect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fbbf8605e7db44f0af2eb5fb1f1237af\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Yep, and I appreciate that point of order. I didn\u2019t hear a barrage, but there definitely was a two-way transaction going on. So perhaps we\u2019ll give Rachel Boyack the opportunity to ask some clear and concise questions around what the member wants from the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220e6351b7c8af4b308d9ae2c9cade4d24\u0022\u003ERACHEL BOYACK\u003C/span\u003E: They\u2019re very detailed questions. Thank you, Madam Chair. So the first part I\u2019m going to talk to is new section 53B(2), inserted by clause 4. It says here, \u201CThe authority is to be treated as consistent with the protection of wildlife if, in granting it, the Director-General is satisfied that its overall effect would be consistent with the protection of\u2014(a) populations of wildlife; and (b) individual wildlife.\u201D The piece I\u2019m interested in is the words \u201Coverall effect\u201D. What do they mean in the context of the Act? What are we talking about? What is the definition here? I\u2019m asking specifically; I want to know: what is the definition here of \u201Coverall effect\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003E\u201CIn determining whether the overall effect of the authority would be consistent with the protection of populations of wildlife\u201D\u2014so I\u2019ve gone on to 53B(3)\u2014\u201Cthe Director-General must have regard to\u2014(a) any potential adverse effects of the lawful activity on\u2014(i) populations of wildlife\u201D\u2014and it goes on with a series of criteria. The piece that I think, when you\u2019re looking at these two pieces together, makes it really confusing is when you look at 53B(5) and it says, \u201CIn granting the authority, the Director-General is not required to be satisfied\u2014(a) that the lawful activity is itself consistent with the protection of wildlife; or (b) that each individual act of killing, viewed in isolation, would be consistent with the protection of wildlife.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003EMy question is: how does the wording of \u201Clawful activity\u201D interact with the wording of \u201Coverall effect\u201D? I understand the definition of \u201Clawful activity\u201D; we\u2019re talking about the building of a road. My understanding around the overall effect is the overall effect of the activity\u2014that\u2019s my question. It\u2019s very confusing for the reader here to understand how 53B(2) and (3) interact with 53B(5), and it\u2019s not unreasonable for us to be asking for a detailed response, because this is complex law. It\u2019s been drafted in a way that is really challenging to understand how these clauses interact with each other, particularly when you then consider the existing section 53.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003EWhen I sit in select committee, I often ask questions back again and again to actually understand how this works as a lawmaker. That is our responsibility; we are here to make law. So I am asking for the Minister to actually not talk in platitudes or not talk in vague statements, to actually dig into the detail of the definitions of these clauses and how they interact with each other, because it needs to be on the Hansard.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003ELook, I genuinely agree there was a problem to be solved. The High Court ruling placed a problem on the Department of Conservation\u2014absolutely accept that; we\u2019re not disagreeing, but we have real concerns around the drafting of this bill and the unintended consequences that are going to appear for the department, for the director-general, and for the people trying to actually apply it. Very genuine, confused set of members over here, including people with significant legal skills in this area.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003ESo, you know, we are actually asking for some detailed responses from the Minister, because at the moment all we\u2019re hearing is answers that are actually adding to the confusion as well. Thank you, Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022 data-id=\u0022438e4958d92249cdb8b79cbc2fdfc908\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022438e4958d92249cdb8b79cbc2fdfc908\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Look, I actually think that this is not only an error of law but it\u2019s an error of logic. I actually am in part inspired to ask this question off the back of what Simon Court asked. Let us move ourselves to a completely different area of law to address the logic problem: health and safety law, where the purpose is to protect human life. It\u2019s entirely set up to make sure people are safe from harm and from death in the workplace. Now, I might be an employer in an industry that is a high-risk industry, and perhaps historically, statistically, it is foreseeable, because there have been deaths in the past, that there will be deaths in the future in my industry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003ENow, there is a reasonable likelihood that there will be deaths, and it is foreseeable that there will be deaths\u2014that someone will be injured or killed in my workplace. Can I then get a permit to say that I\u2019ve got permission to kill people? Of course I can\u2019t. But that is the logic\u2014that is the logic of this legislation. I must take all reasonable steps to protect people from harm and from death, and the Wildlife Act is set up to be protective of our wildlife from harm and from death, and the exact same principle applies that I cannot logically get given a permit to kill, a licence to kill, and whilst I\u2019m not in any way suggesting that human life is not more valuable than the life of other species, I\u2019m suggesting that the logic of creating a system where you are licensing someone to break the Wildlife Act, which has a purpose of protecting wildlife, doesn\u2019t stack up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003ESo my question for the Minister is in new section 53A(1). There\u2019s a very interesting term: \u201Cotherwise lawful activity\u201D. It\u2019s an unusual term, and I asked a couple of lawyers how many other pieces of legislation they\u2019d seen this term in\u2014\u201Cotherwise lawful activity\u201D\u2014because it seems to be at the crux of the illogic of this legislation. Can the Minister provide examples of otherwise lawful activities where incidental killings might occur and might be permissible and might have to be authorised? How will \u201Cnot directly intended\u201D be determined, in the language of new section 53A(2): \u201Ckilling of wildlife is incidental if it is not directly intended.\u201D\u2014how will \u201Cnot directly intended\u201D be determined?\u2014\u201Cbut is unavoidable and foreseeable as a consequence of carrying out the lawful activity.\u201D How are unavoidable consequences defined and assessed in practice? In respect of new section 53A(2), does unavoidable mean that it was in the way of a digger? Who is monitoring and assessing this\u2014this goes to a question I asked earlier, which wasn\u2019t answered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003EFinally, how are \u201Cforeseeable consequences\u201D defined and assessed in practice? These are serious questions because how are you practically going to implement this? How are you practically going to implement this, Minister? You have laws and rules in place that say you have to take every reasonable step to protect wildlife. We know that you\u2019re going to build a road through a certain area, and it\u2019s going to have a consequence of unintended killing. But as the very lawyers who took the case to the court pointed out, who\u2019s going to prosecute somebody for an unintended killing when every reasonable step was taken? I want you to speak, Minister, to the logic of our health and safety law and how it would be ludicrous to suggest\u2014ludicrous to suggest\u2014that any employer would be given a licence to incidentally, inadvertently kill a worker. That would be preposterous and revolting, frankly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022 data-id=\u00220301b83439df49b498431553a2a5326d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220301b83439df49b498431553a2a5326d\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for that variety of questions that were posed to me over the last 15 minutes or so. In terms of the overall effect question, it means that the authorisation itself must be consistent with wildlife protection, not the activity itself\u2014e.g., earthworks does not have to be consistent with wildlife protection, but the authority to kill wildlife killed during earthworks does need to be consistent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThere was a question and an observation that this will just open up for carte blanche killing of wildlife: fake news, false reporting; a question that has no logic and an observation that has no logic at all. Because this proposed change will neither increase the bar nor lower the bar in terms of the authorisation of permits. The focus is on making sure that there is an authorised pathway to kill protected wildlife, incidental to the mahi that is being undertaken, whether or not that\u2019s environmental-focused mahi or economic-focused mahi. The focus is on protecting populations and individual wildlife as far as practicable. Now, the Department of Conservation has taken this approach for many, many years. It\u2019s about best practice. It\u2019s about making lawful the strategies we already use to avoid, minimise, and mitigate harm for a protected species through these authorisations and the detailed conditions that they impose.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThe practical implementation question\u2014this has been done for decades. And we will ensure that this pragmatic practice will continue by way of the wording set out here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThere were comments about the health and safety law and some of the logic that goes with it. Well, that needs its own review. I won\u2019t be comparing the health and safety laws with what we\u2019re doing here. But just to reinforce that I won\u2019t be curved by illogical questions. This provides an appropriate, safe, authorised pathway for those that have those authorisations and permits to undertake incidental killing. Now, I know that there\u2019s a real effort to complicate this matter in the late hours of the evening, but we\u2019re very clear and I\u2019m happy to answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022 data-id=\u0022c3283c955be84e8eaf2dd0bf897cac3c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c3283c955be84e8eaf2dd0bf897cac3c\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister of Conservation for his response but also to other members who have spoken on this. Now, again, nothing we\u2019re saying here is trying to be illogical, because of the fact that we would have teased a lot of this out during select committee, but we are still trying to figure out the exact scope of this particular bill and its implications. One of the things that the Minister is referring to and talking about is that this has been done for a number of years. Well, there is no regulatory impact statement, so we have no idea of any of the risks.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EWhat is the risk? That would appear in a regulatory impact statement. I\u2019m looking at the departmental disclosure statement, at page 6. The Minister was like, \u201CThis has been done for many years.\u201D, but the Department of Conservation (DOC) themselves said the \u201Cinformation is limited and insufficient to inform a full impact [statement]\u201D. It\u2019s very nice to say that it\u2019s been done for many years, but we actually don\u2019t have any data for it, according to the departmental disclosure statement. My question to the Minister then is: if the Minister is convinced that it\u2019s exactly the same or that the bar has not been raised or lowered, as the Minister put it, can the Minister at least tell this committee how many authorities then has DOC granted so far? If it\u2019s been going on for a while, how many has there been?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EThen if we\u2019re looking at a particular case that has been taken here and if we\u2019re looking at the way that we\u2019re reading the current Wildlife Act\u2019s section 68AB\u2014particularly around mens rea and strict liability\u2014that is something that is considered retrospective. But what we\u2019re seeing here in new section 53A is prospective, so I wanted to check with the Minister then about the prospectivity and retrospectivity of this bill. Does that mean that the authority we\u2019re seeing here can only be granted prospectively, as opposed to also being granted retrospectively, which is how section 68AB is interpreted? That\u2019s my second question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EMy third question is on the specific terminology that has been used, which is \u201Clawful activity\u201D. Now, we\u2019ve heard examples that the Minister has been using in terms of lawful activities, such as infrastructure and building roads, etc., but surely anything that is within the law would be considered a lawful activity. Now, I did have a look at the Wildlife Act. The term \u201Clawful activity\u201D doesn\u2019t appear once\u2014or at least I couldn\u2019t find it in that particular Act\u2014so this part is the first time we\u2019re seeing this term being used without any clear definition of the term. For me, if I\u2019m thinking broadly in terms of lawful activity, I think of things like fishing being a lawful activity. If that is considered a lawful activity, we know that, for example, under complete protection, there are nine marine fish species, which include manta rays, basking sharks, honu turtles, and spotted black groupers. Would that then mean that any fishing vessels or any fishing companies who are conducting lawful activities within fishing are able to apply for authority for incidental bycatch? Is that a consideration? Although we\u2019ve been trying to lead everyone to think down one track of that lawful activity in terms of infrastructure and construction, I would like to know what the scope of lawful activity is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EThose are my three questions so far, and I know that a lot of people will have other questions as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229fa4845f-2fb3-4c2c-828a-40a363d3a159\u0022 data-id=\u00225365467a498b4c06b4454f2972c61e94\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fa4845f-2fb3-4c2c-828a-40a363d3a159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225365467a498b4c06b4454f2972c61e94\u0022\u003ECELIA WADE-BROWN (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a number of questions, and I would like to start on clause 4, looking at this question of \u201Cunintended\u201D. I have not yet heard from the Minister of Conservation how, if something is unavoidable and foreseeable, it can possibly not be done with intention, because if a person of sound mind knows what might happen and knows that the consequences are unavoidable, then, surely, they intended that. That\u2019s my first point, and it\u2019s probably a bit of a philosophical question about who determines what \u201Cunintended\u201D means. Does it just come down to somebody saying, \u201COh, I didn\u2019t mean that to happen.\u201D, or have you got something slightly more robust in mind, for the poor director-general or the person that this is delegated to, to make that critical judgment?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fa4845f-2fb3-4c2c-828a-40a363d3a159\u0022\u003EWe all understand that generally desirable activities\u2014it might be housing, it might be a transport project, it might be renewable energy; for heaven\u2019s sake, even putting in a cycleway in Evans Bay needed some lizards to be moved, and maybe not every one kept their tails, or worse. But where is the balance struck? For example, is it sufficient to talk about the population that is living in that rohe, or are you saying that if the population in other places is protected, it doesn\u2019t matter what happens in this particular project? Those populations can be the same species but quite genetically distinct. That would particularly be the case where, for some species of gecko, you can only tell which one it is by what location they\u2019re from, because they look so similar.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fa4845f-2fb3-4c2c-828a-40a363d3a159\u0022\u003EThere was a very good example given of a consent for a roading project that looked at a whole load of protective things and how there had to be a check on the trees as to whether there were bats or not. That is completely separate from the Wildlife Act and the amendments here. That would be done under the Resource Management Act. What assurance could the Minister give me that conditions may not just be imposed but that, surely, conditions should be imposed, that they need to be imposed? If there is an unavoidable issue, maybe you can\u2019t avoid it, but then you\u2019ve created this logical contradiction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fa4845f-2fb3-4c2c-828a-40a363d3a159\u0022\u003EI\u2019d also like to know how the Minister would like to address the suggestion, made earlier, that a previous conservation Minister the Hon Eugenie Sage\u2014I think I heard Grant McCallum assert that she would be supporting this legislation. Well, I don\u2019t think anything is further from the truth. How would the Minister address Eugenie Sage\u2019s point that this amendment creates a much weaker regime?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fa4845f-2fb3-4c2c-828a-40a363d3a159\u0022\u003EFinally, how much longer does he think that the delegated Department of Conservation staff will be taking to grant authority under these amendments?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022 data-id=\u00220d5475dae5c444808e200810aab0d344\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220d5475dae5c444808e200810aab0d344\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. It\u2019s wonderful to see you this evening. There was a question seeking clarification around the relationship between the protection for populations and species of wildlife. As many of us know, the bill provides provisions to help protect both wildlife populations\u2014e.g., a local population and the species as a whole. The bill provides that \u201Cin making decisions to authorise incidental killing, the Director-General is to have regard to\u2014any potential adverse effects of the lawful activity on the survival of populations of wildlife and the viability of the species to which that wildlife belongs\u201D. Under new section 53C(1), the director-general may impose conditions \u201Cto address [the] potential \u2026 effects of the lawful activity on populations of wildlife or the viability of the species to which that wildlife belongs\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThere was another question in relation to the numbers. I anticipate there will be thousands of wildlife authorisations or permits that have been issued over many, many years, both by Te Papa Atawhai - Department of Conservation and also predecessor organisations. Right now, over 500 active permissions have a section 53 component that could be affected by the court\u2019s decisions and about a hundred active authorisations explicitly contain a kill component in the authority that is likely impacted by the court decision. Of course, as you know, we are seeking to reset, by way of this proposed bill, the universal understanding of the authorisation process. Of course, of the over 500 permissions that are active, nearly half of these authorities relate either directly or indirectly to developments in infrastructure. There are nearly 400 applications pending where section 53 may form part or all of the relevant legislation under which the permit authority could be granted to the applicant. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EIn relation to the lawful activity matter, there was a question around what that actually means. That is the actual activity that gives rise to the need for an authority\u2014for example, pest control or housing development. The authority doesn\u2019t permit that lawful activity; it permits the interactions with wildlife by humans that result from those activities over there and, therefore, sets conditions that ensure wildlife is protected while these are undertaken. There was a comment in relation to retrospectivity by my colleague over in the Green Party, and, certainly, the intention of the proposed bill is to ensure that those permits that were issued prior to the court decision are validated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EFinally, another colleague from the Green Party talked about \u201Cunavoidable and foreseeable\u201D and how any of that could be unintended. In some instances, the harming, let\u2019s say, of small animals, like invertebrates, that may be impossible to detect but are, in fact, protected wildlife is supported by way of these authorisations, and the people or the organisations that are undertaking that activity, which could harm in a foreseeable and unavoidable way but an unintended way\u2014those authorisations and those permits are ultimately the focus of this mahi that we\u2019re undertaking this evening.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EFinally, there was a comment again by our colleague from the Green Party around conditions; these conditions are generally imposed in Wildlife Act authorisations. What we\u2019re doing in this instance, of course, folks, is ensuring that we make targeted changes to the Act to restore the understanding prior to the court decision, and ensuring that there is a balance in protecting wildlife populations and protecting and enabling the world that our mokopuna will live in.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002262ff759d-9586-405a-a6e6-208ad65adeb5\u0022 data-id=\u0022f51ae26097df4de6aafd77042eee5558\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002262ff759d-9586-405a-a6e6-208ad65adeb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f51ae26097df4de6aafd77042eee5558\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North):\u003C/span\u003E Kia orana, Mr Chair, and thank you. This is the first opportunity that I\u2019ve had to make a contribution, by way of questions, as part of urgency, actually. This is a bill that\u2019s more than 70 years old, and one thinks that it often stands the test of time. But what we have in front of us, of course, are some changes. I have to say that, like other members of the House, given that this has been progressed through urgency, I haven\u2019t had a lot of time to actually digest this. Obviously, we would have had a select committee process. That\u2019s why we\u2019ll certainly try and make the most of that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002262ff759d-9586-405a-a6e6-208ad65adeb5\u0022\u003EI have a question for the Minister of Conservation that does relate to new section 53B(4) on page\u00A03 of the bill. As I was reading through this, I was somewhat actually inspired by Mr Abel\u2019s tabled amendment to new section 53C, so I won\u2019t refer to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223324b7c702124cb689f30b6c640aa98f\u0022\u003ESteve Abel\u003C/span\u003E: I don\u2019t mind.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002262ff759d-9586-405a-a6e6-208ad65adeb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ad77e257a980425d99bc51366cbdd899\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll refer to my own. Oh, I\u2019m sure the member doesn\u2019t mind. But I want to just ask the Minister around a potential change to the very first sentence of that clause, and it relates to basically changing the word \u201Cmay\u201D\u2014which, as we know, has a little bit of looseness to it or flexibility to it\u2014to \u201Cmust\u201D. This section specifically relates to the ability of the director-general to make a decision based on a number of different facts, but the point of difference with this section is around the reasonable steps that would be taken by the holder of any authority that is granted to, effectively, either \u201Cavoid, mitigate, or minimise any adverse effects of the lawful activity\u201D. There\u2019s no issue here with the lawful activity being undertaken.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002262ff759d-9586-405a-a6e6-208ad65adeb5\u0022\u003EHowever, there is a suggestion that if the director-general was required, by way of inserting the phrase \u201Cmust consider\u201D those\u2014\u201Cavoid, minimise, and mitigate the adverse effects of the lawful activity\u201D\u2014it relates specifically to the steps that would be considered reasonable. Now, I accept, and the Minister may agree with me, that \u201Creasonable\u201D in itself might perhaps provide a little bit of broad flexibility around that, but this relates specifically to the holder. Whether or not that was followed through would be another matter and may fall actually within the ambit of new section 53C, but this is about what specifically the director-general is required to be satisfied around and whether or not that needs to be strengthened. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002262ff759d-9586-405a-a6e6-208ad65adeb5\u0022\u003EThere is a tabled amendment in my name. I apologise; it\u2019s handwritten. Well, actually, no, I don\u2019t apologise, because, under urgency, we have not had an opportunity to digest this. I have tabled a handwritten amendment that basically seeks to amend new section 53B(4) to replace the word \u201Cmay\u201D with the word \u201Cmust\u201D. My question for the Minister is\u2014well, first of all, whether he is supportive of that, to give effect to the \u201Cavoid, minimise, and mitigate the adverse effects\u201D. But also whether he sees that if he was supportive of that\u2014and I don\u2019t think it is\u2014that it would be inconsistent with other parts of the bill, because that\u2019s certainly not my sort of read on it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022 data-id=\u002215f08d0766d84d73996471cfbd447305\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001424\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002215f08d0766d84d73996471cfbd447305\u0022\u003EHon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to go back to, as Steve Able outlined, the crux of this bill. Sorry, I have asked this question before; I\u2019m asking it one more time because the Minister of Conservation didn\u2019t answer it. He did talk around it, but he didn\u2019t get to the crux of this, and I would like this on the record, in terms of clarification.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003ENow, the genesis of the problematic position that everyone is in was the High Court ruling in March this year. What the judge specifically ruled on, which I have somewhere here\u2014\u201CJustice McHerron highlighted that section 53 permits can only be issued if their purpose is to protect wildlife. In a previous case, the Court of Appeal suggested one such purpose could be [for example] culling of some individuals to prevent the spread of disease to a wider population.\u201D In that sense, you\u2019re authorising the killing of something, which then has a direct benefit to that species. The direct nexus was at the heart of the High Court ruling, and so the judge in question then said that that particular permit under section 53 was unlawful because, ultimately, there was no protective purpose there. It was the killing of a species for a road, and that was not in line with the principal purpose of the Act. Now, the Minister has said that the whole point of this piece of legislation that we\u2019re debating tonight under urgency is to revert to decisions that were made prior to that March 2025 ruling, which would then allow, for example, for a species\u2014in the Mount Messenger case, 46 species\u2014that was incidentally killed as a result of a road that was being built to be then offset or mitigated by saying that there was an overall benefit or effect that was positive to that species.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EWhat I want to just get\u2014really, yes or no\u2014clarity on, Minister, is in new section 53B, where 53B(1) says, \u201CTo avoid doubt, the Director-General may grant an authority referred to in section 53A only if it is consistent with the protection of wildlife.\u201D I take the point that the Minister has made\u2014that there is still a protection to wildlife requirement in this legislation\u2014but it\u2019s not the direct nexus, is it? The wording that we\u2019ve been trying to prosecute, on this side of the Chamber\u2014\u201Coverall effect\u201D\u2014is directly contradicting the direct nexus requirement of the High Court ruling. Is that the case? That is my primary question for the Minister. Can the Minister just clarify that including \u201Coverall effect\u201D removes the requirement for there to be a direct benefit to that species? Essentially, what this legislation is doing is allowing for species that are protected to be killed in order for a road to be built. Let\u2019s just be very clear that that is what this piece of legislation will allow. That is my first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EMy second question that I have for the Minister is the relationship between section 53A and section 71, which I understand is unchanged in the bill. Section 53A, as I mentioned before, was meant to be that direct benefit to a species\u2014the killing of a species can only be authorised if there\u2019s a direct benefit. Section 71 was, basically, where certain things could be\u2014or certain projects could be\u2014allowed. I\u2019m just looking for the legislative statement that I had\u2014here we go\u2014so: \u201CSection 71 provides for authorisations to be issued where activities affecting wildlife are carried out under named legislation specified in Schedule 9 of the Act.\u201D For specific exemptions, Schedule 9 is, basically, an exemptions list\u2014so roading was an exemption. The Mount Messenger case was lawful because of section 71.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001428\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EMy question to the Minister is: does section 53A actually substitute section 71? In effect, if the director-general can then authorise the killing of various species because a road needs to be built, which is, essentially, what section 71 did, what is the difference between the two? Can the Minister clarify what the difference and purpose of these two sections are and how they relate to one another?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022 data-id=\u00224aaf0b886c224daa9a479b9a5069496c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224aaf0b886c224daa9a479b9a5069496c\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019ve got a quite specific and, hopefully, relatively quick question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002256fe8a3348c34967b6bd945fe4cd1e1c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Specific and quick is probably what we\u2019re looking for at this time of night.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e08194526c2748a1b398f3425aa0fa33\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: Good, yeah. What would help too, Mr Chair\u2014I think we haven\u2019t had particularly substantive answers from the Minister, and some of the many questions we\u2019ve asked have not really been answered, and they\u2019re often pretty specific.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221e75a78757694f3ebb98ed4de859cbcf\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Can I assure the members that the Minister\u2019s answers will be taken into account when we\u2019re sitting at closed mics as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225adb71f977d648b3928a65e7c3411cdd\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: I appreciate that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223fb0284f6dab4f7c83368dd454197c67\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The universe is balanced.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001435\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223b65a1762982485eb9b206268f6da9c0\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. My colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan asked a question about where a fisher may catch or capture one of the nine species that are protected in the Wildlife Act. My question is: do those fishers have authority now to incidentally, inadvertently kill any of those protected nine species? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003EIt relates to a broader question. New section 53B, inserted by clause 4, says that authority may be granted. Who must get an authority to incidentally kill wildlife? Does every fisher in New Zealand need to get an authority on the potential that they will incidentally kill\u2014not intentionally; with best endeavours try not to\u2014wildlife? For that to be a legal killing, do they have to have one of these newly stipulated authorities and to what extent does that go?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003EWhen Mr Grant McCallum jumps off his cellphone and thinks about growing his hemp crop this year and he goes to plough his field, does he have to get an authority for the foreseeable likelihood that he will kill a few skinks in the process? That may be a minor example, but it\u2019s a serious question. Who has to get an authority?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003EIf I go to mow my lawn in Green Bay with the foreseeable potential that I may impact a protected species, I presume I don\u2019t have to get an authority to do it. But where are the bounds of these authorities meant to be? There you go, Mr Chair\u2014I got it in in under 2\u00BD minutes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022 data-id=\u00226ecfcb4244b74f5097a4faf0f7627aee\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226ecfcb4244b74f5097a4faf0f7627aee\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. In one of the Minister\u2019s previous answers\u2014not the last one but, I think, the one before\u2014he talked about the phrase \u201Coverall effect\u201D and said that it related to the activity. I cannot see how that interpretation can work with this legislation. Going back to my first point, it seems that we have section 53 saying, \u201CDo what you like.\u201D Then we\u2019re saying, without limiting section 53, \u201CWe\u2019ve got some quite tight controls here about incidental killings, so you\u2019ve got to be protecting wildlife.\u201D But how we\u2019re interpreting protecting wildlife has to do with an overall effect. One of my questions to the Minister earlier that I haven\u2019t had an answer to is: is that the right interpretation of how these clauses are working? The overall effect is a diminishment of what we might normally think is the protection of wildlife. That\u2019s a very important question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001440\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EBut then, even if it is a diminishment\u2014if I\u2019m right in my reading that the overall effect is a diminishment\u2014there is still a lot in these clauses that keeps going on about the protection of wildlife for individuals, so how could anybody get an authority to do something that wasn\u2019t the example of culling that we just had from my colleague Priyanca Radhakrishnan. That question relates to statements\u2014the Minister also needed, he said, best practical options, or what\u2019s most reasonable where pragmatic. These clauses do not read like a rebalancing of the environment that we see everywhere else from this Government. It does look like there are some quite tough steps here to go through. Am I correct that even with the overall effect being a watering down of protection, it will still be difficult to get through these tests and they will, in fact, not enable all of the things that Minister Shane Jones was talking about? There\u2019s a couple of questions in that piece.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EThen, we\u2019ve just heard from Steve Abel about mowing his lawn, and he\u2019s worried about whether there will be incidental killings, and so we might say the same with a bird flying into a window. Maybe it\u2019s foreseeable that if you have a window near some trees, a bird will fly into it, so do we need to be looking at this bill in terms of section 63 of the Wildlife Act, which relates to offences. That says, \u201CNo person may, without lawful authority \u2026 hunt or kill\u201D. That\u2019s another question: has that offences provision been considered when it still looks like it will be difficult to get lawful permission under new sections 53A, B, and C?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EAnother separate type of question goes to section 71 of the Wildlife Act, and this is how Mt Messenger was made lawful because the two Ministers signed it off under section 71. We\u2019ve talked a lot about that Act; it\u2019s an old Act. Section 71 is actually under \u201CMiscellaneous\u201D provisions, and is the \u201CSaving of other Acts\u201D. It\u2019s a horrible clause to go through, with all of its exceptions. It says, \u201CExcept where this Act otherwise provides, nothing in this Act shall derogate from any provision of any of the Acts specified in Schedule 9:\u201D\u2014we know that many of the Acts in Schedule 9 no longer exist, but there is one about roads that does\u2014\u201Cprovided that, except with the prior consent of the Minister of Conservation and the Minister charged with the administration of the Act under which the act or authority is performed or exercised, and subject to such conditions as those Minister may jointly impose, no person shall be entitled to do any act or exercise any authority under [the] Act in respect of any wildlife\u201D, etc.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s a very convoluted clause. It has been, though, an avenue for the Department of Conservation to make some of these permissions and authorities lawful. Has the Minister considered amending section 71, and/or has he considered amending the schedule there with all of those outdated Acts? Would that be another way to fix the problem? Does it need to be done in conjunction with these additions to section 53, and how does existing 53 interact with these new sections 53A, B, and C, and section 71?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022 data-id=\u0022da7a434966d242d7bc2c65fac301d0a7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022da7a434966d242d7bc2c65fac301d0a7\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation):\u003C/span\u003E Just mindful of some of the questions that we\u2019ve answered that haven\u2019t been heard by the Opposition, I\u2019ll just repeat again that concept of overall effect. What that means, in new section 53B(2), as mentioned earlier, is that the authorisation itself must be consistent with the wildlife protection, not the activity itself. Building earthworks, as an example, does not have to be consistent with wildlife protection, but the authority to kill wildlife during earthworks does need to be consistent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EIn relation to the defence, there is a defence set out in the Act around accidental harm where things are unforeseeable and unintended, not when the action is intended. That space\u2014the action is unintended, foreseeable, and unavoidable\u2014is exactly at the heart of what we\u2019re trying to deal with right now. As mentioned earlier, again in response to a question about the High Court ruling, the court, effectively, sent out a decision that signalled that animals may only be killed in the process of trying to protect them. This decision limits the ability to lawfully grant authority to incidentally kill protected wildlife under the Act. Authority holders, as we\u2019ve mentioned, are concerned because they have no assurance that they would not be prosecuted if their projects kill any protected wildlife, despite having an authorisation under section 53 of the Act. That may lead them to stop doing things, including environmental things like some of the mahi around TB-free, which I\u2019ve mentioned several times today, along with infrastructure, power line maintenance, pest control, and other things.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThe court has made a decision that\u2019s, effectively, put at risk hundreds of authorisations that are contributing to the environmental and economic wellbeing of the country. We have said no. We do not agree with that. We are going to validate those authorisations. We\u2019re going to make sure that those people who hold the authorisations are assured and have confidence that they can go out and do the mahi that they need to do, and sometimes, incidentally, per some conditions in some permits, we might find that some protected wildlife is killed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001447\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThere was a question around how section 53 and section 71 interact. New section 53A does not act as a substitute for section 71. Section 71 still applies to activities undertaken under specific identified Acts set out in Schedule 9 of the Wildlife Act. These Acts are a relatively limited set of enactments covering limited types of activities, and I understand roads might be part of that sometimes. Section 53 is not available when section 71 applies. This was clarified in the Mount Messenger decision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EFinally, in relation to the interaction between new sections 53B(4) and 53B(5)(b)\u2014how they interact\u2014they work independently of each other. New section 53B(4) requires the director-general to be satisfied that the authorisation holder \u201Cwill take reasonable steps \u2026 to avoid, minimise, and mitigate \u2026 adverse effects of the lawful activity on individual wildlife.\u201D New section 53B(5)(b)\u2014like Bananas in Pyjamas; B1 and B2\u2014ensures that \u201CIn granting the [decision], the Director-General is not required to be satisfied \u2026 (b) that each individual act of killing, viewed in isolation, would be consistent with the protection of wildlife.\u201D Why we\u2019ve done this is that it responds directly to the Environmental Law Initiative decision, the Mount Messenger decision, which stated that, in that case, the authority would be lawful only if each individual active killing, viewed in isolation, would be consistent with that protection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001449\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve been very clear in forming responses\u2014careful and cautious responses\u2014so the bevy of questions has been answered, and we are ready to move forward.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002244967dc4-6cc7-4567-b8ef-cc3a9b354544\u0022 data-id=\u00221ccfa208ec5643598b0b6e50d6117540\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001450\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002244967dc4-6cc7-4567-b8ef-cc3a9b354544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221ccfa208ec5643598b0b6e50d6117540\u0022\u003EGRANT McCALLUM (National\u2014Northland):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That debate on this question now close.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022 data-id=\u0022b9dc9f769d284cda9d47914cb5b9a9f2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b9dc9f769d284cda9d47914cb5b9a9f2\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. One of the Minister of Conservation\u2019s answers there\u2014before he directed his backbench to take a closure motion\u2014was that the Minister considers he is being clear when he gives bold political answers and talks about \u201Cpyjamas\u201D when, in fact, we are asking about very specific words. He is saying that I should read and listen to him and that the overall effect relates to the activity. He used the example of earthworks, but this phrase is talking about the authority. Surely, when you go back up to new section 53A, inserted by clause 4, the authority is the one that you\u2019re getting that grants the killing of the wildlife. It\u2019s not the overall activity that you might need a whole set of permissions for; it\u2019s this little bit about\u2014well, not little; it might be very big and important\u2014the incidental killing and having a permission to do that. That permission is, in my reading, called \u201Cthe authority\u201D in these different sections.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001452\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EThe way that that section reads\u2014I\u2019m looking at new section 53B(2)\u2014is: \u201CThe authority is to be treated as consistent with the protection of wildlife if\u2026 satisfied that its overall effect\u201D. Surely, the overall effect is relating to the authority that says that you can kill some animals.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EThe Minister might tell me that I\u2019m wrong, but it makes no sense what he is referring to in terms of the activity with how these sentences work. It\u2019s very precise. I don\u2019t want any political answers about this, so can he point to what it is that he appears to be saying is wrong with my question? If I am correct and that \u201Coverall effect\u201D relates to the authority, the permission to kill the wildlife, then can he answer my question, which is: is that phrase \u201Coverall effect\u201D a diminishment of the preceding test, which is the protection of wildlife?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022 data-id=\u002284c84d7466e7421c94241bf6076afa84\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001454\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002284c84d7466e7421c94241bf6076afa84\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I am really frustrated, alongside my colleagues, because, despite the Minister of Conservation\u2019s insistence that he\u2019s providing clear responses, there are not clear responses coming out. There are considerable issues with the entirety of this bill that we would like the opportunity to fully examine\u2014because of urgency, because of the inability to go to select committee\u2014so I appreciate getting to actually ask some of them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001455\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003EWhat I want to ask the Minister about specifically is the authorisation itself of the director-general. The Minister actually brought up an example himself, where he talked about there being some invertebrates that are present in, say, a development site that are hard to detect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003ENow, what we\u2019re really concerned about with this bill is, essentially, the moving of the responsibility from the developer or the person or the company who is actually undertaking the activity and has that obligation in terms of a risk assessment\u2014an assessment of ecological impacts; that kind of thing\u2014on to the Director-General of Conservation. Now, what does this actually look like in practicality? Again, the Minister is saying this is practical. This is impractical\u2014completely impractical\u2014for a department that is already facing a $48 million cut from last Budget; we\u2019re yet to hear what\u2019s coming next for this next Budget. I have complete respect for the work that the Department of Conservation (DOC) does, and I understand the complexity of what is involved with actual ecological assessments which go into developments or any kind of project of magnitude\u2014which, again, is what we\u2019re trying to talk about, although my colleague has raised some very clear questions about the actual scope of this bill, for which we know nothing about. What we\u2019re trying to understand here is: why move this onus on to the director-general, which will actually cause more bureaucracy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003EWhat we\u2019re proposing in one of our tabled amendments\u2014I\u2019m just finding the number here; it\u2019s under my colleague Steve Abel\u2019s name, and it\u2019s regarding new section 53B, inserted by clause 4. We would propose, in section 53B(2), deleting the words \u201Cin granting it, the Director-General is satisfied that\u201D, and then, under that, deleting subsections 53B(3), 53B(4), and 53B(5). Now, that would actually remove the ability for the director-general to have the responsibility for these discretionary decisions that they would need to make to grant the authority to actually kill the wildlife.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003ENow, the Minister\u2019s example of invertebrates is a great one, because it\u2019s basically admitting that, suddenly, it\u2019s DOC\u2019s role\u2014not the developer\u2019s, not the individual\u2019s, not the company\u2019s\u2014to understand the entirety of the impact and what species might be impacted, and it\u2019s on them to find those hard-to-find invertebrates, presumably, and actually put those in the granted authority to grant that permission. Now, this seems like a very roundabout and completely unnecessary way to purportedly solve this problem, when, actually, we\u2019ll just be putting more bureaucracy and more demands on the actual ecological assessments which would be required for the director-general to make accurate decisions under this bill. That\u2019s what we want, right? This isn\u2019t for fun. This is about actual development. This is about actual situations with real wildlife that need actual protection. We\u2019re not going to go through the statistics with that, but I\u2019d be really keen to hear from the Minister if he would consider changing this bill and letting it go to select committee so that we can actually nut out, and understand, the implications of this, particularly for our own public agencies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022 data-id=\u002203422593bb1345bb879fc0e3723efc9f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002203422593bb1345bb879fc0e3723efc9f\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation):\u003C/span\u003E Just to catch up on a couple of the questions that were asked earlier today\u2014could a fishing vessel apply for a permit for incidentally killing protected species such as through wildlife? This is the fishing question. Incidental bycatch during fishing is not an offence under the Wildlife Act, provided it is reported, so it does not require a wildlife authorisation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EIs a permit needed for every situation where wildlife may be killed? The examples used were lawn mowing and the growing of hemp in Maungaturoto. Now, if you know that protected wildlife is likely to be killed as a result of the activity, yes. Conditions can then be applied to ensure that any impacts of such an activity does not inflict lasting harm on the persistence of species.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThere was a suggestion around an amendment that was tabled, in relation to the director-general\u2019s responsibilities; we will not be agreeing to that amendment. We are really focused on targeted changes required in response to the High Court\u2019s decision that would continue to leave authorisation holders uncertain of the validity of their permits, potentially delaying a wide range of activities, including those which deliver improved conservation outcomes. The director-general has been responsible for issuing these authorisations for many, many years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002294b52412-f97b-4bbd-8009-5dc49520f7f4\u0022 data-id=\u0022ae346a2179044bcaaaf97c973b3a0c28\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002294b52412-f97b-4bbd-8009-5dc49520f7f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ae346a2179044bcaaaf97c973b3a0c28\u0022\u003ERYAN HAMILTON (National\u2014Hamilton East):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That debate on this question now close.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022 data-id=\u0022bb3cef75ce7742d68554220726feac49\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001463\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bb3cef75ce7742d68554220726feac49\u0022\u003EHon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I do thank the Minister of Conservation for some of the answers that he gave. That was around clarifying that the direct nexus bit was no longer required\u2014I get that\u2014and also that new section 53A does not replace section 71.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EI do have a question around that. I know my colleague Rachel Brooking asked whether there was any consideration around then expanding Schedule 9 so that, in effect, if section 71 provides for authorisations that are issued\u2014so, in this case, if a road needs to be built and there is an effect on species there\u2014incidental killing of species there\u2014that can be offset or mitigated by addressing the population effect and so on and so forth? Section 71 already allows for that, but it\u2019s limited by the exemptions or the Acts that are listed in Schedule 9. Was there consideration around expanding the legislation, or the Acts that are named in Schedule 9, so that the specific projects that the Minister is concerned about\u2014I think there were 85 that were previously authorised and about 300 that are currently in train. The Minister has outlined that his worry or his concern is that those will be halted because of the High Court ruling. Now, has he considered expanding Schedule 9 so that the Acts that are related to those 85 or 300 projects could actually be included there and there could be a section 71 authorisation for that, rather than the mess that we\u2019re seeing outlined here?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EI just want to get to that as well, because I do have sympathy for what my colleagues have said. Lan Pham, Rachel Brooking, and Rachel Boyack have pointed out that the wording in new sections 53A, 53B, and 53C is unclear. We\u2019ve asked a few times questions around the wording specifically of \u201Coverall effect\u201D because it is important. It could relate to the activity, or it could relate to the species. We just want to know which one is the relevant one in this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll ask it a slightly different way as well, because I had to go to the legislative statement to figure out what that section was referring to and what it actually meant. What new section 53B says as it\u2019s drafted in this legislation is that \u201CAuthority under section 53 to kill wildlife incidentally: consistency with protection of wildlife\u201D. It goes on to talk about the fact that, \u201CTo avoid doubt, the Director-General may grant an authority referred to in section 53A only if it is consistent with the protection of wildlife.\u201D I think that does relate to the overall population, rather than the direct benefit or the direct nexus that the High Court ruling was talking about. But, in new section 53B(3), \u201CIn determining whether the overall effect of the authority would be consistent with the protection of populations of wildlife, the Director-General must have regard to\u2014(a) any potential adverse effects of the lawful activity on\u2014(b) populations of wildlife that the Director-General is satisfied may be affected by the lawful activity;\u201D. What does that mean? It\u2019s a bunch of words, and it seems incredibly confusing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EIf you go to the legislative statement, it says that the point of new section 53B is to restore and clarify\u2014so to restore the allowed activity to what the Department of Conservation was doing before the High Court ruling. It, basically, specifies when an authorisation will be consistent with the protection of wildlife and what the director-general must have regard to\u2014\u201CThis includes whether the overall effect of the authorisation and its conditions would address the potential adverse effect of the activity on affected wildlife populations\u201D. This is why we\u2019re confused about the wording in the letter of the law\u2014in the legislation as it\u2019s drafted. Where does it actually say that? So, \u201Cadverse effect of the activity on affected wildlife populations and the viability of those species\u201D\u2014whether the species could become more threatened or become extinct as a result of the authorisation or the permit that is being given. Is that what is actually meant? If so and if we had had a select committee process, we could have actually worked through how the wording in this legislation would actually get us to the point of what it\u2019s meant to say.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022 data-id=\u0022036d93abf3dc43418490c2c792ed0388\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022036d93abf3dc43418490c2c792ed0388\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation):\u003C/span\u003E There\u2019s a question about why we didn\u2019t change section 71 and Schedule 9. That would be overkill. This would add complexity and increase the risk of unintended consequences because section 71 covers a very specific set of legislation. Section 71 decisions, unlike section 53 decisions, were not put at risk following the High Court decision. As a result, I\u2019ve not proposed changes to section 71, but we are very determined to channel and facilitate changes to section 53. Thank you, Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a00bf4f5-c63a-49a0-b0e1-d3b37311377b\u0022 data-id=\u0022abda49f1527e481e8ee47a66bb7a7249\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a00bf4f5-c63a-49a0-b0e1-d3b37311377b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022abda49f1527e481e8ee47a66bb7a7249\u0022\u003ECATHERINE WEDD (National\u2014Tukituki):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That debate on this question now close.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022 data-id=\u00222163e9dc08014958995e4a1d03e19ea2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001470\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222163e9dc08014958995e4a1d03e19ea2\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a couple of very specific questions for the Minister of Conservation on new sections 53A and 53B, inserted by clause 4. I just have a question around the interaction between the granting of authority and section 68AB of the primary Act, which, the Minister has mentioned, is where the defence currently lies. The defence is currently that the defendant did not intend to commit the offence. I just want to get clarification from the Minister that by granting authority, it then constitutes an automatic defence under section 68AB because of the fact that the authority itself would mean that it is incidental and unavoidable and foreseeable, which would imply that the defendant did not intend to commit an offence. I\u2019m just checking if it is the correct interpretation that the authority constitutes a defence under new section 68AB\u2014section 68AB(3)(a) specifically. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EMy next question is about new section 53A(2), where the killing is \u201Cunavoidable and foreseeable\u201D. I\u2019m assuming \u201Cunavoidable and foreseeable\u201D covers both immediate and long term, but clarification would be appreciated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003ENow, moving on to new section 53B(4), it would be good if the Minister could respond\u2014I don\u2019t think we have heard from the Minister, and, if we have, I apologise. Would the Minister consider Tangi Utikere\u2019s tabled amendment on changing \u201Cmay\u201D to \u201Cmust\u201D? I think that is an important clarification, because if the director-general \u201Cmay\u201D be satisfied, it also implies the director-general doesn\u2019t need to be satisfied at all, because there is no total requirement for that to happen. Clarification around that would be great as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EMy final question\u2014this is question number four\u2014is also on new section 53B(4). It talks about reasonable steps. Can I check with the Minister whether the reasonable steps here are that the holder of authority will take reasonable steps? Is that reasonable on the basis of an objective person or reasonable on the basis of a subjective person or that particular individual? Those are my four questions. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022 data-id=\u0022197107b1f7ac4962b6dfa447c52bd20c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022197107b1f7ac4962b6dfa447c52bd20c\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you. I just have a quick question going back to this \u201Coverall effect\u201D and the Minister saying it has to do with the activity, can the Minister consider the difference between the use of the word \u201Cauthority\u201D and the use of the phrase \u201Clawful activity\u201D? It seems to me that those two are used quite purposefully throughout these new sections to distinguish between the permission, the authority to do the killing of the animals, of the wildlife, because that\u2019s what it refers to in clause 4, inserting new section 53A\u2014\u201CAuthority may be granted\u201D\u2014and section 53 of the Act says \u201CThe Director-General may \u2026 authorise\u201D, and then we\u2019re talking about the \u201Clawful activity\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EAt new section 53A(2), the killing of wildlife is incidental if it\u2019s a consequence of carrying out a lawful activity. The lawful activity is the earthworks or whatever it is that you\u2019re doing, but the authority is this permission to incidentally kill the wildlife. That is why it just makes no sense to me that the Minister is saying that this \u201Coverall effect\u201D is linked to the word \u201Cauthority\u201D. \u201CThe authority is to be treated as consistent if, in granting it, the Director-General is satisfied that its overall effect\u201D\u2014\u201Cits\u201D being the authority\u2014\u201Cwould be consistent with the protection of [the wildlife]\u201D, whereas then we look down to new section 53A(3), \u201CIn determining whether the overall effect of the authority would be consistent\u201D, we look at \u201C(a) any potential adverse effects of the lawful activity\u201D on populations and viability.\u201D Surely the word \u201Cauthority\u201D is different to \u201Clawful activity\u201D, and the word \u201Cauthority\u201D is what is connected to \u201Coverall effect\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EGiven that, I go back to my question that I\u2019ve asked\u2014I know we\u2019re not supposed to repeat questions\u2014and I would really like the Minister to turn his mind to this and to whether, if I am right, the \u201Coverall effect\u201D is related to the \u201Cauthority\u201D to kill the wildlife, or to whether that \u201Coverall effect\u201D\u2014the scheme of this amendment\u2014is that the use of the phrase \u201Coverall effect\u201D is a diminishment of what otherwise we would consider to be the protection of wildlife, and the protection of wildlife comes just before that. To avoid doubt, we\u2019ve got to be consistent with the protection of wildlife. Oh, but hang on\u2014hang on. We only treat it as consistent with the protection of wildlife if we\u2019re satisfied that the overall effect is these things.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EIt does seem to be that we\u2019re setting up a cascade of different words and phrases and tests. Because of that, the answers from the Minister to me make no sense, and I\u2019d like him to reconsider and come back to this point whilst we\u2019re still in the committee stage on Part 1. It may be that he will want to make an amendment if what he thinks he\u2019s saying does not match with my reading of these words.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022 data-id=\u002264c6d55904b34875918d891edb7f96e6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002264c6d55904b34875918d891edb7f96e6\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019m going to bang through a few questions about new section 53B, in clause 4. I am anxious, as I look over to the other side of the room, to close Part 1. I\u2019ve got a number of substantive questions still. New section 53B: what analysis has been undertaken on the effects of permitting the killing of wildlife compared to the status quo where all reasonable steps must be taken to avoid wildlife being killed?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003EWhat I\u2019m asking here, Minister, is: if we retreat to the simple principle that it is about taking all reasonable steps rather than requiring these authorities to be issued, what analysis has been taken of that? Relating to that is new section 53B, in clause 4, and my question is: why is this discretionary power required when the mens rea test in section 68AB of the principal Act already provides that developers need to take all reasonable steps to ensure wildlife is not killed? Obviously, my colleague has already spoken about the burden of work for the director-general, who will be making these discretionary decisions, and it\u2019s a huge amount of work for the Department of Conservation. So why do we need to have this discretionary power when there\u2019s already that mens rea test of reasonable steps?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003EI have another question on new section 53B. How will the director-general assess the overall effect on wildlife populations? How will the director-general determine that the overall effect would be consistent with the protection of populations of wildlife and individual wildlife? This question has not been answered, and it is a significant question. New section 53B(3)(a)(ii) mentions the viability of populations. At what level is this considered? Is it the local level, Minister? Is it the national level? Is it the regional level? At what level is that viability to be evaluated, and how will the director-general determine the viability of a species? As my colleague Rachel Brooking pointed out, this is where there\u2019s a lot of layers of complexity in the interpretation and the responsibility put on the director-general.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003EIn anxiety that they may be looking at wrapping this up\u2014and I don\u2019t mean to be jumping ahead prematurely\u2014I want to mention an amendment we have to proposed new section 53C, \u201CConditions that may be imposed on authority under section 53 to kill wildlife incidentally\u201D, which is in clause 4. We believe that conditions must be imposed. Considering the significant nature of the activity, which is killing wildlife, it requires the setting of conditions. That is critical. This provision would be, essentially, worthless without the requirement being mandatory. Under new section 53C, it must be mandatory for the director-general to put in place conditions, and, what is more, what types of conditions would be included?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003EIs, for example, the Government aware that, in the Mount Messenger case, there were no condition requirements put on Waka Kotahi to try to avoid killing most of the listed species? It simply permitted the killing. Is the Government aware that those conditions were not put in place? It was just simply a licence to kill, which is why the case was brought. We do not want that circumstance, surely, Minister. If you are genuinely committed to the principle of this being about protecting wildlife and, surely, if you\u2019re going to issue one of these authorities, there must be mandatory conditions put in place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022 data-id=\u00225912eabb38394976aa120d5225c07e22\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225912eabb38394976aa120d5225c07e22\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation):\u003C/span\u003E I just have some brief responses: we\u2019ve discussed the defence for accidental harm from unintentional and unforeseeable harm. If you follow an authority that you have, it\u2019s not an offence. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001484\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EWe\u2019re starting to stray, in my view, into feral space based on speculation and conjecture. We are here to make a targeted change, as a result of a High Court decision that has completely undermined the universally understood position around the issuance and upholding of authorisations under the Wildlife Act. We are neither increasing nor decreasing the bar for the issuing of these authorisations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThe comment that the director-general will not able to, or will be overwhelmed in being able to, consider these matters and the viability of a species\u2014I think the director-general is very competent at determining the viability of a species by using the tools and the knowledge available to her, both within the Department of Conservation - Te Papa Atawhai and outside. She looks after, on behalf of the entire country, 30 percent of the land and a little bit of marine space and is well versed in issues around the viability of species in issuing literally hundreds of authorisations under the Wildlife Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EFinally, on the interaction between authority and lawful activity, the overall effect of the authority is consistent with protecting wildlife when the authority provides for avoiding, minimising, and mitigating harm that is incidental. To know that the authority provides for this, it is relevant to understand the harm that may result from the activity that would cause harm in the first place. I\u2019ve described what \u201Clawful activity\u201D and \u201Coverall effect\u201D mean on nearly five occasions now. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a00bf4f5-c63a-49a0-b0e1-d3b37311377b\u0022 data-id=\u0022d7deabca859e4021939fc16aa5963870\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a00bf4f5-c63a-49a0-b0e1-d3b37311377b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d7deabca859e4021939fc16aa5963870\u0022\u003ECATHERINE WEDD (National\u2014Tukituki):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That debate on this question now close.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00229cc7fdcfac364f2f9eb8befd2a1f65e9\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u002256de84516d724429b7399966fc94a391\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002256de84516d724429b7399966fc94a391\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 4, subsection (2) of new section 53C be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022c08e185f41224dd1a9e35b63d0d8d7ef\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022b7845ee1fcab4f4d826c752055e7a86a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b7845ee1fcab4f4d826c752055e7a86a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Steve Abel\u2019s tabled amendments to clause 4, new section 53B be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00227abdd23b7fc04b9684d8a1db95573a1c\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022c0937117af3847bd9e089b63071fa3b0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c0937117af3847bd9e089b63071fa3b0\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Tangi Utikere\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 53B, to replace \u201Cmay\u201D with \u201Cmust\u201D in subsection (4), be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002287c7acc65ba94493a78ab11848dd4dd6\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u00223e4e3caf7c9c4471851bdfee8b33ad76\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223e4e3caf7c9c4471851bdfee8b33ad76\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 4, to replace new section 53A and delete new section 53B, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00228e754151acba41eda6a901c83b3d8ce6\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u002217c3ffa666e84e06aa6c3209e762ad5b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002217c3ffa666e84e06aa6c3209e762ad5b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Steve Abel\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 53C, to replace \u201Cmay\u201D with \u201Cmust\u201D in subsection (1), be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00226dce13773e1743eba7c03bf7757e7046\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022b4389f6b81e84841b67ab9aa61044bf9\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 1 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022709b71c3402b42f480ca501d0d695001\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022709b71c3402b42f480ca501d0d695001\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 9 a.m. Good night.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506e6df9a2e15984c17b9f960e50f62d5bd001494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from midnight to 9 a.m. (Thursday)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002226f6d0fd6a8b42ddac34533e4ad8e59b\u0022\u003ETUESDAY, 6 MAY 2025\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000002\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00222d7099530a764c66a55b738176089cb7\u0022\u003E(continued on 8 May 2025)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e8c8381bcad042bf92b40a012fc7b1ad\u0022\u003EWildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002255b3b9883ebc457bafb93c4de6da0274\u0022\u003EIn Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000005\u0022\u003EDebate resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022356fef05ecbf47c1b226ccfbb6e31357\u0022\u003EPart 2  Amendments about transitional, savings, and related provisions\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u002232cc4c82e6d744f1b94b8baf2946b4c2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002232cc4c82e6d744f1b94b8baf2946b4c2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Good morning, members. The committee is resumed. We are on the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill. When we suspended last night, we had concluded the debate on Part 1. We come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 5 and 6\u2014\u201CAmendments about transitional, savings, and related provisions\u201D\u2014and the Schedule. The question is that Part 2 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022 data-id=\u00227939f48b94ec45f89fc61572ec6ce0a9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227939f48b94ec45f89fc61572ec6ce0a9\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you. I appear to be very eager this morning. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220efb9a27e2614cdaac02bca2f71ae3d5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Very keen!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002234f2793e77ac47f79958178f1a685503\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. As you\u2019ve just said, Part 2 relates to two clauses\u2014as Part\u00A01 was just one clause\u2014and we also have the Schedule included. These provisions are transitional, and it\u2019s important that we note that, through the Schedule, there is retrospective effect to this legislation. We know that there has been no regulatory impact statement on this legislation, and so it would be useful for the Minister to comment on the need for it to be retrospective and what advice he\u2019s had on the implications of that retrospectivity, given that it is retrospective and it\u2019s unusual for legislation to be retrospective. I say that as if it\u2019s the constitutional norm, but this is the second piece of legislation that\u2019s going through this House under urgency. We\u2019re still in the Chamber on 6\u00A0May. I don\u2019t even know what the real date is in the real world, but we\u2019re here on 6\u00A0May, and this is the second bill under all-stages urgency that has a retrospective element to it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EI wanted to say in the previous bill, and I\u2019ll say it for this one as well, that it would be great if the Minister could justify that retrospectivity but also if the Minister would consider some sort of review provisions for this piece of legislation that is going through under all-stages urgency. It could be\u2014and we can come to this in the commencement debates\u2014that the bill doesn\u2019t commence until some sort of review is undertaken, or it might be that the bill goes to something like the Regulations Review Committee, for instance, for a review post-enactment and that there is a trigger for the bill coming back to the House if that Regulations Review Committee\u2014or another review body\u2014thought that there was a need to do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EWhy that is important is because there has been no select committee process on this bill and there has been no opportunity for members of this House who are not part of the executive, but who are part of the Parliament, to ask advisers questions. We\u2019ve heard a number of times in the second reading speeches and first reading speeches that Parliament is sovereign. Indeed, Parliament is sovereign, but at the moment, when we have all this legislation avoiding that select committee process and no opportunity for members on the Opposition side to do their job and ask advisers questions about what the executive is putting in front of them, the executive becomes sovereign. That is what we have at the moment. The executive is pushing through these things.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EWe had a debate in real life yesterday on Part 1 about some phrases in the Act, and I promise to the rest of the House that my concern was a real interpretation concern. I think what will happen is that this bill will come back to the House, because it just doesn\u2019t make sense to me. That is why I\u2019m asking if the Minister can commit to some amendment that he can make now, in committee stage, that there will be a review of these provisions so that they can be appropriately considered by people who have a little bit more time\u2014they\u2019re not staying up till midnight and then going to select committees at 8\u00A0a.m.\u2014and who can actually pursue these questions. That would be a very sensible thing to happen. Please, Minister, will you consider that? I\u2019m helpful to table amendments. I\u2019m sorry; I would\u2014I would\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002244967dc4-6cc7-4567-b8ef-cc3a9b354544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e65ad1678134432b9dcb73c47ef3a318\u0022\u003EGrant McCallum\u003C/span\u003E: Wake up!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bbe82075fd7a4df89cdbe51dd4410fbd\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Wake up! I\u2019m very happy to table amendments if the Minister indicates that that would be helpful. I\u2019m sure we can do that now, but I would be interested in both the justification from the Minister for it being retrospective and any comments on review provisions and, potentially, amendments to make sure that there is actually a review.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022 data-id=\u00222c5222c5b435419187a35551f7a6c58b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222c5222c5b435419187a35551f7a6c58b\u0022\u003EHon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I do want to just begin by emphasising the need, as Rachel Brooking has pointed out, for a review period. What we see is Schedule\u00A01AA refers to, potentially, a large number of projects\u2014perhaps some that are active authorisations; some that are under way\u2014and it is important, given the retrospectivity of this, that there is a review period.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EThe second point that I want to make\u2014a question for the Minister\u2014is about the number of those projects. Now, we\u2019ve seen, as I\u2019ve mentioned previously in this debate, that there is no regulatory impact statement. There is no proactively released Cabinet paper. We don\u2019t have a huge amount of detail that, previously or in other situations, were this not being passed through all stages under urgency, we would have had access to. I have seen some media reporting that basically says that, in the past 12 months, the Department of Conservation (DOC) has granted 85 similar permits to project applicants and that, in total, 315 applications are under way where a section 53 permit or authority could be granted. My question would be around whether the Minister can confirm those figures and also around whether new Schedule 1AA in Part 2 would then apply to all of those\u2014the 85 plus the 315\u2014that are in train as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EThe third point that I want to make is that, in lieu of a select committee process, all we have\u2014previously, we would have submitters, many of whom have done a fair bit of work in this space in terms of reviewing the Wildlife Act and making suggestions on what should be changed within the Act. We would have ordinarily heard from them through a select committee process. We, of course, haven\u2019t, given that we are sitting in urgency, and so all we have to go on are some of the press releases that have been put out on this particular piece of legislation. There is one from the Environmental Law Initiative\u2014of course, the lawyers who judicially reviewed the decision have said that, basically, it increases the burden on those who are, I guess, pushing those projects through\u2014the 85 and the 315, if, in fact, those numbers are correct. I would be keen for the Minister\u2019s view, given what\u2019s in Schedule 1AA, on whether he agrees that it actually does increase the administrative burden both for DOC but also in terms of the legal tests that, now, those projects have to be put against.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EThere was also another comment, and I can\u2019t find it in front of me at the moment, around the fact that, potentially, what DOC should have done\u2014again, it\u2019s just been two months since the High Court ruling. That is a point that has been made before: there hasn\u2019t been a huge amount of time. Had this been either delayed a little bit or had there been a slightly lengthier process or some select committee process, there potentially could have been time for DOC to then go through the cases on a case by case basis. We are here because the High Court ruled that in that particular case, the Mt Messenger Bypass case, the authority that was given under section 53 didn\u2019t actually meet the purpose of the Wildlife Act as it was written back in 1953. Therefore, this carte blanche approach to now changing the law to change, ostensibly, the purpose of this Act so that the permits that were given retrospectively will now be legal does not necessarily mean that those who are shepherding those projects through have taken reasonable steps to protect biodiversity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EThere is an argument put forward that what DOC should be doing is looking at those 85 cases, where there is legal uncertainty, and trying to work out whether reasonable steps have been taken to protect biodiversity in each of those cases. I would really like to know what the Minister\u2019s view on that is but also what advice he received on that point. Is that something that DOC could actually have done? Was there consideration around the time period that it would have taken for DOC to be able to go through all of those cases on a case by case basis?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022 data-id=\u00220330c909c7cc4afbb7c8d225e2645836\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220330c909c7cc4afbb7c8d225e2645836\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning to all. Wakey, wakey. It\u2019s a beautiful day. All right, in response to some of the questions that were made, I\u2019ll just start off with the numbers. I think the member opposite mentioned about 85 that were issued in the year leading up to the court decision. I don\u2019t know the exact number for the 12 months or the seven months leading up to the decision, but under the proposed provisions, all those that were decided and issued\u2014all those authorisations\u2014up to the date of the court decision will be validated. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThe numbers I mentioned last night are about right. There are around 500 existing authorities that could be impacted by the decision. Of course, there are a number of permit holders with significant concerns around whether or not they are acting lawfully. That\u2019s not just those in the development or, let\u2019s call it, the economic space, but it\u2019s also those in the environmental space, pest control, and other things. For us, it\u2019s absolutely critical that we restore the universal understanding of the arrangements around the issuance of permits and authorisations for Department of Conversation (DOC) purposes but also the exercise of the permits and authorisations by those who are permit holders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EI acknowledge the concerns about retrospectivity that have been shared by members opposite. There is a low risk of unintended consequences, because everyone who was applying for these authorisations and permits\u2014and also DOC, on the other side, who was authorising these permits and authorisations\u2014had a very shared understanding of the basis on which they were being undertaken and, of course, landing on the conditions that apply to the exercise of the authorisations in the permits.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThere was mention of a potential increased admin burden at DOC, and, of course, my concern as the Minister of Conservation is that, now, we\u2019ve got quite a number of applications that are awaiting a DOC decision but DOC is unable to make this decision out of a concern that, actually, that may not be done lawfully, because when the decision was made, of course, it changed the understanding and changed the status quo. DOC wants to be in a space where it can continue to authorise these authorisations and permit these authorisations, issue them, and get on with things.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThe comments around the monitoring and whether or not DOC has gone through every single authorisation and made sure that, to the nth degree, conditions are being upheld\u2014that\u2019s an operational matter. I\u2019m confident that DOC is undertaking its role accordingly within its operations and, actually, it\u2019s beyond the scope of the very targeted and narrow changes that have been proposed by way of this bill to restore not only the universal understanding of this permit process but also the ability for us to get on with economic and environmental initiatives.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThere was a concern that I think a number of members opposite have raised in relation to retrospectivity. When the announcement was made from Cabinet, by myself, that we would look to ensure that those permit holders had their permits and authorisations validated, we wanted to give absolute certainty to those permit holders today so that they can continue to have the confidence to build the roads that we need to get to far-flung places like New Plymouth\u2014I can see the member for [Interruption]\u2014and other activities like the TBfree programme. Happy to hear further comments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022 data-id=\u002288f4c39c3a704ea6a976c482ccf34caf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002288f4c39c3a704ea6a976c482ccf34caf\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. It seems, on appearance, like this is a small part of this bill, but there is so much in here that I will really appreciate the opportunity to ask about, particularly because it has been so rushed through and there are some real concerns around every aspect, particularly of new Schedule 1AA, inserted by clause 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003EI want to start, firstly, with Schedule 1AA, \u201CTransitional, savings, and related provisions\u201D, in Part\u00A01, clause 1, with the \u201CValidation of certain authorities\u201D. The Minister of Conservation has just been saying in his comments right now that the intention here is to provide absolute certainty that it\u2019s this kind of sweep of this legislation going through and that\u2019s what will fix things.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003ENow, what my colleagues across the side of the House and I have been trying to say is that it\u2019s actually creating the opposite of that, particularly because the burden of proof and the responsibility for the validation of these authorities is now resting with the Department of Conservation (DOC) and the director-general (DG). The reason that that is is because\u2014and this talks about it as well\u2014it talks about the validation of certain authorities. For the DG to be in the position where they can offer that validation, they actually need to know, right? These 300 or 80\u2014it\u2019d be great to get some numbers and clarity about how many authorisations we\u2019re actually talking about here. DOC need to assess these. They need to have some knowledge and understanding of that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003EThe Minister also just talked earlier about fixing the administrative burden. We were asking about the administrative burden, and then he said, \u201CThe operational stuff is for DOC.\u201D This is operational. To actually know and understand what has been going on with these authorisations and what\u2019s been going on with the projects requires operational knowledge and presumably some form of assessment or surveying or something, some kind of methodology, to enable an actual evaluation of what\u2019s taken place and what authorisations would actually be appropriate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003ENow, this was something that we didn\u2019t get answers to in the previous part when we were asking about what resources and what methodologies and assessments are actually envisaged to contribute to this process to ensure that DOC is acting in a way that is informed and that it is then acting in a way that provides the so-called certainty. Now, again, we don\u2019t believe that clauses like this are providing that certainty at all. Really, if DOC is put in this burdensome situation where they\u2019re having to assess these things, that is actually a burden that is unnecessary, given that there are already sections in the Wildlife Act that provide for these incidental aspects of killing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003EWhat I\u2019m also interested in\u2014and I\u2019d love to hear the Minister provide us some advice and assurance around this\u2014is the level of consultation that will take place as part of this. Presumably the activity holders or the companies would be involved, but what about other people who were involved in those projects and particularly in the consultative part of those projects? Are they also going to be involved? This might be experts or iwi and hap\u016B. How will that work? We\u2019re not hearing the real realities of what this means for DOC and how they\u2019re actually going to manage it. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022 data-id=\u00228d6b5f0ae2e94ca8a8b80246e5b5ce30\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228d6b5f0ae2e94ca8a8b80246e5b5ce30\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation):\u003C/span\u003E I\u2019ll say for the 14th time that there might be up to 500 permits that are implicated by this matter. There\u2019s no burden on the Department of Conservation (DOC) because, under the proposed legislation, those section 53 authorisations that have been issued prior to the court decision are validated. There is a real uncertainty right now that they may be invalid\u2014hence why DOC has, effectively, downed tools until such time as we make these changes. DOC has got enough on its plate trying to look after 30 percent of the entire land of this country and some marine space, and they are absolutely enthusiastic\u2014as you can see\u2014to get on and see this change made. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EIn terms of the review provisions, there was a question earlier on about whether or not we could include review provisions. Well, in the disclosure statement, we have stated that the Ministry for Regulation and DOC have committed to undertake a post-implementation review within two years of enactment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EFinally, the department, Te Papa Atawhai, has taken on legislative actions to improve the processing of applications, with better guidance for decision making in line with the law. I\u2019ve seen for myself a lot of that hard, diligent, and professional work being undertaken by the officials at DOC to process concessions in a timely manner, and I look forward to further reform in due course that will help enable that much more. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022 data-id=\u002213def056bf124ae99d021b750dd89eb9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002213def056bf124ae99d021b750dd89eb9\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two points for the Minister. Before I begin, I want to pick up on a comment that the Hon Rachel Brooking made about the importance of retrospective legislation having full scrutiny in committee stages when we are under all stages of urgency. We\u2019re in a long period of urgency where the Government is rushing through legislation. It is really important that we understand the retrospective impact of this law, which is a direct retrospective impact. There are some circumstances in which we would give it a lighter touch because the retrospective impact is not direct, it doesn\u2019t impact directly on someone\u2019s rights, and it doesn\u2019t directly impact on a decision that has been made.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022\u003EIn this case, there are 500 permits\u2014as the Minister keeps saying, as if that will help us conclude our efforts to investigate this\u2014that are directly impacted by this and 85 directly by the case law moving through the courts. This is something actively being considered by the judiciary. It is something we need to consider at this level very carefully before we impinge on any of the rights accrued before this legislative change was made. We should not be analysing it, as the Minister has suggested, as if this legislative change has already occurred. The relevant rights and duties for us to consider are the relevant rights and duties that existed before this legislative change and what the legal situation was then and how it was well understood at the time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022\u003EBuilding on the starting point that no legislation should generally have retrospective effect, there are two tests for direct retrospective effect. One is that it applies to an event or action that has already taken place. This is the case here. The second one\u2014and this is something we wish to explore with the Minister\u2014is that it prevents a person from relying on the rights that existed at the time of the conduct. This is something that I will put to the Minister now: how many of the permits that are impacted by this, Minister, are relying on a situation that was in the law as it was prior to this proposal? How many of those permits will be directly impacted and changed, and what is the scope of the change? Help this committee to understand what sort of work was being carried out unlawfully and whether the work that was being carried out unlawfully was because of an error or because of a decision of the court that was unexpected. Those are the two things we really have to grapple with when we decide about how this Parliament makes the decision about how clauses 1, 2, and 3 should apply under Part 1 in new Schedule 1AA.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022\u003EThe next point I wish to make is that we haven\u2019t heard, from the Minister, who the beneficiaries of this change will be and who those who will lose out in this circumstance are. Are there groups that have brought claims or are in negotiations with the Department of Conservation (DOC) who do not agree with the way that the permits have been applied and whose rights would be extinguished by this decision? Simply put: are there people out there who are upset by this change? Are their rights being extinguished? Parliament needs to consider, every time we make retrospective legislation like this, who the losers are. Is it their livelihoods that are on the line? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227dbfbd83-6770-4555-8477-85fa01511504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c3595621bde04ff4a3169c1abf94b337\u0022\u003EAndy Foster\u003C/span\u003E: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022df7cb05e0ba34090b3746ccd168ec9b3\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS\u003C/span\u003E: Are their rights\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227dbfbd83-6770-4555-8477-85fa01511504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022289ec059d6ab4070ab69a1f790a2a4e9\u0022\u003EAndy Foster\u003C/span\u003E: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002206d0cef8851c493e9d3f77d28c736ced\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS\u003C/span\u003E: How will they be impacted? What is the effect for the community? We haven\u2019t had any discussion of that, Mr Andy Foster, in this committee stage. We would welcome a call from New Zealand First about the people who are impacted because of these bills.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve heard from the Minister that it may be roads and it may be infrastructure that are being built here which are beneficial to the community. That is great. That is something that Parliament should take into account about who benefits and what the cost of the retrospectivity is. When you extinguish rights for some people for the benefit of others, you should understand the benefits, but you should also understand who is affected. It\u2019s not just the kiwis. It\u2019s not just the lizards. It\u2019s the people who care. It\u2019s the people who have brought these claims that are then impacted by these kinds of decisions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022\u003EI also want to ask the Minister: is this validating matters that are generally understood to be lawful but are, in fact, unlawful because of an error? That error question is\u2014well, what is the error? Was there an error when Parliament passed the initial legislation? I know we\u2019re going back some way, Minister, but when Parliament last considered this, was it generally understood that it would be the case that DOC would ever have these sorts of powers that are now being fixed up here? Is this a fix? We need to understand whether the intention here has been broken.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022\u003EIf I can just finish my second point for the Minister. I want to ask the Minister about his review provisions, which he has helpfully outlined. They are different from those proposed by this side of the House, and I want to make that clear. What is being proposed here is that it is appropriate for retrospective legislation, especially with direct impact, to have a review by Parliament, either by one of its select committees, its Regulations Review Committee, or another body, as determined by the House, through primary legislation. What he has proposed is that there will be a review provision by not only his ministry but also the Ministry for Regulation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022\u003EI want him to explain to us, firstly, what the role of the Ministry for Regulation is in that review, given that it has no legislative framework yet for us to understand what its review role will be. Secondly, if the ministry is to review this legislation and the impact of its retrospectivity, how will that be public? How will the people whose rights are impacted know what that review is? How will they feed into that? Will there be consultation with them? Who will be consulted? To give a power of review that is, essentially, a review of the primary legislation through the primary legislation with no mandatory considerations, no design for that review\u2014we need to understand, at this point now, how that review will be conducted. Will the people who care be at the table?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022\u003EThese are simple questions, but it is very clearly the role of Parliament to make sure that these rules, which apply to people and take away peoples\u2019 rights\u2014we can do that, but we need to understand what those rights are and that they will be treated carefully, with respect, in the next period for review. Minister, what is the role of the Ministry for Regulation? What legislation will guide the Ministry for Regulation when considering the effect of the retrospectivity here?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022 data-id=\u00224fdd40438195409884e84e16b5b40bda\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224fdd40438195409884e84e16b5b40bda\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I turn to the Schedule, specifically Part 1, clauses 1 and 2. The Minister has helpfully laid out some of the context around this, which is about the 500 permits that need to be validated. I also think that the crux of the situation is that the court has determined that what the Department of Conservation (DOC) is currently doing is, in effect, illegal, and I can appreciate that the Minister would like to rectify that. Out of the permits available\u2014and the Minister has helpfully given us an answer, and previously the Minister has mentioned that this has been going on for many years\u2014what was the earliest instance of a permit being granted?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EConsidering DOC has been giving these grants under section\u00A071 and there\u2019s no information available to this committee about how DOC reviews these permits or how DOC ensures that these permits are up to date with the most recent legislation or the latest iteration of any relevant legislation as well as the duration of some of these permits, are some of these authorities enduring as in they will go on for 20 years or for another 50 years to come?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EWithout that kind of information, I want to know whether, when this bill comes into effect, including the retrospectivity, there is a requirement for DOC to ensure that all of these authorities that are now being given, essentially, legal effect under this bill will be compliant with the relevant legislation as it is or with the relevant legislation at the time that they were granted. I feel that in terms of Schedule 1 and the retrospectivity, it just says that they are, essentially, all, in effect, legal, but it doesn\u2019t mention\u2014and we have no understanding of it\u2014whether the legality at the time of grant is now consistent with the Wildlife Act as we see it now. We don\u2019t have the earliest instance. That is my main question around this for the time being. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022 data-id=\u0022a6b2405c334240598b1b43709f9214a8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a6b2405c334240598b1b43709f9214a8\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. One thing I would like to truth test, Minister, is the whole proposition that this legislation is based on, which is that it\u2019s responding to a legal uncertainty that is somehow a perilous threat to these activities that are supposedly authorised. The Minister of Conservation seems to be suggesting that, in the past two months, this whole swathe of projects have been on hold and that nothing has been going on. I just want to clarify if that is what the Minister is saying, that there are perhaps 500 projects that have been doing nothing\u2014or, I presume, a bunch of those are. As my colleague just asked, when was the first unlawful authority issued? How far back are we going? Last night, the Minister talked about it being 20 years ago. Are many of these authorities, which are going to be now validated by this legislation, projects that are long finished or complete, or are we talking about only active projects? Is the Minister suggesting that all of those projects are on hold?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003EOne of the reasons I want to ask that is because the argument for this being so rushed through the House and not scrutinised is that there\u2019s some sort of temporal threat to these things going about their business as they are authorised. In that regard, who would be the prosecuting agency for a breach of the Wildlife Act? Given that this court has deemed that these authorities are unlawful\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221881d4dab05f409a812a564b28108f3b\u0022\u003EHon Tama Potaka\u003C/span\u003E: DOC?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e0283dfc344542158640fa8815b17a67\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014who is the prosecuting agency? Yes, you\u2019ve just answered the question correctly. I heard you. It\u2019s the Department of Conservation, isn\u2019t it? No?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002244967dc4-6cc7-4567-b8ef-cc3a9b354544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eedf021166bc45418468702b5cc8638f\u0022\u003EGrant McCallum\u003C/span\u003E: Getting repetitive.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221914fdf979c1401ab0df38ea06f93e57\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: Excuse me\u2014point of order. I\u2019ve been accused of being repetitive. I\u2019m asking this question for the first time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fe1c44fafab84bdf90e6c011d55220ed\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s not a point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227982ee081433486c81baabce6d8567ff\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: That is the first time I\u2019ve asked who the prosecuting agency is, and I saw the Minister ask the official that very question because they didn\u2019t know the answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002247153653e45741fcb4fa8bb0d9dfda39\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s not a point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229eae6efb7fc140a8b5117ee36047f16a\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: OK. Well, Madam Chair, I would appreciate if the other side could pay some attention. These are serious questions. If the prosecuting agency is the Department of Conservation, then is the Minister suggesting that the Department of Conservation is about to go and prosecute all of these operators with whom they have, no doubt, worked closely to evaluate what the ecological questions are and what the species are that need to be protected? It doesn\u2019t seem plausible. I\u2019d like the Minister to clarify that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003EIn the interim two months since this court finding, how many court cases have been brought for breaches of the law now that it\u2019s been deemed unlawful? I wonder if the Minister has any answers on that. One of the messages that the Environmental Law Initiative made pretty clear in their communication with Newsroom was that they did not believe it was likely that there would be any cases brought, because the legislation\u2014the Wildlife Act section 68AB\u2014already has a defence of reasonable efforts. Those are those are my core questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003EOne thing I want to quickly clarify before my five minutes are up is: clause 1(2) of new Schedule\u00A01AA, inserted by clause 6, \u201CValidation of certain authorities\u201D\u2014the wording there\u2014says, \u201CAn authority to which this clause applies is validated to the extent that the authority would have been valid had new sections 53A and 53B(5) been in force when the authority was granted or purportedly granted.\u201D Can you just double clarify what that clause exactly means, Minister? Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022 data-id=\u0022eabeeb76858d4710a8aa7e80824b2a23\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022eabeeb76858d4710a8aa7e80824b2a23\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you for this additional opportunity to be involved in \u201Ctruth, dare, or command\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThe review will be led by the Department of Conservation (DOC). The Ministry of Regulation will administer the process for this review as it\u2019s linked to the regulatory impact requirements set out in the Cabinet Office circular. What I\u2019ll also add is that last night, in the wee hours, I mentioned that we will accelerate, with acuity, the review of the Wildlife Act. As we recall, the previous Government was very intent on talking the talk, but we will walk our talk.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s premature to fully articulate the terms of reference for the review that will be undertaken between the Ministry of Regulation and Te Papa Atawhai - DOC, but there will be a post-implementation review and a full-on comprehensive review. I can\u2019t wait to get into fifth gear for that matter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EIn relation to the fuzzy math of the other side, I note, for the fifteenth time, there are around 500 potentially implicated permits. Right now, one of the reasons why we\u2019re so intent on progressing this urgent legislation through the House is that there are about 300 permits awaiting consideration by the Department of Conservation. Now, whilst some members of the House might not think that\u2019s important and think that we can wait weeks or months or years for another review and committee, we\u2019re actually very intent on making sure that important programmes\u2014environmental, economic, and others\u2014get kicked off and started. That\u2019s one of the reasons why we\u2019re so committed to ensuring that this set of amendments is made to the Wildlife Act, so that these programmes that often align with the renewable infrastructure aspirations of all those in the House\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b68b6d515153490182467806e8183c2d\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: And coal mines?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cb04cc9d67644a4f95c906acac744502\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014are accelerated. And, if required, mahi in the mineral space, which I\u2019m sure matua Minita Jones will be happy with.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EOver the past two months\u2014in response to a question from my Green colleague\u2014DOC has stopped issuing these permits. The tools are down. That hasn\u2019t necessarily resulted in an increase of orange cones throughout the country, but it has meant that a lot of folks that want to do good things for the motu have been unable to do that because they haven\u2019t been issued with a permit. Now, when permits are issued, of course, there is a bit of consultation that\u2019s undertaken in good faith prior to the permits being issued. Often that consultation will be with local, on the ground, tangata whenua during the permit processing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThere was a question around when the first unlawful authority was issued. I\u2019m not going to answer that question. What\u2019s more important is that we are going to validate all section 53 authorities that were issued prior to the court decision so people can operate with the right signals, with the right incentives, and with certainty, just like my marriage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227dbfbd83-6770-4555-8477-85fa01511504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222ae29a5c954b48a18c7c29b91696a00d\u0022\u003EAndy Foster\u003C/span\u003E: In the way they thought they were going to do it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f03dfc97e6be45c2b0cd54bce4f9aa73\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, that\u2019s right, ditto. Now, on that question around the prosecuting agency, I think we\u2019ve received the answer to that. In relation to the retrospectivity of this, as we\u2019ve mentioned many times, the High Court decision introduced quite a degree of uncertainty. This sort of targeted and narrow solution, with a very short, tight, succinct group of amendments, will respond to the various issues that were raised through the Mt Messenger court decision. It provides that certainty that people can operate in line with these section 53 authorities, which, until this time, have been a universal understanding. We\u2019ll restore the status quo, and, as such, it was a justifiable amendment at this time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002244967dc4-6cc7-4567-b8ef-cc3a9b354544\u0022 data-id=\u00222561c5798be7411a91292508a027cc43\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002244967dc4-6cc7-4567-b8ef-cc3a9b354544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222561c5798be7411a91292508a027cc43\u0022\u003EGRANT McCALLUM (National\u2014Northland):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That debate on this question now close.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u0022047e5343b1494adcaba1472812216c66\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022047e5343b1494adcaba1472812216c66\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m not going to take the question, but I do think we need to be looking for new material. This has become quite repetitive.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022 data-id=\u00223527c16a402b450088e91eae71a017c8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223527c16a402b450088e91eae71a017c8\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019ve got three points I want to make. One of them is in response to what the Minister has just said about review clauses\u2014that, within two years of the enactment of this bill, there will be a review and that he wants to walk the talk and review the whole Act. Great. It\u2019s great news that he\u2019s going to get on with that work, but the issue is that this bill is being passed in all-stages urgency, so an immediate review is required.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EHelpfully, when I was last speaking, my colleague Arena Williams drafted an amendment to do that immediate review of these words to see if they work. It doesn\u2019t have to be a policy review, just the working of the mechanisms\u2014not a big policy one. It is to insert a new clause 2(5): \u201CThis clause does not apply to an authority referred to in clause 2(1) of this part unless the Minister initiates a review, within one month of Royal assent of this Act, of this retrospective provision, to be conducted by Parliament before 5 March 2027.\u201D We could change the dates on that, but that is the sort of mechanism that we\u2019re talking about. There needs to be an immediate review, because this has not had submissions. I have been very unsatisfied with the answers that we\u2019ve been getting from the Minister. That\u2019s one point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EMy second point is about the role of section 71. We heard from the Minister\u2014this goes to clause\u00A02 in the Schedule, on page 5, \u201CLawfulness of certain section 53 authorities when section\u00A071 applicable\u201D\u2014in the Part 1 debate that if section 71 is applicable, you don\u2019t go to section 53. We also heard, in that debate, that section 71 is horribly written and that it only applies to some different pieces of legislation, many of which are now repealed. One of those pieces of legislation relates to roads. If the Minister can engage on this relationship between sections 71 and 53, when the court case was about the road\u2014where section 71 applies, how should it, in the future, interact if somebody gets a section\u00A053 authority?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EI note that this, too, is trying to clarify that it doesn\u2019t matter if you got a section 53 authority when you should have got a section 71. That\u2019s OK\u2014it\u2019s lawful. What happens in the future, given that section\u00A071 is such a mess and people, probably, don\u2019t understand when they should be using section\u00A071 as opposed to section 53? I think it would be very useful if you say, for the Hansard, how that relationship between those two clauses is, in your view, supposed to work. Then I think it would also be useful if we go on to clause 4 of this schedule that\u2019s being inserted, on the back page of the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s specific mention of the case that we\u2019ve all been talking about tonight. Again, it would be good for the Minister to confirm my interpretation of that. Is that the case, Environmental Law Initiative v The Director-General of the Department of Conservation and others [2025]\u2014well, the Environmental Law Initiative wouldn\u2019t want to appeal it, because they won, but, if the director-general or anybody else who has appeal rights around their case\u2014they are not impacted by these changes, and that is the point of clause 4. That is different to any other proceedings that might already be in train about this. Then, if the Minister has had any advice and if there are any other actions in train at the moment about the Wildlife Act, that would be useful to know as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022 data-id=\u00222ddecebd71554dc68958b1434e02a841\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222ddecebd71554dc68958b1434e02a841\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation):\u003C/span\u003E I appreciate the creative suggestions around an immediate review. We will not be undertaking that. It\u2019s a suboptimal and underwhelming idea, and it would just create more uncertainty, but thank you for that interesting and creative idea.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EIn relation to the Mt Messenger case and the Environmental Law Initiative, the finding, actually was that a section 71 authorisation was valid in that instance. We are concerned about the additional\u2014potentially up to 500\u2014permits that are held by permitholders. One comment was made this morning, and last night, about the rights of people who may be affected. Yeah, the rights and expectations of the people who hold the permits are what we are really concerned about. We are really concerned about their provisions and their authorisations, and any suggestion that there are other people out there who are not involved in the rights and permits that may be affected\u2014the people who those permitholders employ, and the people who are driving on the roads, and the people who are running cows throughout the country and who may be impacted if this decision has an influence on the TBfree programme. All of a sudden, they\u2019ve got issues with their bovine populations and their bovine herds, maybe even in the hemp hurds.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003ESection 53 is the focus of this targeted, narrow set of amendments that have been proposed, at this moment in this time, to give certainty to many, many permitholders and, indeed, New Zealanders. It\u2019s not section 71, and we won\u2019t be playing \u201CMickey Rabbit\u201D on an immediate review. Kia ora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022 data-id=\u0022c878a464eba74e4c95924bcf1588ee0a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c878a464eba74e4c95924bcf1588ee0a\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. We have some trouble here in this committee stage now. The Minister of Conservation said, \u201CI\u2019m not going to answer\u201D, on a question about how far the retrospectivity goes back in time and what the nature of the retrospectivity is. The problem is that this committee is being asked to make a decision that could affect the rights and interests of people going back 30 or 50 years, without any understanding of what is being asked of it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022\u003EMy first question to the Minister is: does Cabinet know how far the retrospectivity\u2014which is being proposed in urgency here today, with no ability for the Parliament to review it\u2014goes back? Does Cabinet know what the nature of the retrospectivity is and whose rights are being extinguished?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022\u003EMadam Chair, this is not a repetitive point. If the Minister doesn\u2019t answer, Parliament needs to be clear that it is being asked to make retrospective, directly retrospective, legislation about a matter that it does not understand and has not been provided with answers on. This is a serious point, and the gravity of it cannot be stressed enough. We deserve the chance to interrogate what is going on here. The reason why lawyers and some sort of appointed board at the Ministry of Regulation do not make these decisions, and why Parliament does, is because parliamentarians are charged with the duty of understanding how these things affect their communities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll give you an example, Minister. When I worked in Ng\u0101ti Wh\u0101tua o Kaipara, in a role that you yourself have held in iwi organisations, I was responsible for the overseeing of a permit granted by the Department of Conservation that affected the mokomoko\u2014the lizards\u2014in the Woodhill Forest. In that situation, we granted the permits, for a road built in that forest, where it was agreed with the iwi prior to the building of the road that the lizards in the area would be removed by the iwi. This made job schemes for the young men who were employed in the work. They were hunters. They were people who did forestry work in the forest, and, for a long time, they stayed together at the marae and were overseen by a kaum\u0101tua as they removed these lizards. Not only did they remove the lizards, but they also learnt about the history and the stories. There is a lizard on the pou of that marae. These are important parts of history and the things that bring these people together. They are local people who share local stories about this wildlife. In that situation, one day, work was being carried out when bulldozers came and removed the trees in an area where this work had not been conducted. That was devastating for the young men working on this project for a such a long time, who had dedicated their time and energy to it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022\u003EThe reason I am asking the Minister whose rights are being extinguished by this is because people care very deeply about it. Young men who are working out there in forests right now will have problems with the way that it has proceeded over many years. Things go wrong in these situations. Permits are issued wrongly. People take the wrong actions under permits that are granted. They should have the ability for a court, a tribunal, or an MP who represents their interests, to raise these issues, instead of a Minister who comes to this Chamber and says, \u201CI\u2019m not going to answer. I\u2019m not going to tell Parliament what I am extinguishing.\u201D This is something that should be interrogated by this committee. To shut down a debate on this, like the Minister is trying to do, and to say, \u201CI\u2019m not going to answer on the specific examples. I\u2019m not going to make this real.\u201D, makes a mockery of this entire process. Why don\u2019t we let lawyers decide every time we make retrospective decisions? You know why we don\u2019t? Because the real people who are affected by this are represented by us. This is a Minister who has taken an arrogant approach to changing their rights and taking away their ability to have any say in the processes, which affects their jobs, their livelihoods, their families, and their communities. That is a shame.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022\u003EWe should continue to investigate this legislative impact very carefully because this is the only opportunity we have, not only as Parliament but as the New Zealanders who are affected by this. It maybe 10 years back, it may be 20 years back, or it may be 50 years back, so, Minister, tell us how retrospective this is and who is losing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022 data-id=\u00222c78074f7f2c45aa82384170bb92cb5d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222c78074f7f2c45aa82384170bb92cb5d\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation):\u003C/span\u003E I appreciate the energy and the passion that all members have for sustaining the environment and mahi out there. That\u2019s one of the challenges out there. Right now, there are hundreds of applications waiting to be authorised by the Department of Conservation, and until they\u2019re authorised, there\u2019s actually not as many jobs in the community. That\u2019s one of the challenges that we have as we try to get this economy moving again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s very plain, as set out in the relevant amendments, that the authorisations that were issued under section\u00A053 before the court decision was validated are valid. There is a real sense of uncertainty and a lack of assurance and confidence amongst many permitholders, and, indeed, there is a lack of certainty for the agency that is responsible for issuing the permits around their ability to issue permits in the manner that was universally understood prior to the court decision. We are very focused on ensuring this targeted set of narrow amendments is enabled so that those very young men that the member just mentioned and just referred to are able to continue doing the important mahi that they are doing in order to look after te taiao, amongst other things.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022 data-id=\u00223a279a6c93c641fa80287796509dc94f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223a279a6c93c641fa80287796509dc94f\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I still have many questions, and I\u2019m just going to get straight to them. I\u2019ll just make them really clear so that we can, hopefully, elicit some clear responses. The Minister has been saying, even stating, in his last response that this intention is to validate what has happened in the past and what may happen in the future. Now, what we\u2019re still unclear about, and what I\u2019d really appreciate an answer on is: is the intention with this bill that the director-general will validate these without knowing? Is the Minister saying that it will just be validations no matter what? Presumably, there is some form of assessment. What is that assessment? What is the methodology? Will they be validated no matter what? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003EWhat if, in opening this huge can of worms and bureaucracy, the Department of Conservation identifies within this process\u2014and it becomes clear, on the odd occasion, with these hundreds and hundreds of authorisations\u2014that, actually, some of these activities have caused something unlawful? They may have actually caused damage that is concerning. Are authorities and the people and companies who have undertaken these activities going to be exempt, no matter what, from prosecution? What is going on with this process in terms of actual assessment of the actual activities and the impact on the environment? Then, what is the assessment that flows through that process into the validation or not? Then, will those authorities actually be exempt, regardless of what actually took place and the impact on the environment? Those are some very clear questions that we are yet to get an answer on. Please elucidate, Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022 data-id=\u0022a3c457ab6f0445878ba2568367e508f2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a3c457ab6f0445878ba2568367e508f2\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation):\u003C/span\u003E It\u2019s starting to get to sausage roll time, people. How far back do the previous authorisations go? The earliest active authority that I\u2019m advised of started in 2003. Monitoring of these authorisations actually takes place on a regular basis, and the validation of a permit, as mentioned, before a court decision was made\u2014those permits will be validated. It doesn\u2019t mean that the conditions have changed. The conditions are still within the permit and the authorisation. Department of Conservation (DOC) rangers and others go out to monitor these on a regular basis. Sometimes iwi members do as well. A member in the Labour team just mentioned that before.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThe validation of these permits, as proposed by way of the bill, does not mean the permit holders can go and do whatever they like. They have a set of conditions that they have to actually fulfil and deliver on, and they are monitored typically by rangers out in the Department of Conservation - Te Papa Atawhai districts concerned. That might involve site checks and reporting, but it depends on the conditions on the permit. In the Mt Messenger example, that was a couple of times a month with the Mt Messenger Alliance crew, who were constructing the roads. DOC staff members sit on ecological review panels reviewing aspects of the consents and ensuring those relevant outcomes have been met. We\u2019re very adamant, again, that people need confidence, and that\u2019s what we\u2019re here to provide.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u0022fe7269f76c8d40a3822ca354bef31b29\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fe7269f76c8d40a3822ca354bef31b29\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: As I said before, I am looking for new material.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e1f4bcc5b2ef4c63a6e4b58ea5974dd9\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s new material. I certainly have it, I promise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224ca41259edc540088a96c86410a634a0\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m not hearing a great deal of that. I will give the call to the Hon Kieran McAnulty.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022 data-id=\u0022421b2fd5b58c4049a8ec5414045e3604\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022421b2fd5b58c4049a8ec5414045e3604\u0022\u003EHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I\u2019m actually seeking a point of order, Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022afffb364014343fabf4a9395bc7b039f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, sorry, a point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022653731c61a68423bba14ee4e41233662\u0022\u003EHon KIERAN McANULTY\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s all right. It\u2019s quite timely, after saying that. I\u2019m really after some clarity here. I don\u2019t think I can remember a time when a Minister has stood up in committee stage\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002215f216512bf249ed9ff2f2ef17ad160f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s the point of order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224fe03863a36248a58c1a7e3088568819\u0022\u003EHon KIERAN McANULTY\u003C/span\u003E: This is the point of order. I don\u2019t remember a time when a Minister in a committee of the whole House stage has stood up and flat out refused: \u201CI will not answer a question.\u201D That has been raised by my colleague Arena Williams. The Minister has responded after a subsequent question and has not addressed that again. Now, you\u2019ve said to the committee that you\u2019re looking for new material. The issue is that when questions are being asked\u2014and quite serious ones\u2014and the Minister\u2019s response is \u201CI will not answer that\u201D, what option have we got if we\u2019re not getting answers? It\u2019s one thing for a Minister to ignore our questions\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002262996bd7eb4a4476b9d2377f29ea9f79\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I understand\u2014I understand the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f89d21640a60465b90a8e6368622dfe4\u0022\u003EHon KIERAN McANULTY\u003C/span\u003E: Actually, my point of order is yet to come, Madam Chair\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f383bc2f48474a25a57a26c3f8bd0a1b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, can you get to it, please?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d79b06f2170444538b29b38369227c17\u0022\u003EHon KIERAN McANULTY\u003C/span\u003E: The point is that the committee, I think, is at the point where it needs reassurance from you as Chair that you are taking into account that the Minister is refusing to answer questions, in your consideration of the closure motion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u0022b1a85a07b13c4281acabc51069acd402\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b1a85a07b13c4281acabc51069acd402\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll refer the member to several rulings that Mr Speaker has made, especially during question time, where the answer may not satisfy the questioner. It\u2019s not my role to instruct the Minister in any particular way to answer questions. That will be judged by the general public.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c524475f56284ff483f086e7a8e498b0\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224bfb161443a9409996817766494587f2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m not going to get into a debate about it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022050d9da185a6453c83e0a04552a0a20a\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s not a debate, Madam Chair. Point of order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b784c9d146c848a193ff6ae4331d85f2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: A point of order, Kieran McAnulty.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022 data-id=\u002234144dc6492d4e509da3c80c3bac7aff\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002234144dc6492d4e509da3c80c3bac7aff\u0022\u003EHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E This is not question time. This is the committee of the whole House, and the requirements of you as presiding officer are completely different to that of the Speaker during question time. The question was very specific. Presiding officers during committee stages have criteria that need to be met in order for a closure motion to be considered. I asked you to reassure the committee that the Minister\u2019s flat-out refusal to answer questions is being taken into your consideration of the closure motion. It wasn\u2019t anything to do with Speakers\u2019 rulings during question time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u0022823e87399dde4ceb97c84aeec0f59630\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022823e87399dde4ceb97c84aeec0f59630\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The short answer is yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022 data-id=\u0022a7146fc210754c9daf1185fec85b4f20\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a7146fc210754c9daf1185fec85b4f20\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the Minister for finally giving us a date, which is that the earliest instance is 2003. Now, since 2003, based on the New Zealand Legislation website, we have seen that the Wildlife Act has been amended no less than 22 times, at a minimum\u2014the New Zealand Legislation website only goes back to 2007, according to what I can find. I\u2019d just like to get reassurance from the Minister, then, that this means that every time there is an amendment, we look at whether those authorisations that have been granted, or any new authorisations being granted, are in line with the updated legislation. That\u2019s my first question. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EMy second question is to do with clause 2 in new Schedule 1AA, which is to be inserted by clause\u00A06. This is about the lawfulness of the authorities that have been granted under section 71. I think that there is one thing, that hasn\u2019t really been touched on, that stood out to me while I was going through the High Court ruling. I want to point the Minister specifically to paragraph 116 of the High Court ruling, where the judge said, \u201CI observe that I do not see any basis under s\u00A071 for a retrospective consent to be granted. That section expressly requires the \u2018prior consent\u2019 of the Minister of Conservation and the Minister charged with the administration of the second Act in question.\u201D This then meant that under section 71, the Department of Conservation (DOC) not only has granted authorities prior to something taking place but also retrospectively after wildlife has been killed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003ENow, this is really, really interesting. My understanding of the legislation you have put forward is that DOC is still required to proactively, and prior, grant an authority but that DOC still cannot retrospectively grant an authority. However, the carte blanche nature of this Schedule\u2014particularly clause\u00A02, which says that everything that was granted under section 71 would be validated regardless of whether they are proactive or retrospective in nature\u2014means that this clause actually goes against Part\u00A01 of this bill. Can I just confirm whether that is the correct reading? Again, Part 1 of this bill specifically does state\u2014well, my understanding is that it does state it, because it didn\u2019t say, \u201COnce this animal is killed,\u201D. It talks about the killing of an animal which is prospective. What that would mean is that DOC still does not have the power to give authorities retrospectively, but the validation of those authorities under clause 2 in Part 1 of the Schedule allows for those authorities that have been granted retrospectively, which then would go against the legislation. Am I reading that correctly? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EThose are my two questions. The first one is whether, with the update of the Wildlife Act, the authorisations are still in line with each iteration of updating the Wildlife Act, and the second question is whether that would create an inconsistency between Schedule 1AA and Part 1 of this bill, because the validation of any authority that has been granted retrospectively, which goes against this bill but also against the High Court\u2019s ruling, is not going to create inconsistencies. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022 data-id=\u0022b8308858ce0649a98786e4793baac6da\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b8308858ce0649a98786e4793baac6da\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation):\u003C/span\u003E Just in respect of those two questions, permitholders who hold a permit with conditions need to stick to those conditions. Now, sometimes the law changes, there\u2019s amendments, and they have to follow the law that\u2019s over and above their conditions. They might have conditions that are negated by legal changes along the way, amendments\u2014OK, you\u2019ve got to follow the amendments to the legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThe second thing is that there were additional comments about section 71\u2014the proposed amendments are not about section 71; they\u2019re about section 53. That\u2019s what they\u2019re about. The Mt Messenger case and the decision, basically, came to the view that section 53 was not a legitimate basis for that road to be undertaken and for the activity around wildlife control to be managed, but section\u00A071 was a legitimate basis. This set of amendments is about section 53 and making sure, to your final question, that those authorisations that were issued under section 53, before the court decision, are validated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EIn the future, here is the understanding\u2014which is Part 1\u2014through which we can be absolutely certain that the universal understanding that everyone had before the court decision is reinforced and we can rebalance and restart this matter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022 data-id=\u00221303fa7aca7d448ca3b10ba87f0e5e98\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221303fa7aca7d448ca3b10ba87f0e5e98\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I have a further question for the Minister, given that he has not answered the question about how far the retrospectivity extends. I want to ask him why Schedule 1AA does not include a date frame. He must know, surely, even if he\u2019s not going to tell this committee how far back the retrospectivity, which he is asking us to pass in urgency, goes. He must know. Even if Cabinet doesn\u2019t know, he must. Why has he not introduced that time frame in the legislation? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022\u003EOne of the key principles of the legislative drafting guidelines is that if there is retrospectivity in legislation, if that retrospectivity in legislation is direct, and if that retrospective and direct legislation impacts on the accrued rights and duties of people, it\u2019s a really bad one with retrospectivity. If you\u2019re going to do that, be specific about it. \u201CSay it with your full chest\u201D is the way it\u2019s expressed in parliamentary procedure. Where is the authority given by Parliament to extinguish these rights?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022\u003EI see that National members on the other side of the Chamber are exercised by this point. They know that retrospectivity in this way is sloppy procedure and sloppy legislative drafting. We\u2019re not even sure who is affected by this. It is outrageous, but that is the standard applied by these National Ministers. Just insert a date range, Minister. Would you accept a date range from me in an amendment, based on the date range proposed by Lawrence Xu-Nan, of 2003? Would that at least give this Parliament some semblance of care about the standards that should be applied to retrospective legislation, Minister?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022 data-id=\u00222181c9e0af8b4d3186b4ad341d9fa296\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222181c9e0af8b4d3186b4ad341d9fa296\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation):\u003C/span\u003E I won\u2019t reach into Hansard so I can read out what I said. I\u2019ll just say it. I\u2019m advised that the active authorities that are in play at the moment are from 2003 onwards. This goes up to the date of the court decision. That\u2019s what we\u2019re dealing with. There may be some\u2014but I\u2019m not advised of that\u2014that are before that, but we\u2019re dealing with active authorities from 2003 up to the time of the court decision. Please, Mr Chair, I do not want to have to repeat that answer for a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022 data-id=\u00224ef7bd701e734390b4d4f26d112904e9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224ef7bd701e734390b4d4f26d112904e9\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you, Minister, for that answer\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b6c2d431312f47e1a30fe8e3142b3196\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Really?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002297de690815524b2a9828c2bfe9d425fc\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: To some extent. I was trying to give him some credit. It\u2019s hard because, for clarity, we haven\u2019t had the thoroughness of answers that we should rightly expect in this process of prosecuting such a significant piece of rushed legislation on the primary means by which wildlife is protected in this country, and legislation that, basically, issues licences to kill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003ENow, I want to specifically talk to clause 3 in Part 1 of new Schedule 1AA: \u201CSavings relating to commenced proceedings: Clauses 1 and 2 do not affect any proceedings commenced or in progress before 28 March 2025, or any rights of appeal.\u201D Another question of how many, if any, active prosecutions or appeals will be affected by this clause\u2014does the Minister have an answer for that? Does the Cabinet know? How many will be affected by that clause 3, which states clauses 1 and 2 do not affect any proceedings?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003EClause 4: \u201CEffect of clauses 1 and 2 relating to High Court judgment: (1) Clauses 1 and 2 do not\u2014(a) apply to the authority\u2014(i) that the Director-General granted or purportedly granted to the New Zealand Transport Agency under section 53 on 22\u00A0December\u00A02021; and\u201D\u2014I won\u2019t read the rest of it out; you don\u2019t need to hear that. My question is regarding clause 4(1)(a)(i) and (ii): why is this one case treated differently? The implication is that the outcome of this case challenges the Government\u2019s legal position. Can the Minister clarify why there\u2019s a clause that specifically relates to the Environmental Law Initiative v The Director-General of the Department of Conservation and others. Finally, on that same\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bea640ebb99a40ec88db62f95931a96b\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Minister, answer my question on that point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ec47ecd5faf94233a9b3a2d8637f5665\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: You asked already\u2014yes, I know.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fe527116ea1f45ef806573475d7d3f9d\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: But it\u2019s not been answered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002277339df90ff74fa7a7dd451c70cd7957\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: It hasn\u2019t been answered. I was trying to ask it in a way that maybe the Minister would realise that he needed to answer it. Part 1\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226714896285c14e9fb81fae194fcf457a\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Repetition. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d419db2dfa50419eb62e5ffa689eaaed\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister needs to answer questions, and we have a right to ask questions to be answered. If the Minister is going to continue to take the position that he was called to point of order on by Kieran McAnulty, where he\u2019s refusing to answer questions, then we should keep asking them and say, \u201CWhy will you not answer this question?\u201D It\u2019s an explicit clause in this legislation\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002280e5048f4e47432ab21e0f2460223021\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: If I can ask members to direct their conversation my way and not to each other across the Chamber. I would just also note that what we\u2019re looking for is the Minister addressing questions. I understand that members might not appreciate or support the answers given, but having Ministers address questions is important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022faf9f17ce03a43a2a07eee3b37f82bda\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair\u2014the Minister has not addressed that question, to be clear. Part 1 of new Schedule 1AA, clause 4(2): \u201CHowever, clauses 1 and 2 are to be treated as applying to that authority for the purposes of any proceedings for an offence against section 53(7)\u201D\u2014I won\u2019t read all the numbers to you; I\u2019ll spare you that\u2014\u201Cthat are commenced on or after 28 March 2025.\u201D In terms of clause 4(2), the intention of the clause is unclear, Minister. Can the Minister elaborate on the intended effect of this, because so much of this legislation is unclear? That\u2019s my question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022 data-id=\u0022c0244495e71b40b494f86b19f8216ac7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c0244495e71b40b494f86b19f8216ac7\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I want to go back to the point about section 71. The Minister tells us, \u201CSection 71 is not relevant.\u201D\u2014yes, it might be a mess; the whole Act is a mess\u2014\u201CWe\u2019re just fixing 53.\u201D Fine, I\u2019m not disputing that, and I\u2019m not making a political point about section 71. What I want to know is how they interact, because we have here, in clause 2 of new Schedule 1AA, a specific clause on the interaction. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003ENow, section 71 is a miscellaneous, strange provision, and it only applies to things that are in Schedule 9. The Minister, in the Part 1 debate\u2014I think I heard, and he can correct me if I\u2019m wrong\u2014said, \u201CIf section 71 applies to the type of project you\u2019re doing\u201D\u2014so a road; we know that section\u00A071 applies to roads\u2014\u201CIf you are doing a road, then you must use section 71, and section 71 requires the signoff of two Ministers. That is an arduous task, so I would presume that most people would not want to go to the section 71 route if the section 53 route is available, because the section 53 route is by the director-general or a delegated person. The question here is about what the Minister said in Part\u00A01. If you have to use section 71 and if section 71 is applicable, then you can\u2019t use section 53. That question has not been answered. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EI think the interpretation that the Minister said in the first reading is relevant to this clause\u00A02, because it says, at subclause (2), \u201CAn authority to which this clause applies is not unlawful merely because the person to whom the authority was granted \u2026 required consent under section 71\u201D. I presume this transitional piece in the Schedule is to make lawful anything that was granted under section\u00A053 but should have been granted under section 71. That\u2019s for the retrospective nature of these consents\u2014fine\u2014but can the Minister confirm that? He keeps talking about section 71 and saying it\u2019s not relevant. Section 71 is relevant, otherwise we wouldn\u2019t have this clause about section 71.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EWhat happens, then, with future applications for a road? We know the relevant legislation for a big road, a national road, is in Schedule 9. What happens in the future? I know I\u2019m slightly wavering off these transitional provisions, but it goes to the wider point that the Minister has said about section\u00A071: with a new application that is for something that section 71 provides for\u2014e.g., a road\u2014does that application have to go through section 71, or can it avoid section 71 and go through section\u00A053? If that is the case\u2014logic would say it is the case\u2014then we need clause 2 to rectify past mistakes where people thought they got a permission under section 53 but, because of the court case, those were invalidated, not just because section 53 consents can\u2019t be given but because they should have got one under section 71.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003ESee, it\u2019s not a political question I\u2019m asking. I\u2019m just asking for clarity so that\u2014on the Hansard\u2014people who are making roads can know what sort of permission they are needing to get. Is it from the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Transport? Or is it a simpler process by the director-general?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022 data-id=\u002282793e3691964a6bb44250d8d9a2387d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002282793e3691964a6bb44250d8d9a2387d\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation):\u003C/span\u003E There are a couple of questions that have been asked. We\u2019ll start with the immediately previous speaker, Rachel Brooking. For clarity about interaction between section 71 and section 53, in the future, all applications that should be considered under section 71 will be considered and granted if suitable under that section. However, as I said previously, some permits that should be granted under section 71 have mistakenly been granted under section 53. These will be validated by way of the amendments so that people can rely on the permit that they hold. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EWhy is new clause 4(1) in Schedule 1AA, inserted by clause 6, calling out the relevant litigation? Our aim is not to affect the existing judgment in that case or to rewrite the words but to acknowledge the decision of the High Court, noting that the permit in that regard under section 71 was validated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EFinally, in relation to cases, I\u2019ll note that to ensure appropriate safeguards are in place and to avoid affecting jurisdiction of the court or tribunal in line with section 53 of the legislation, the bill will apply from enactment of the provisions relating to the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Act 2025\u2014assuming it\u2019s passed\u2014and will not affect any proceedings commenced, or in progress, before 28 March 2025, the date of the relevant announcement by Cabinet, or any rights of appeal. As at the finalisation date of the materials herein, the Department of Conservation is not aware of any proceedings challenging additional authorities. The risk of additional proceedings being filed ahead of enactment is considered low. As soon as this bill is enacted, it will lower the risk of additional litigation during this period, and we can get in, get on, and get this country back on track.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022 data-id=\u0022afd7b89454324b37ada8085795325bc9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022afd7b89454324b37ada8085795325bc9\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I really want to pick up on the Minister claiming that these activities will be validated. There are a number of questions that have been asked that have not been addressed in any way. The questions about these validations are: how will they be validated? What is the process? What do they need to meet to actually ensure that they are assessing these before the validation? What kind of assessment will take place? What is the methodology? These are questions that have not been addressed in any way, shape, or form. What does it mean for the actual legal status and standing of these activities that have taken place? Is it that, across the board, they will be validated no matter what? What if there are instances that are picked up where there may have been something unlawful or some unfortunate situation that actually does need some form of prosecution, enforcement order, or something like that? What does this bill envisage the process will actually be with the director-general? These are questions we don\u2019t have answers to, and what is absolutely clear is that we need them. For example, if I just take the Mt Messenger example because it\u2019s the one that\u2019s most prominent with this bill, do the changes outlined in Schedule\u00A01AA, when it comes to clause\u00A04 and the effects of clauses 1 and 2 relating to the High Court judgment, give Waka Kotahi immunity from prosecution from any Wildlife Act offences committed at Mt Messenger?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003ENow, these are really clear questions. They have not been addressed. I don\u2019t see how, without a select committee process and with this literally being the start and finish of this bill, we can proceed without these questions. I\u2019m really looking forward to the Minister addressing them. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022 data-id=\u0022a7e3010b866446e88d630fcd98754316\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a7e3010b866446e88d630fcd98754316\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation):\u003C/span\u003E This reminds me of a Supergroove song that goes something like this: \u201CSitting inside my head, laughing at what I said.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EFor the fifth time, I will repeat: those permits that\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227e960b2e12d8416a9d227263675a3a02\u0022\u003EHon Willie Jackson\u003C/span\u003E: Don\u2019t sing it!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b9d8c2d5370747458c5afe59ecfbe3ca\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA\u003C/span\u003E: I might get a contract off their production company!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThose permits that were issued before the court decision are deemed valid. That\u2019s what it is. The Department of Conservation (DOC) has already gone through all of these permits. It\u2019s consulted with the right people. It\u2019s issued conditions, as part of these permits, and they were operating validly until such time some serious uncertainty was created by the Mt Messenger case. If you have the chance to read that and correlate it with the materials on new Schedule 1AA, page 6, we\u2019ll leave that judgment by itself because, actually, there is a section 71 authorisation that was considered in order by the court. The bill deems authorities granted in the past to be valid, as those permitholders had fairly assumed that to be the case. All authorities are issued on the basis of what is required as reasonable steps to protect wildlife. DOC will not be reassessing these decisions. Active permits will be monitored in line with the specific conditions in the permit, as they have done for many, many years. Kia ora t\u0101tou.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022 data-id=\u002274f04fd915fd426a82234288b38113aa\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002274f04fd915fd426a82234288b38113aa\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I will just acknowledge that the Minister has addressed the question. Some members might not like that particular answer, but it has been addressed. We are getting into repetitive behaviour. I just want to note that, on this tracking sheet, we are tracking, exactly, all the questions being asked. I do want brand new material. We might make the Minister sing Supergroove songs!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022 data-id=\u0022a7d040a34ead4fcf82ed9004f34c403b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a7d040a34ead4fcf82ed9004f34c403b\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin):\u003C/span\u003E Mr Chair, thank you. This is going back to the Minister of Conservation\u2019s earlier answer. I do want to acknowledge the Supergroove quote, and that may be the most sensible thing I\u2019ve heard the Minister say during this debate\u2014more of it is welcome, particularly in New Zealand Music Month.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EThis is a very quick contribution from me. I\u2019m back on this interaction with section 71. I appreciate the Minister did actually answer some of my question on that interaction. I would just like him to say for the Hansard\u2014my question was coming, and there were some heckles when he was answering\u2014that if section 71 applies to a road and there needs to be an approval under the Wildlife Act for a road where section 71 applies, that application can only use section 71, and it can\u2019t use section\u00A053. That\u2019s the question. Can they use section 53 or not use section 53 if section 71 is applicable?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EI don\u2019t know very many Supergroove quotes that I can say in interim, but I \u201CCan\u2019t get enough\u201D of the answers from the Minister! They had a great concert in Dunedin on Easter Sunday.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022 data-id=\u002228f216ef0aef419ba9ed3a6251018e6e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002228f216ef0aef419ba9ed3a6251018e6e\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation):\u003C/span\u003E The answer is yes. For roads, the channel is section\u00A071 as mentioned in the Schedule. However, that provision in Schedule 1AA, Part 1, clause\u00A02(2), applies for those permits that are old. They\u2019re not new permits. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221ffd2fda87974a5f9379a1f2b0812463\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: But they can\u2019t use section 53.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022767188a817f54de0b107df07e41e07ce\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA\u003C/span\u003E: No, the pathway today is section 71, but with the comprehensive review of the Wildlife Act, it may be a different number.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022 data-id=\u0022abeca11f27c44aa893d0f5ce26a08c8a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022abeca11f27c44aa893d0f5ce26a08c8a\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I am hoping to get the Minister\u2019s view on the review period. There is an amendment in my name, supported by the Hon Rachel Brooking, introducing a review by Parliament. He said that he doesn\u2019t support that full review, but can we seek to understand the role of the Ministry for Regulation in the review that he has given this committee some perspective on? Particularly, will that ministry be responsible for reviewing what is the primary legislation here, which grants the retrospective powers, or will it be responsible for reviewing the application of those decisions and, effectively, the decisions and guidelines or secondary legislation that is issued underneath it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022\u003EI ask because this committee does not have any view yet but anticipates a piece of legislation that will set out how that may work, but we don\u2019t have that now. I\u2019m asking the Minister to give us some clarity on what the scope of that review will be. I\u2019m not asking for terms of reference. I\u2019m not asking for all of the questions that it will ask to determine whether that retrospectivity has worked well. I\u2019m asking him really whether that review is about the retrospectivity at all. We on this side of the Chamber have asked him to review the retrospectivity and whether that was necessary. He has said that he will be launching a review, but that review might not have anything to do with the fact that past rights that have been accrued are being extinguished by this. What I\u2019m trying to understand is whether there is any way for the House to interrogate the effect of that in the coming months and years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022\u003EMy next question for him is about the role of the Department of Conservation (DOC) in the review. Will that be alongside the ministry? Is it his view that the two ministries will work together? How will they share that? This is a new and novel thing for the committee to consider, so I think it\u2019s fair enough for him to give a view on which part of the review DOC will be responsible for and which part of the review this new Ministry for Regulation will be responsible for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022 data-id=\u0022385886b2d821429a98e62aeba8e7b568\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022385886b2d821429a98e62aeba8e7b568\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation):\u003C/span\u003E I think we\u2019ve just got to make sure that we\u2019re talking about the same reviews. One is a comprehensive review of the Wildlife Act, which has been discussed by previous Governments. It\u2019s timely given\u2014as some mentioned, I think\u2014that there might only be one member of the committee that was born before the Wildlife Act was enacted. That has to be accelerated at pace because we\u2019ve spent many years talking about it. I do want to get through the conservation reform matter, which many of the members are aware of, and there\u2019ll be some adjacency with the Wildlife Act matter in reviewing that comprehensively.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThe post-implementation review is to commence immediately, but it will take some time to determine the effectiveness of the changes that are being channelled by way of this set of amendments. A report will be prepared within two years\u2014sooner, if possible. The Department of Conservation will be responsible for the post-implementation review, as they are for the Wildlife Act review, and there\u2019ll be a number of agencies that will be consulted and engaged along the way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022 data-id=\u0022fa1108213e4f41008b2c258b40992305\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fa1108213e4f41008b2c258b40992305\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Brand new material. Supergroove lyrics are appreciated\u2014Steve Abel.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022 data-id=\u00223795ff2cb2f9473f935e00e94900d9bd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223795ff2cb2f9473f935e00e94900d9bd\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green):\u003C/span\u003E It is new material, Mr Chair, that hasn\u2019t been answered. It\u2019s a very specific question. I\u2019ll get it out in one minute\u2014it hasn\u2019t been addressed. I\u2019m looking at Part\u00A01, clause\u00A04, in Schedule\u00A01AA. Why is this case treated differently, Minister? Why is the Environmental Law Initiative case being treated differently, and do these changes give Waka Kotahi immunity from prosecution for any Wildlife Act offences committed at Mt Messenger? This wasn\u2019t addressed, I believe. According to our tracker, it hasn\u2019t been addressed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222837c142-c937-468e-9984-bc646d066687\u0022 data-id=\u0022ae87a2377de34593bdacc8800f443d94\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222837c142-c937-468e-9984-bc646d066687\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ae87a2377de34593bdacc8800f443d94\u0022\u003EDr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National\u2014Ilam):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That debate on this question now close.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002250e6fcba06f746a69dc2e0abe051397f\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000169\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002262a8eb4fce624381959b1804a7fe1d4d\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022 data-id=\u00224bd6f2cd343d41f18734452cc40a32ea\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224bd6f2cd343d41f18734452cc40a32ea\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is, That the Minister\u2019s tabled amendments to the Schedule, new Schedule 1AA, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00221869f596c5454cb7858ba3240655595a\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000171\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022 data-id=\u00224e3ee6003599490495421e4ec924fc44\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224e3ee6003599490495421e4ec924fc44\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is, That Arena Williams\u2019 tabled amendment to the Schedule deleting clause 2(2) of Schedule 1AA be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022f2e6af51ae1a4965ae35771a7dfd2c2e\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000173\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022 data-id=\u0022169d416e60cb46c2afe79f2312595e7e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022169d416e60cb46c2afe79f2312595e7e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is, That Arena Williams\u2019 tabled amendment to the Schedule inserting new clause 2(5) into Schedule 1AA be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00222340df631df14f1d822c424b17359d3a\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000175\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00223529759aa5954a529921d90ee180ea98\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the Schedule as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000176\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002219a8e9bf3f424998832e9322e9039761\u0022\u003EClauses 1 to 3\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022 data-id=\u00227ad4877694264161bdceec5867140083\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227ad4877694264161bdceec5867140083\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we now come to our final debate, clauses 1 to 3. This is the debate on clauses 1, 2, and 3\u2014\u201CTitle\u201D, \u201CCommencement\u201D, and \u201CPrincipal Act\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022 data-id=\u00224baab81c7de74d36ac9f972a9ef3fa0f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224baab81c7de74d36ac9f972a9ef3fa0f\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa):\u003C/span\u003E This is a strange way to characterise this bill in the title, because it is amending an Act that is primarily about the protection of wildlife and is, in fact, widening the powers of the killing of wildlife in what is not only proactive legislation but is retrospective legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022\u003EIt is incumbent on all Ministers to exercise their powers on behalf of the Crown, not of their political party. In this case, it is the Minister of Conservation that is making that change\u2014a Minister who is charged with the conservation not only of our natural flora but also our natural fauna in New Zealand, a Minister who is the only Minister who can make many decisions under this Act for the preservation of those species that we as a country decide are important to preserve.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022\u003EUnlike the title of this bill, which is pretty bland and pretty standard, these amendments actually make long-reaching decisions about what kind of activity can occur and provide a carte blanche licence to destroy natural species that we say are important, not only to those communities who have important relationships with them but also to all New Zealanders who value that wildlife\u2014species like the mokomoko I spoke of in the committee stage earlier, species like the kiwi and the takah\u0113, which feature very prominently in New Zealand in stories not only of ourselves on the world stage but also of prominent businesses like Air New Zealand, which refers directly to Mt Messenger and its takah\u0113 species there in the first greetings that it has for any international visitors here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022\u003EThese are important species, and they are species that only the Minister of Conservation is charged with the duty of protecting around the Cabinet table. It is unusual that this kind of bill, which provides licences to kill for the purposes of building infrastructure or roads, would be brought by a Minister of Conservation who appears to have discharged himself of that duty to New Zealanders and the people who care about these species.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022\u003EThis bill should be called the \u201CWildlife (Authorisation to Kill) Amendment Bill\u201D. That would be a clearer way of recognising, on the parliamentary record, what use this Minister is making of his duty to conservation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022 data-id=\u0022c12b1ebfa6f643bd8f443874ccc1ebc0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c12b1ebfa6f643bd8f443874ccc1ebc0\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you. I would like to speak directly to an amendment proposed. Look, I think the key thing with any legislation is that\u2014it\u2019s been made very clear by the Minister of Conservation today\u2014we want to provide certainty and clarity. As my colleague Arena Williams has pointed out, the authorisations part of this bill, the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill, does not actually provide that. The tabled amendment in the name of my colleague Steve Abel proposes that we change clause 1: \u201Creplace \u2018Wildlife (Authorisations Amendment) Bill\u2019 with \u2018Wildlife (Authorisation to Kill Wildlife) Amendment Bill\u2019.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003ENow, we suggest this not to dramatise this. Literally, the authorisations are in every clause of this. Part\u00A01, clause 4, inserting new sections 53A to 53C\u201453A, has \u201Ckilling of wildlife\u201D; new section 53B is about the authority to kill wildlife; and new section 53C authorises the killing of wildlife. Then Part 2 is about the transitional, savings, and related provisions when it comes to validating those certain authorities when it comes to killing wildlife. There is actually nothing in this bill, when it comes to authorisations, that is outside the killing of wildlife.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003EWhat we would really like to see here is just a very accurate representation of what the bill really does. I would invite the Minister to consider\u2014particularly when it comes to his intention, which we\u2019ve heard over and over, about providing certainty and clarity\u2014whether this would be an accurate representation of what this bill purports to do. Now, that\u2019s aside from the fact that we believe that this bill is still unnecessary and it\u2019s actually going to cause more confusion and uncertainty for the Department of Conservation, which is, again, as the Minister said, something none of us wants.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003EI would be really interested in the Minister\u2019s views about, and his acceptance of, these authorisations and the fact that they are simply limited to the killing of wildlife. There is nothing in this bill outside of that. That\u2019s my concern, and that\u2019s our amendment that we\u2019ve put forward today, which we\u2019d like the Minister\u2019s views on. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022 data-id=\u0022dbb69bd0209941188e4a9ea5156bad6c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dbb69bd0209941188e4a9ea5156bad6c\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to start with the commencement: \u201CThis Act comes into force on the day after Royal assent.\u201D This would be a good place to make an amendment and say, \u201CThis Act comes into force after a review from the Regulations Review Committee on scrutiny.\u201D, and we could have a time period around that. We keep hearing that this is urgent. People are worried that they might be breaching the law because they were reliant on section\u00A053 approval. I get that. I don\u2019t agree that we need all-stages urgency for that point. The way to remedy an all-stages urgency is to do some quick scrutiny, not on the policy settings but on the workability of what the legislation is doing. That is why I think that this should not commence until that workability review has happened. That\u2019s one point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EI would like the Minister of Conservation to comment on that. He said before, in one of my contributions on Part 2, that I was being creative. Unfortunately, I\u2019m not being creative. It would be lovely, when we\u2019re here talking about New Zealand Music Month, to be creative, but, no. I\u2019m actually talking about the types of processes that were used for real emergencies in cyclones, when legislation was passed and it had to have some sort of scrutiny from another body because it was made so fast. That\u2019s not creative; that\u2019s just some good process for when things are being done under urgency. I do not accept that this needs to be done under all-stages urgency at all, but that is a compromised position around the commencement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003ENow, looking back to the title, we\u2019ve heard a number of contributions now saying that it should be something about killing. I might differ with my colleagues here, because all I have heard from the Minister is confusion. Maybe it is an authorisation; maybe it\u2019s not an authorisation. Who knows? We\u2019ve got no idea, because these new provisions in new sections 53A, 53B, and 53C, inserted by clause\u00A04, are so convoluted and cannot really be read together. The Minister has given us no insight into what it is that he intends them to do. Maybe nobody\u2019s going to get an authority under section\u00A053.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EAnother suggestion is that this bill is the \u201CWildlife (Authorisations but not for Roads) Amendment Bill\u201D. We heard that just before in the Part 2 debate that this is not for roads. I\u2019m sure I heard, in first and second reading speeches, a number of members talking about how this is going to fix the problem with roads. But it\u2019s not, because we heard from the Minister that section\u00A071 still applies to roads. I looked at a press release (PR) from the Beehive website on 28\u00A0March, and they said\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c55111af1bac431bba5807379f6fbc6a\u0022\u003EHon Tama Potaka\u003C/span\u003E: Great PR.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224c33ee0f9c8046ee941e3493138cb77b\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister says it\u2019s a great PR. It\u2019s an incorrect PR, because it says, \u201C[This] Government intends to promptly change the law to enable these important activities to go ahead lawfully, including the building of houses and roads for example\u201D. The Minister has just told us that new roads do not apply to these changes, because new roads have to go through section\u00A071. These weird amendments to section 53 that are all in conflict with each other don\u2019t apply to roads, is what he told us. That is why we should be amending it to the \u201CWildlife (Authorisations but not for Roads) Amendment Bill\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EI think, though, the better title is the \u201CWho Knows?\u201D or the \u201CMaybe\u201D, because we don\u2019t know what we\u2019ll be able to get through this new section 53. If it is to be consistent with the protection of wildlife and individual wildlife, how will anything be able to get through it? Who knows? The Minister hasn\u2019t helped so far. Maybe he\u2019s going to help us now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022 data-id=\u00226b4939c6dd53446bb6805fbad7aea3e7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226b4939c6dd53446bb6805fbad7aea3e7\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation):\u003C/span\u003E As mentioned earlier on\u2014and this is just in passing\u2014section 71 in Schedule 9 of the principal Act intersects with the Government Roading Powers Act. Building a little street, a surfaced road, outside a house is slightly different. In terms of the title matter, it\u2019s not just in relation to the killing of animals. There are also conditions around protecting, translocating, and relocating\u2014there\u2019s a whole range of things. The title of the Act reflects that it\u2019s not just solely about killing wildlife. The purpose of the Act is actually protecting wildlife. We think something simple, such as the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Act, is very apt, very relevant, and very suitable in this particular circumstance. How many bills are like this? Not any.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022 data-id=\u0022d1984615555f45e2a1543c14780433b5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d1984615555f45e2a1543c14780433b5\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions. The first one is around the commencement date. Now, we have seen that the commencement date is the day after Royal assent. I want to see if the Minister would consider pushing it back at least three months so that there is some clarity that is able to be granted to the people who are applying or who have an existing consent on some of the issues that we have heard the previous speaker, the Hon Rachel Brooking, mention. There is confusion around a lot of this because of the fact that we didn\u2019t get sufficient clarity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003ENow, the reason I\u2019m suggesting pushing it back by at least three months\u2014just three months; I think that\u2019s sufficient\u2014is that the Minister, throughout this debate, talked about the fact that this is required under urgency, etc. However, what started a lot of this was the High Court ruling, the judgment that was made on 5\u00A0March, and it was two months ago. If Cabinet and if the Minister were really serious about the urgency of this situation, this bill would have been brought to the House a lot earlier. It did not need to be brought into the House two months after that particular ruling. Clearly, the backlog that the Minister was referring to is not urgent enough for this bill to be brought to the House earlier. I think another three months is not outside the realm of possibility and probability, over here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EIn terms of the title of this bill, I really like the suggestion that the Hon Rachel Brooking has made in terms of \u201CWho Knows\u201D. What about if the Minister considered the \u201CWildlife [shrug emoji] Amendment Bill\u201D. That is, essentially, what we\u2019ve got out of this entire debate. This has felt like pulling teeth from the Minister to try to get any ounce of any information out of him that we could have gotten quite succinctly and clearly from the officials during the select committee stage. Over here, what we have largely heard throughout the debate is \u201Cpoliticisation\u201D and \u201Cback on track\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EIn terms of other potential titles, I would actually propose an alternative pathway when we are looking at the title for this, because what we are seeing with this\u2014and this is fundamental to democracy in Aotearoa New Zealand\u2014is a distortion of the separation of powers and the overstepping of that, where the executive has decided to overstep into the judiciary and affect the rulings of the judiciary, and also the principle of comity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EI ask if the Minister would consider the \u201CWildlife (Distortion of the Separation of Powers) Amendment Bill\u201D. Further on from that, despite the fact that we have been doing this under urgency, we are being criticised for doing our job as the legislature to scrutinise the executive. We have no opportunity, and the New Zealand public has no opportunity, to contribute to this. I would say that this is not actually even about parliamentary supremacy, because we have not been granted the privilege of that supremacy as the legislature, so I would recommend, finally, for the Minister to consider the title \u201CWildlife (Forget about Parliamentary Supremacy, the Executive Rules Supreme) Amendment Bill.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022 data-id=\u00228de3861a65aa4f42ad4ce125afc844c4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228de3861a65aa4f42ad4ce125afc844c4\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. Listen, reflecting on this and the span of this term of Parliament, there is a very clear agenda set out by this Government: they were going to prioritise extraction\u2014the 19th century mindset of mining\u2014over the protection of wildlife. We had, at the beginning of this bill, Minister Shane Jones, the proudest advocate for prioritising extraction over nature, explicitly sitting here in the room and making it clear that this bill was a necessity for facilitating his mining agenda.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e29c400e-467a-4398-818d-270ef48b80cf\u0022\u003EI just want to remind the committee, because it seems so familiar to us, at the beginning of the term of this Government, of the Minister\u2019s famous words of \u201CBye, bye, Freddy\u201D\u2014a reference to him being willing to send to extinction those rare and unique frogs that we have in this country, those amphibians: the Archey\u2019s and the Hochstetter\u2019s frogs. This legislation is a specific mechanism, a pathway, by which that vision of Minister Jones\u2014to send species to extinction\u2014can be fulfilled. This is the \u201C(\u2018Bye, bye, Freddy\u2019) Amendment Bill\u201D. This is the bill that says that the Wildlife Act\u2014the legislation put in place to actually protect our precious and unique indigenous species\u2014is going to be distorted to being a means to permitting and licensing the killing of wildlife. I propose another title for this bill: the \u201C(\u2018Bye, bye, Freddy\u2019) Amendment Bill\u201D. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022 data-id=\u00220a939c2030d3450197d552171e9da89e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220a939c2030d3450197d552171e9da89e\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019ll just note the Minister\u2019s reply to my suggestion about this Act being the \u201CWildlife (Authorisations but not Roads) Amendment Bill\u201D. He said, \u201CAha! Little roads aren\u2019t included in Schedule 9. Therefore, section\u00A071 doesn\u2019t apply to them.\u201D I am happy to amend my suggestion to the \u201CWildlife (Authorisations for Large Government Roads but not Little Roads) Amendment Bill\u201D, or perhaps we should just call it the \u201CWildlife (Authorisations Really Rushed) Amendment Bill\u201D, because that is what it is. It appears that Ministers have not realised that this whole amendment bill doesn\u2019t apply to those big roads\u2014to the roads that aren\u2019t little roads, as the Minister just called them. That is what all their speeches have been about: these big roads\u2014not little roads; big roads\u2014that they want to do. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EIt means that we should be looking, at Schedule 9, at the other things where a section\u00A071 authority must be required. That\u2019s the Coal Mines Act. I don\u2019t even know if that\u2019s been repealed or not, but maybe the amendment to the title should be the \u201CWildlife (Authorisations but not for Big Roads and Coal Mines)\u201D. There\u2019s also the Fisheries Act 1908, then the Forest and Rural Fires Act 1977, and the Government Railways Act 1949. I have not looked up whether these have been repealed or not, but the Minister keeps saying that this is going to put things back on track. Well, it\u2019s not going to make any difference to railways as well as those big roads if that Act is still in force. It\u2019s not at all about \u201Cback on track\u201D. We\u2019ll be seeing the Minister back here, perhaps next week with another bill under all-stages urgency, to get things back on track and to build his big roads without needing the concurrence of two Ministers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EThen we\u2019ve got the Mining Act 1971, the National Parks Act 1980, the Peel Forest Act 1926, the Petroleum Act 1937\u2014that might be one that Minister Shane Jones is interested in\u2014the Public Works Act 1928, and the Rabbits Act 1955. We\u2019ve already talked about rats and mustelids during this all-stages urgency, but now we\u2019ve got rabbits in there as well, so this is the \u201CWildlife (Authorisations but Nothing to do with Rabbits) Amendment Bill\u201D. The Reserves Act 1977\u2014that is an Act that I happen to know quite a bit about\u2014is not repealed. It\u2019s still on the books. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a0399dac37ad4315a88b17feda0760d6\u0022\u003EHon Tama Potaka\u003C/span\u003E: It needs review.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c6be22b08bc34828bb92d4fbcd31422a\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: I don\u2019t know what the Minister\u2019s saying to me. It is an old bill. It is younger than both the Minister and I but, substantially\u2014[Minister gasps] Ha, ha! And I am older than the Minister. I appreciate that it has some outdated language in it as well, but, again, this Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill will not apply to anything where the Reserves Act applies, because that has to go through, according to the Minister, section 71. There is also the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941, the Tramways Act\u2014talking, again, about being back on track\u2014the Waitangi Endowment Act, and the Waitangi National Trust Board Act 1932.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EWhat the Minister has told us is that any activity relying on one of those Acts cannot get an authorisation made under this little amendment bill that we are doing under all-stages urgency. The title is wrong, and he should change that title. My last suggestion is the \u201CWildlife (Authorisations for this Week; I\u2019ll be Coming Back Next Week) Amendment Bill\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002227600399-0a88-4371-a784-b5a7bc7afc37\u0022 data-id=\u002226969150a123445ba9d349fd8508f000\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227600399-0a88-4371-a784-b5a7bc7afc37\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002226969150a123445ba9d349fd8508f000\u0022\u003EMARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori\u2014Te Tai Tokerau):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, this is just my brief and very small contribution, but I\u2019m drawn to make a contribution, particularly in terms of the title for this particular piece of nonsense. This is why. N\u014D Te Aup\u014Duri ko t\u0113tahi k\u014Drero mai i a Te Meri Ng\u0101roto: \u201CHe aha te mea nui o te ao?\u201D [From Te Aup\u014Duri is a statement from Te Meri Ng\u0101roto: \u201CWhat is the greatest thing of the world?\u201D] I want to add this into all of the contributions, particularly from this side of the Chamber.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227600399-0a88-4371-a784-b5a7bc7afc37\u0022\u003EWhat might we call this bill? My suggestion to the Minister of Conservation\u2014and, please, me \u2019hakarongo mai koe [you should listen]\u2014is the \u201C(He Aha te Mea Nui o te Ao? Ko te Money me te Mining) Bill\u201D [\u201C(What is the Greatest Thing in the World? It is Money and Mining) Bill\u201D]. Ehara ko te tangata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227600399-0a88-4371-a784-b5a7bc7afc37\u0022\u003E[It is not people.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227600399-0a88-4371-a784-b5a7bc7afc37\u0022\u003EWith all seriousness, this particular bill\u2014well, I don\u2019t know if it\u2019s this particular bill; it\u2019s many bills\u2014disconnects, dismantles, and causes great harm to our people, to our wh\u0101nau, and to all the things that fly and crawl and swim. Minister, it\u2019s going very badly for us, it\u2019s going very poor for us, and, unfortunately, you\u2019re leading that, Minister. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227600399-0a88-4371-a784-b5a7bc7afc37\u0022\u003EFrom Te Aup\u014Duri, who, of course, were raised last night\u2014you all know because Shane Jones and I share that wonderful whakapapa\u2014I am drawn to stand and speak to this new title, which I really want you to consider seriously. He aha te mea nui o te ao? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227600399-0a88-4371-a784-b5a7bc7afc37\u0022\u003E[What is the greatest thing in the world?]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227600399-0a88-4371-a784-b5a7bc7afc37\u0022\u003EMoney and mining. Kia ora t\u0101tou. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022587eeeae-8af5-4e11-ac7f-a7690f9c7c3a\u0022 data-id=\u00223e1944bf132147cd8a21bdca2de437ef\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022587eeeae-8af5-4e11-ac7f-a7690f9c7c3a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223e1944bf132147cd8a21bdca2de437ef\u0022\u003EDr CARLOS CHEUNG (National\u2014Mt Roskill):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That debate on this question now close.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002244ca1af85f734ef1a42745367060cc30\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000217\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022 data-id=\u0022a986a2b602da47d5a1ed5906d2c6eb6e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a986a2b602da47d5a1ed5906d2c6eb6e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Steve Abel\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 1, to change the title to \u201CAuthorisation to Kill Wildlife Amendment Bill\u201D, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022ebfcc50597bf4584b7f51d14afe7bd25\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000219\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022 data-id=\u0022f3f519e6a3e54fbc93b66cf3a7ee2339\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f3f519e6a3e54fbc93b66cf3a7ee2339\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Arena Williams\u2019 amendment to clause 1, inserting the words \u201Cto kill\u201D after \u201Cauthorisations\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022e61b6fba416040469a068227dc23321f\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000221\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002270cd8e066c054ae7a354832c1af5ba1f\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000222\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00220d5a8ba308114a1db8d97dfaa25e0f88\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000223\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022f161138bddd84688a446ffdd9afec067\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 3 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000224\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022 data-id=\u00227823f912cd0b40b4baf738a3b96d18ce\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227823f912cd0b40b4baf738a3b96d18ce\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: I will report this bill with amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022\u003EHouse resumed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022 data-id=\u002279b0181d996743ac8f72caa727d405a1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d42e8cf-544e-415d-892b-f4ef8014d80f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002279b0181d996743ac8f72caa727d405a1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022 data-id=\u0022639a364684e9486ca1ec51e03ccfba24\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022639a364684e9486ca1ec51e03ccfba24\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the report be adopted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003EReport adopted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022 data-id=\u00225829696c35c046cf9e6429f4bb26c6a9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225829696c35c046cf9e6429f4bb26c6a9\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: This bill is set down for third reading immediately.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00220ddc9fc9d0104790a38ffdc3f30d315e\u0022\u003EThird Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022 data-id=\u00223aac4437ea894cdd9734e4cae27a9477\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223aac4437ea894cdd9734e4cae27a9477\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EI had a very favoured group when I was about 11 years old. The name of that group was Crowded House. They had a great song that started like this:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EEverywhere you go,\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EYou always take the weather with you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EAcross that side of the House, it\u2019s very blustery, dank, and dark. On this side, we\u2019re going for growth.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003ENew Zealand\u2019s wildlife is unique and precious to New Zealanders. This country is literally a \u201CSlice of Heaven\u201D. Projects that provide essential benefits to the lives of New Zealanders should be able to proceed without compromising our indigenous species. The balance is key in the protection and the conservation of wildlife populations and key to protecting the world that our mokopuna deserve.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThe Wildlife Act is an important piece of legislation, but it\u2019s old and creaking. It\u2019s asking for the \u201CNature [to] enter me\u201D. The Act provides for the protection of wildlife throughout Aotearoa New Zealand, including some of New Zealand\u2019s most endangered species. It protects our precious wildlife\u2014those frogs that were mentioned before, bats, reptiles, and other things. It also recognises the need to regulate human interactions with them so that our actions do not negatively affect protected species in the long run. This bill makes specific targeted changes to respond to a High Court decision ruling in March this year that deemed the authorisation of incidental killing of protected wildlife under section 53 of the Act to be unlawful. With these changes, we will restore people\u2019s confidence that they can carry out activities lawfully when they\u2019re granted a permit and are meeting the condition it sets. They will no longer feel like a group of \u201CPacific lambs to the [judicial] slaughter\u201D, enabling the Department of Conservation (DOC) to regulate incidental harm so that these activities do not cause permanent harm to the viability of protected wildlife species. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThis bill does not make fundamental changes to the Wildlife Act; it addresses the issue at hand following the court decision while maintaining the existing foundations of this Act. Essentially, it restores what is understood to be the status quo and enables DOC to get on with a practical, pragmatic approach to how it regulates harm to protected species, consistent with previous practice and the Act\u2019s protective purpose. A number of members have raised concerns that this bill will water down protections for wildlife and make it easier to kill wildlife. It does not lower the bar. This is not the case. The protective purpose of the Act remains. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EPeople have said that it is essential that DOC regulates and manages harm to wildlife to minimise its impacts and ensure our precious species are protected. This is exactly what this bill does. As I said: \u201CHow many [bills] flow like this? Not many, if any.\u201D It does not reduce DOC\u2019s ability to protect wildlife. It does not change DOC\u2019s approach. Rather, this bill restores the regulatory approach that was universally understood and that had been taken by the Department of Conservation before the High Court\u2019s recent judgment. It will still be unlawful for developers and infrastructure providers to harm wildlife without getting proper authority from DOC. The overall effect of that authority must be consistent with protecting the affected wildlife population and species. I understand that some members are concerned about this bill proceeding so quickly without public consultation or scrutiny\u2014[The Hon Shane Jones walks past Minister Potaka]\u2014Minister Jones\u2014by a select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EAs has been previously mentioned, the recent High Court decision on the Mt Messenger case means that DOC can no longer authorise and manage incidental harm to wildlife under section 53, as has been done in the past. We need to be very mindful of that well-known Tim Finn song, where he says:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EWhen you want to see where to sing the song of Parihaka, \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EYou\u2019ve got to get over a road.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThat road is Mt Messenger. Existing authority holders are concerned that they could now be prosecuted if their projects kill any protected wildlife, despite having a permit and applying relevant conditions to protect them. This could lead to delay, stop projects and a wide range of activities\u2014subdivision, construction, solar and wind farms, power-line maintenance, pest control. DOC has also pushed pause on deciding applications that involve incidental harm until this matter is resolved. It reminds me of that Opshop song, actually: \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003ELately I\u2019ve found myself wondering out loud\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u2014wondering what some of the MPs from the Opposition parties were actually saying. We urgently need to enable these applications to be processed so that activities can go ahead with appropriate safeguards to protect wildlife. In this situation, urgency is warranted. The bill, effectively, restores DOC\u2019s interpretation of the status quo before the court\u2019s decision. I\u2019ve got to say, like that famous Herbs song, since early March, it\u2019s always been \u201COn My Mind\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003ESome members have suggested that these amendments would not be necessary if the wider review of the Wildlife Act had already been completed. This review began under the previous Government and is still going. Actually, we\u2019re going to put the foot down. It remains a priority for me. I\u2019ve been given the encouragement by the matua, now you\u2019ve got the Tama, and the consensus this afternoon, hopefully, shall be the Wairua Tapu. As I mentioned earlier, the Wildlife Act is over 70 years old. It\u2019s old. It\u2019s creaky. The many amendments over the last 70 years have led it to lose legislative coherence. It\u2019s been described as difficult, convoluted, and confused. This Act needs mahi. The section 53 amendments that we\u2019re focusing on today are part of that larger Act. There are many more issues that need to be addressed as part of the review. We need to take the proper time to complete that review. I welcome the feedback and the engagement of many members of this House when we really get under way to ensure it\u2019s workable and to test these changes with stakeholders and the public. In the meantime, we can\u2019t wait until that review has been completed. We won\u2019t be left just turning pages; we\u2019ve got to make this urgent fix to the problem at hand with these targeted amendments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EBenefits of the bill: it\u2019s going to restore certainty. It\u2019s going to restore confidence. We need to make certain that people can rely on those authorisations that have been granted in the past and that enable important developments and infrastructure activities\u2014pest control and other things\u2014and important conservation work, including the TB programme. I wish Minister Hoggard was here. He\u2019s got a lot of biosecurity questions to answer. This bill will ensure that this is possible. It delivers a pragmatic, practical fix to a problem that might otherwise stymie important mahi to get our economy moving again. It continues to ensure that our precious wildlife is protected.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228379b5ed4a5f494a93ac08438f415c5b\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s not on trains or Government roads\u2014it doesn\u2019t help there, does it, Minister?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b634b1450b4b49a2833855bc1dd60e10\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA\u003C/span\u003E: Members of the Opposition have been vocal. They\u2019ve expressed concern. In my ears ring the words of the Herbs in that fabulous song that was on my marriage CD:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EYou say to me let\u2019s rock on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EThat night out stirs my mind.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003EI commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022 data-id=\u0022230585bfc6374c808e3f4d9911ff8271\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022230585bfc6374c808e3f4d9911ff8271\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022 data-id=\u00223411bdfd2ccd4678a46a21d94a82a293\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223411bdfd2ccd4678a46a21d94a82a293\u0022\u003EHon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Speaker. You would think that when a bill is rushed through all stages under urgency and when we\u2019ve had a reasonably fulsome committee of the whole House, we\u2019d have something at the third reading to report back in terms of the detail of the bill. I\u2019m almost more confused about this bill, having gone through the committee stage, than I was at the start. We didn\u2019t get any fulsome responses or any detail, really, clarifying what is quite a convoluted bill, and I don\u2019t blame the officials who drafted it. They would have had to draft it under immense pressure. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EThat is why, throughout the course of the various stages of this bill in this House, members on this side of the House have asked and called upon the Minister of Conservation to introduce perhaps even a one-week select committee process so that we could have finessed the detail of the bill, because it is confusing. The Minister himself stood in this House at the third reading and said that this isn\u2019t a bill that will dilute the purpose of the Wildlife Act, and yet it\u2019s going to allow all these things to go through. He can\u2019t really argue it both ways\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022523ad22329c94ab198f5a0de91417e70\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: We think. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228c703e2026d34ed7abd871aa50f9b3e0\u0022\u003EHon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014and he hasn\u2019t\u2014yes, we think; we\u2019re not even sure. It came out at the committee stage that perhaps roads aren\u2019t actually part of the changes and we won\u2019t actually be able to build quicker and better as a result of this bill, and so we\u2019re still none the wiser on this side of the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EWhat I am clear about, though, is that this bill didn\u2019t need to be rushed through at the level of urgency that it\u2019s been through yesterday and today. There was no regulatory impact statement and no released Cabinet paper. It absolutely does dilute the purpose of the Wildlife Act, and, ultimately, it is a knee-jerk, ad hoc reaction to a High Court ruling. There was a much better way that this could have been done. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EWhat\u2019s led to this? That High Court ruling, which was just in March this year. Now, we\u2019ve known that, since a Supreme Court ruling in 2019\u2014and the Minister couldn\u2019t even answer this in the committee stage\u2014the approach of the Department of Conservation (DOC) to applications under section 53 changed. At that point, wildlife permits under section\u00A053 were granted by looking at the project as a whole and assessing whether the viability of the population was maintained or improved through the action or some unrelated action through the authorisation. Now, the ruling, basically, said that you cannot kill protected wildlife if the primary purpose of the killing doesn\u2019t have a direct positive benefit\u2014the direct nexus argument\u2014to the purpose of the Act. The nexus requirement is key, and that\u2019s really the crux of why we\u2019re here today. This bill ostensibly responds to that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EWhat the judge said was that the killing for the purpose of building a road was not directly connected to the protective purpose of the Act, so killing for the purpose of any other economic development project is not directly connected to the purpose of this Act, which is to protect wildlife, and so that\u2019s the main issue. At that point, any Government, regardless of stripe, would have had a choice to make. Either you\u2019d strengthen the legislation and you\u2019d strengthen the Wildlife Act so that the permits for the authorisations are in keeping with the primary purpose of the Act, or you\u2019d dilute it, and you\u2019d just change the law in the sloppy way that we\u2019ve seen yesterday and today to just tweak an already complicated, convoluted, potentially becoming slightly irrelevant Wildlife Act to then revert the processes and then retrospectively make what the Minister now tells us is 500 permits lawful, although they still don\u2019t meet the primary purpose of the Act. That is what we\u2019ve seen take place under urgency, through all stages, today. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EAs the Environment Law Initiative themselves have said\u2014and I quote\u2014\u201Cthis was not a question of whether development projects could go ahead or not. It was about making sure all reasonable steps are taken to protect what we have left of our wildlife.\u201D Let me put to bed the accusations from that side of the House that members on this side are anti-development. We\u2019re not. There was never any question that these developments would go ahead. It\u2019s how they go ahead that was in question and whether reasonable steps would be taken to protect the wildlife that we have left. That is an important point as well. Aotearoa New Zealand has the highest species extinction rate in the world. More than 4,000 of our native species are at risk of, or threatened with, extinction. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003ENow, the Minister has on various occasions waxed lyrical about the fact that one of his key motivations as conservation Minister is to increase tourism to New Zealand. What do most of our tourists come here to see? Our wildlife. Our biodiversity is a huge drawcard, so even if it\u2019s just from that point of view, what this Minister should be focusing on is improving biodiversity, whereas this amendment bill goes against that. It flies in the face of that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EAs I\u2019ve said previously\u2014and I\u2019ve said it repeatedly in this House over the last I don\u2019t know how many hours that we\u2019ve been debating this bill in urgency\u2014this is the antithesis of good lawmaking. It is sloppy. There was no need for it to be rushed through all stages in urgency. We have made the case very clearly, on this side of the House, that we could have had one week or two weeks of a select committee process where we could have teased out the wording in the bill, and we do have an issue with the wording of the bill. We believe that, very soon, this Minister will be back in this House to tidy up this piece of legislation, because not even the Minister in charge of the bill could effectively convince any of us on this side of the House that the wording in the bill actually makes sense. I had to read the legislative statement to understand what this Minister was trying to do, because the wording in the bill was so confusing. We have no doubt that we\u2019re going to be back debating this legislation, because something would be wrong. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EThere was no select committee process. All we had was a couple of press releases from organisations that have invested time and energy over years into looking at the Wildlife Act. I feel that it\u2019s pretty disgraceful that we\u2019ve locked out all of their voices when there was no real need for that to happen. That\u2019s not the way that laws should be made or amended in this Parliament. In fact, as the Environmental Law Initiative has said, quite clearly, it further complicates the Act. The Minister of Conservation has said, \u201CYes, at some point, perhaps, we\u2019ll look at reviewing the Wildlife Act.\u201D\u2014perhaps. We have heard from Minister Jones that he wants to get rid of the Act, so which is it, Minister? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EWe have started to review the Wildlife Act. There was a report back from DOC. There\u2019s a whole piece of work that the Environmental Defence Society has done on this. All the Minister needed to do was to pick that up and get that done in the last 1\u00BD years. We wouldn\u2019t be here discussing this sloppy piece of legislation if the Minister had just done that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EInstead, what is this Government\u2019s track record on the environment? It is, as many have said, to wage a war on nature. The proof is in the pudding: the reduction of DOC funding to the tune of $130\u00A0million since this Government has taken office, the stopping of work that we had done on having no new mines on conservation land, the plan for the Kermadecs\u2014well, there\u2019s still the Hauraki Gulf / T\u012Bkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill, which we shepherded right through to the point that it\u2019s at now. Of course, at the eleventh hour, that too will be diluted because of Minister Jones, and that is what gives me no confidence that this Minister is actually going to review the Wildlife Act. Minister Jones has been very clear that he doesn\u2019t want that to happen, and we\u2019ve seen what\u2019s happened to the Hauraki Gulf marine protection bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EIn addition, we know\u2014we know\u2014that our biodiversity crisis in this country and climate change are the two biggest threats to the environment in New Zealand, and yet what have we seen this Government do? Repeals and deferrals on regulating to protect fresh water and native species, the proposed repeal of the ban on offshore oil and gas exploration, and the setting of climate targets so low that we are now at risk of violating our commitments under the Paris Agreement, not to mention the 30 by 30 target for marine protection. This Minister says that it is just aspirational and that there\u2019s no legal requirement to do that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EWhat is his vision for conservation in his Cabinet paper? It is having more visits by tourists than New Zealanders to our iconic landscapes and activating more commercial opportunities. Enhancing biodiversity comes last in that. I would have thought that, as the Minister of Conservation, that would be his top priority. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EThe only progress this Minister has made in conservation has been to make it easier for protected wildlife to be killed. I hope that he\u2019s proud of that. We\u2019re not, and we don\u2019t commend this bill to the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022 data-id=\u0022db8b753c9bb049cbb6c677e735237bd0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022db8b753c9bb049cbb6c677e735237bd0\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Speaker. It\u2019s quite perplexing in 2025 why it is so hard seemingly for us to just protect wildlife, particularly when it comes to our threatened native species and taonga species. We know that the statistics are really bad, and there are some really clear basic measures that we could take to ensure their protection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003EWe heard really clearly from the Minister of Conservation some really lovely things about creating a world that our mokopuna deserve, but we also heard \u201Cgrowth, growth, growth, growth, growth\u201D while protecting the environment. What is absolutely crystal clear for this Government is that simply saying \u201Cprotecting the environment\u201D means that it is protected. There are so many unresolved questions, and so much uncertainty, that this bill brings to this whole landscape of even attempting to protect the environment and that have been unanswered. A particular one, a critical one, that is still a mystery to me is about how possibly this bill can be put through where the Director-General of Conservation needs to be satisfied that through the killing of wildlife, populations of wildlife and individual wildlife will still be protected. It\u2019s nonsensical. It\u2019s adding this absolute cloud and uncertainty to the Wildlife Act, which was our key Act that offered that protection for our wildlife.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003EThis law is a deep betrayal of the Government\u2019s duty of care not only to the environment but to the people of New Zealand who care about the environment and want to see it protected. We are absolutely appalled about this Government\u2019s use of urgency in rewriting this Wildlife Act without a regulatory impact statement, without Cabinet papers being released, and without any expert advice or voice of iwi/hap\u016B or voice of the public in actually resolving this very. This is an issue that needs to be resolved, but not like this. This rushing through of this legislation to enable the authorisation of the killing of wildlife is unnecessary, and it\u2019s going to make things more complicated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003EWe feel that the fact that the conservation Minister comes out just days ago and says things like nature is \u201Cpart of our national identity, economy, and way of life\u201D and then insists that this kind of bill is still about wildlife protection continually shows that this Government is bulldozing this kind of thinking through the House. It\u2019s a disgrace. You simply can\u2019t claim to value our biodiversity while forcing through law changes, like this, that make it easier to destroy it. This isn\u2019t about protecting biodiversity. It\u2019s about protecting profit and corporate greed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003EThe one thing that this Government do not seem to understand is that when nature is only valued for its economic benefit, the outcome is inevitable. We\u2019re seeing it today in our statistics across the entirety of our environmental domains, but particularly with biodiversity. We see destruction, we see exploitation, and we see a decline in our environment and its health and, therefore, a decline in the health of ourselves.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003ENow, what is particularly concerning about this bill is that it\u2019s part of a trend of unprecedented changes within our environmental legislation, where the whole thrust and purpose of the legislation that has been put in place is to protect the environment. Now, we\u2019re seeing this in the amendment to the Resource Management Act, where the whole purpose of it is to avoid, remedy, or mitigate adverse effects. Instead, the Government are allowing significant adverse effects where there are already severely adversely affected or polluted waterways. We\u2019re seeing it with fast track, where all of the Government\u2019s decisions under fast track relegate what we considered to be environmental protections to simply be considerations that are now decided in the context of economic growth. Now, we have these Wildlife Act changes that change the entire focus of the Wildlife Act to no longer be so clearly about protection. It\u2019s about the director-general now being authorised to allow these killings, and it\u2019s unnecessary. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003EWhat is really concerning as well in this bill is that we are still unclear about the actual resources that the Department of Conservation (DOC) will have to put in to enable this process to occur. We know that DOC are under huge strain\u2014particularly when it comes to the budget cuts, particularly the $48\u00A0million or even more since this Government have come in\u2014and they are struggling. This bill risks tying up their very limited resources and perversely allowing this killing of wildlife.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003ENow, I think what is really concerning with this\u2014sorry, I\u2019ve just lost my notes here; thank you\u2014is the point that my colleague made earlier in the debate in the committee of the whole House. It was an analogy for us humans in our own work environment. When we humans work in risky or dangerous workplaces, we don\u2019t actually authorise workplaces in anticipation of deaths. We don\u2019t authorise those deaths. We take every practical step to ensure risk mitigation and to ensure protection of life. That is exactly the approach which we can and should be taking with the Wildlife Act in this instance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve heard various comments from the Minister that the Wildlife Act, for example, is wavering or creaking with its age, and it is. I do welcome the acceleration of the review of the Wildlife Act, because it is so badly needed, but it\u2019s not the Act that is wavering in this case. What is wavering is this Government\u2019s duty of care to actually protect our endangered and threatened native species, which we know are so dear and so integral to New Zealanders and our way of life\u2014taonga species for iwi and hap\u016B. That\u2019s exactly what we want to remain the focus of the Wildlife Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003EMuddying the waters and transferring this burden of proof and evidence in the actual circumstances of the killing of wildlife from the individuals and companies and entities to the director-general to hold that is completely unnecessary and completely counter to what New Zealanders expect from their Wildlife Act and to what New Zealanders expect from the duty of care of this Government. They are showing, time and time again, that not only do they not understand but that, under the guise of this so-called protection of the environment, they are weakening, removing, or completely abolishing protections that we so desperately need.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003EThese are the concerns that Te P\u0101ti K\u0101k\u0101riki have with this bill. We absolutely do not support it. We think that, at the very least, it could be going to select committees so we could actually get some public voice, actually get some expert voice, and actually get iwi and hap\u016B to help us resolve this actual problem, rather than ramming this through under urgency. It\u2019s an absolute disgrace, and the Green Party do not commend this to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002262828428-6565-42b4-bd4d-fa3b12531f88\u0022 data-id=\u0022f65af061d25941dabe0fdffcb5eff4ab\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002262828428-6565-42b4-bd4d-fa3b12531f88\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f65af061d25941dabe0fdffcb5eff4ab\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E Madam Speaker, thank you. ACT will be supporting this bill. It\u2019s a fantastic technical amendment to what is an outdated wildlife management Act. It\u2019s really, really important that we do this at this time. It is minor. It is technical in nature. It is not a catastrophe, as the Opposition has suggested.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002262828428-6565-42b4-bd4d-fa3b12531f88\u0022\u003EI just want to point out that every professional person involved in delivering infrastructure relies on professional ecologists and environmental scientists to tell them how to best mitigate the risks to New Zealand\u2019s little creatures when they go and build a road, when they go and build a pipeline, and when they go and build a piece of electricity infrastructure. Professional ecologists and environmental scientists don\u2019t turn up to work every day to kill kiwi, skinks, geckos, and bats. They come to work every day to deliver on the commitments that these projects have made to identify and protect these creatures. When we think about what infrastructure designers do, we think about the eco-viaducts that have been built over pristine areas of indigenous vegetation, like the Northern Gateway in Auckland, a fantastic four-lane toll road. We think about the\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cad230926b2b4d12863f60de210ec789\u0022\u003EHon Members:\u003C/span\u003E It doesn\u2019t apply to that road.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002262828428-6565-42b4-bd4d-fa3b12531f88\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f5daa4a5291c429d966dea653bcb57ba\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: Well, clearly these people don\u2019t want it to apply to roads, but I think it should. The Manawat\u016B Tararua Highway is an eco-viaduct across an area of pristine indigenous biodiversity. I want to come back to the Mt Messenger bypass, which is a road and which was the basis for the court case brought by the Environmental Law Initiative, which has led to the need for this amendment. Now, it might be amusing to the members on the other side of the House, but to professional people involved in managing the impacts on wildlife, they want to know there is some certainty. I will give you an example. In the Mt Messenger bypass bat management plan, it recognises that bats are vagrants, because when bats make a nest or roost, they\u2019re only there for a short amount of time. After the bats have left, which we can find out through listening devices and through visual observation, it turns out you can safely clear the vegetation without any harm to the bats. That is one of the ways that we manage risk to indigenous biodiversity under the Wildlife Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002262828428-6565-42b4-bd4d-fa3b12531f88\u0022\u003EWhat\u2019s important about this piece of legislation? It provides certainty to infrastructure development\u2014roads or no roads. It provides certainty for ecology professionals doing their best to identify and protect New Zealand\u2019s threatened species. Then we\u2019ll think about, well, what more could we do. Well, this Government is also looking into biodiversity credits and offsetting regimes. It turns out that, sometimes, when you need to build things, you do need to clear vegetation, and there may be risks to indigenous species, and that\u2019s why it\u2019s important to have lawful outlets where we can actually invest in biodiversity separately rather than saying we can\u2019t do anything anywhere ever simply because we might harm something. That is a practical example of what this Government is doing to address risks to indigenous biodiversity. It\u2019s quite different to what the Opposition is suggesting, which is to do nothing\u2014nowhere, never. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022 data-id=\u0022c804784bf34846b5ae557f98fe41f9a2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c804784bf34846b5ae557f98fe41f9a2\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Speaker. Today is \u201Cvalidation day\u201D. Today is the Crown demonstrating through democracy, when the executive holds a majority in the House, that Parliament is sovereign. This is simply the executive that has a solemn duty to ensure that those mammals in the animal kingdom, otherwise known as human beings, don\u2019t play second fiddle to Freddy\u2014we\u2019re not having that. This is also an opportunity for this side of the House to remind Kiwis that when the High Court makes a random decision, it is not unreasonable for the mining industry, the transport industry, the infrastructure industry, and property developers to ensure that the weaponisation of random skinks, hitherto unknown insects, and various other geckos, and those things that cackle beyond the other side of the House will not trump the need for communities to enjoy access to reliable infrastructure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EThe virtue of this piece of legislation is that it is retrospective. It corrects a flight of jurisprudential development, which is a threat to the place in which we develop the country. Let us contemplate how we have arrived at this situation. We are fixing up a problem that Labour left. Labour and the Greens had three unfettered years of power\u2014three unfettered years where they could have used their authority liberally fix up this problem. No. They decided to hold policy seances. They decided to have an endless set of meetings in windowless and sunless rooms\u2014not unlike the character they bring to their politics.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s fallen upon my colleague the Hon Tama Potaka to seize this issue and rescue the development of New Zealand\u2019s infrastructure from a narrow, vested, and, I have to say, very shadowy group that has brought this litigation. Their thinking is spawned in murk. Apparently, the funder comes from somewhere in the South Island. I\u2019m encouraging the media to look into the background of the funder of this subversive, guerilla-like organisation called the Environmental Law Initiative. They must be subject to the disinfectant-like qualities of sunlight, because they are wandering around, interfering in the ambitions of communities to grow, finding obscure, pettifogging-orientated references in the law, and they\u2019re weaponising them. I look forward to the Resource Management Act, the reform of the Fisheries Act, and further reform of the Wildlife Act and, indeed, the Conservation Act to ensure there is balance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s actually a pleasure in this third reading speech to remind all the men and women out there today, digging coal, looking for gold, generating wealth in the quarries, looking for new critical minerals that their interests have not been subjugated by a small, unelected cast of intellectuals known as ecologists who keep looking for bats until the number twos of a bat are discovered. I could have quickly directed their attention to number twos in the House; however, that\u2019s another matter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EWe do look forward to further work on the Wildlife Act, but in the short term, let\u2019s celebrate the fact that this is a Government who\u2019s going to stand up for investment certainty, jobs, and growth. As I said last night, in the past I talked about getting the nephs off the couch. With investment in jobs, I\u2019ll get the nephs off the meth. Kia ora t\u0101tou katoa. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022 data-id=\u0022e05b12da99f64e719994a64094b6f08c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e05b12da99f64e719994a64094b6f08c\u0022\u003ET\u0100KUTA FERRIS (Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori\u2014Te Tai Tonga):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koe e te P\u012Bka. T\u0113n\u0101 hoki t\u0101tou. E ara ake nei au ki te whakapuaki i \u0113tahi kupu whakak\u014Dpani i te kaupapa nei, whakawherawhera hoki i te kaupapa nei hei whakaarotanga m\u0101 te Minita, m\u0101 Tama P\u014Dtaka. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003EN\u014D reira i roto i te iwi M\u0101ori e mea ana te k\u014Drero \u201CToit\u016B te whenua, whatungarongaro te tangata\u201D. Ko te t\u0101tai whakapapa he mea nui. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003E[Thank you, Madam Speaker. Greetings to us all. I rise to express a few words to summarise this topic, to also interrogate this topic for consideration by the Minister, by Tama P\u014Dtaka. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003EAnd so, among the M\u0101ori people, there is a saying: \u201CThe land remains, as people disappear\u201D. Lines of genealogical descent are important.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003EThis bill will overturn the judgment of the High Court. As I spoke to last night, it seems that this Government is quite fine with overturning rulings of courts, leaving not much confidence, within the public, for the longevity of or even the presence of democracy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003EWe oppose this bill in the name of mana motuhake, because mana motuhake is the thing that hap\u016B and iwi possess, and in mana motuhake, relationships that include whakapapa include te taiao\u2014the natural environment\u2014and those people. Those two things are inseparable. They are part of the knowledge system, the being system of te iwi M\u0101ori. I know Tama understands that, but, miraculously, he seems to have forgotten it in his current state. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c13d89755b7d4e4cb8db2f30e19ce901\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Both names please.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002208a5922f86874400a887619ad4d152ab\u0022\u003ET\u0100KUTA FERRIS\u003C/span\u003E: I know Tama Potaka understands it, but he seems to have\u2014\u201CHe taonga te wareware\u201D. T\u0113n\u0101 an\u014D t\u0113tahi k\u014Drero [\u201CForgetfulness is omnipresent\u201D. That is another saying]. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003EWhere does it leave us, really? Where does it leave us? Well, it leaves us with probably more problems to solve than answers. All of the recommendations of chapter four of the Wai 262 claim, where taonga species are clearly defined and recommendations are clearly set forward\u2014this action by the conservation Minister just drives a bulldozer straight over that. The Wai 262 claim is one of the longest-standing claims that Tama Potaka\u2019s own grandparents would have fought for, as did mine. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003EHere we are. We have te Minita o Te Papa Atawhai, hamumu nei t\u014Dna reo, t\u014Dna waha me te k\u012B nei koia r\u0101 te kaitiaki o aku taonga; koia te kaiwhakaae ki te oranga, te matenga r\u0101nei o aku taonga, ng\u0101 taonga o t\u014Dku whenua. K\u0101ore m\u0101tou e paku whakaae ki t\u0113r\u0101 whakaaro o t\u0113tahi K\u0101wanatanga ahakoa ko wai. N\u014D reira, kei te Minita, e k\u012B, e k\u012B. E k\u012B, e k\u012B. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003E[We have the Minister of the Department of Conservation, his voice ringing out, his mouth saying that he is the custodian of my treasures; he is the one to authorise the life or death of my treasures, the treasures of my land. We do not at all agree with that concept of a Government, regardless of who it is. And so, to the Minister, how dare you. How dare you.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s highly unlikely that the provisions contained in this bill will uphold many of the other commitments that the Crown has already made in conservation in other areas, particularly in iwi settlements, like partnership and shared decision-making between departments and kaitiaki\u2014i.e., the hap\u016B and iwi; partnerships between the Department of Conservation and the iwi; Treaty principles in general; policies in national parks; co-management and customary use; no ownership of protected wildlife; M\u0101ori ownership of taonga, taonga species in particular, completely related to the whakapapa k\u014Drero that I just gave. These things all sustain culture. They are part of culture. They are not decompartmentalised, from a M\u0101ori point of view, yet here we are, passing a bill under urgency that does that for us. T\u0113n\u0101 koe e te Minita. \u0100e, \u0101e, me mihi kia ora atu ki \u014D iwi. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003E[Thank you, Minister. Yes, yes, you should say thank you to your people.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003EHere we are, e te iwi M\u0101ori: first, the attack on Te Tiriti o Waitangi\u2014besides all of the attacks on everything else we\u2019ve had to endure over the last 18 months\u2014and here we are down to a plain-out attack on te taiao and all of the whakapapa connections and meaning that that has to te iwi M\u0101ori. We do not agree.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003EI want to give you a statement. I want to read you something from Ng\u0101i Tahu: \u201CConservation Minister Tama Potaka mentioned, in a recent interview, that it will cost too much to save every single species and that we need to target only those of high value.\u201D Who determines high value? \u201CHowever, the whakapapa of te taiao relies on a collective of species to thrive, not individuals. Whakapapa stores key information, a reminder of where things come from, where to find them, when to use them and for what purpose. M\u0101ori can recite whakapapa from the beginning of creation, from the stars to the oceans, from the trees to the birds to the birth of the first human. This knowledge system connects us to our natural environment and everything in it, living as part of a system, not dominating or changing it.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003EThose are the words of Ng\u0101i Tahu, and they quite eloquently describe the natural relationship of M\u0101ori\u2014the principal sovereign in this country, the partner that this House is obligated to listen to and work with\u2014completely out of the picture. N\u014D reira e te Minita Take Taiao, m\u0101u an\u014D \u0113nei k\u014Drero e kawe ki te motu. M\u0101u an\u014D e hiki, e h\u0101pai, e whakatika hei t\u014Dna w\u0101. K\u0101ore m\u0101tou m\u014D te whakaae. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002287c850cf-18f6-4be0-935a-0e24e0a352ae\u0022\u003E[So to the Minister for the Environment, it is up to you to convey this discourse to the nation. It is up to you to upraise, to promote, and to correct in time. We are not about to agree.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022 data-id=\u0022a0bf54e7a87e416cb9874ad128a47b79\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a0bf54e7a87e416cb9874ad128a47b79\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is not simply a disgraceful bill but a convoluted bill. We have seen, as we went through the committee stage, nothing other than grandstanding and politicisation from the Minister to try and justify this bill when all we are trying to do is to get some sense out of the bill, which we would have if this bill had gone through a select committee stage as per the normal parliamentary practice. Here we are, and here we are in Aotearoa, where the people of Aotearoa have not been granted their right to participate in our democratic system once again, and we have seen a troubling amount of that happening under this Government. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EThere are a couple of things I want to address specifically around this bill. We have put a number of questions to the Minister during the committee stage around the retrospectivity of this bill and the fact that what we are seeing is a knee-jerk response to what is a standard process, and the rightful process, under the separation of powers and under the constitutional arrangements of Aotearoa New Zealand to allow the judiciary to interpret the law as required. What we are seeing here is the executive overstepping the judiciary\u2019s decision, and we have specific clauses in here that refer to that specific ruling.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EThis is really, really concerning. The part of the retrospectivity here that is the concerning part is that we haven\u2019t yet had clarification on the extent of the authorities that will be granted and that will be affected, and also on the effect that it will have on our taonga, on our natural species. We would have got all of this if we had proper public consultation and were able to talk to and speak to, and ask questions of, the officials. Again, we have not been granted that very basic right as parliamentarians.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EWe have heard from people in the House saying, \u201CWe are looking at your average New Zealander who just wants to build infrastructure for Aotearoa and be able to do the work, and they care about the species and all of the outdoors.\u201D Let\u2019s be clear. This bill and the authorities have nothing to do with the New Zealanders who build our infrastructure but everything to do with the companies who may potentially just want to cut corners on squeezing every dime out of nature and out of New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EThere are so many contradictions within this bill. This is fundamentally inconsistent with the purpose of the Wildlife Act, which is to protect. As much as we hear the Ministers and the governing parties trying to gaslight the New Zealand public by saying that \u201Cby killing, we are actually protecting\u201D\u2014how? Where? This is actually in the explanatory note on the first page. If the governing parties read the bill and did their job once in a while, maybe they would actually understand what was happening here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223cc9806d-f7ef-4e23-a218-442f20bf8591\u0022\u003EWe have heard before, from the previous speaker, that we operate within an ecosystem and we simply do not know the impact of this bill. I go back to what the Attorney-General said last year. The fact that we\u2019re using urgency and are rushing through laws means that we\u2019re making bad laws, and we will come back for this. What we are seeing is a Government that panders to the greed of international overseas companies at the expense of the taonga of Aotearoa and of our future generations. The debt that this Government refuses to acknowledge and refuses to take on is the debt against our future generations and our mokopuna. What this Government has done through this bill is give people licences to kill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222837c142-c937-468e-9984-bc646d066687\u0022 data-id=\u0022229192b5a41f47bebef51d3f96767dc9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222837c142-c937-468e-9984-bc646d066687\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022229192b5a41f47bebef51d3f96767dc9\u0022\u003EDr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National\u2014Ilam):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill. While we have just heard great theatrics and also some great scaremongering from the other side, the hyperbole is unbelievable. You\u2019d think they\u2019d been listening to the Counting Crows on repeat about paving paradise. Let\u2019s be clear, that is just hyperbole and scare tactics. What we are doing is reinstating a system that has worked for many years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222837c142-c937-468e-9984-bc646d066687\u0022\u003EThe Department of Conservation only authorises projects when there\u2019s incidental harm and only when it is minimised, and the permits are granted with very strict conditions to protect that wildlife population and its long-term viability. We\u2019re not debating that. It is a good aim, and that is what we\u2019re continuing to do. If you listen to the other side, you\u2019d think that it was completely the opposite. This isn\u2019t about allowing unchecked development. It covers things like pest control, which is actually an essential part of preserving our biodiversity. Unfortunately, in pest control, some things can have incidental harm. This piece of legislation is about restoring certainty, not about removing protections. Engineers and pest control specialists will still need to minimise harm, still seek to relocate animals wherever possible, and look after our environment. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022 data-id=\u0022eb78a587eb354f1b98ce5ea51c23244c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022eb78a587eb354f1b98ce5ea51c23244c\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, what an interesting time we\u2019ve had during all stages under urgency on this bill. I did not expect to be called creative for suggesting that it is normal good practice for a bill that is going through all stages under urgency to have a review. Apparently, that\u2019s creative. No, no, no. This is what the Labour Government did after the cyclones\u2014a proper emergency. There is no proper emergency here. There is no need for the complete absence of a select committee process. It could be a short one. I take the point that the court case has resulted in the need for a fix. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EWe\u2019re not debating the need for a fix and that general policy intent, but we don\u2019t know what that fix is, because this bill is so badly drafted and the Minister refused to answer my drafting questions about clause 4 of the bill. It still makes no sense. We found out that, in fact, it seems like most of the Government bench speeches that have involved roads are entirely wrong. This bill doesn\u2019t do anything about new road projects for Government roads, because all of those projects still need a section\u00A071 permission or authority and that requires the concurrence of two Ministers, which is a much more arduous administrative thing to do than getting an authority from a director-general or delegate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EGovernment Ministers have crowed about how this bill that requires all stages under urgency is going to get us back on track. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s going to apply to railways, and it\u2019s certainly not going to apply to Government roads. Yet I haven\u2019t heard any acknowledgment of that from the Government members in their third reading speeches. All I heard is from the ACT member whose whole contribution was about Government roads and how this amendment bill would fix his problem. It does no such thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EThat is why I think the Government will be back here next week. We will be back in urgency next week. I do not think that this Government is good at learning lessons, and there is a very basic lesson here to learn, and that is that if you are drafting law under speed, not using the Parliamentary Counsel Office, I presume, and bringing a bill to a House under two months after a court decision, and not sending it to select committee, it will be muddled. There will be mistakes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EOne way to get around that would be for a Minister to act in an engaged way with questions in the committee stage and take a little bit of time to go through some of the key sentences. That did not happen. The Minister could have kept us in committee stage and stopped at that point and not gone to third reading. I\u2019m advising the Minister that he will regret not asking the Leader of the House to come down here late last night, just before midnight, when we were still in the committee stage, still on Part\u00A01, to say \u201CActually, I\u2019m ending urgency now so that this Government has some time to consider what this bill does.\u201D At the moment, it makes no sense. It does not do what the Ministers say it\u2019s going to do. That is a problem for them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EAnother solution, which again I don\u2019t think this Government is likely to learn from, is one of those so-called creative review clauses where this bill could be sent, before it commences, to the Regulations Review Committee or another select committee to review not the policy intent but the actual logistics of how the bill is supposed to work, and then come back. The Minister has disregarded all of these suggestions and quoted a lot of music at us. I note that he hasn\u2019t quoted \u201CScorpio Girls\u201D, because, of course, scorpios are not included under the protection of the Wildlife Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EI do note that the wording of \u201CCan\u2019t Get Enough\u201D\u2014well, I was kind of wondering whether you can help me out with a problem that will kind of make you \u201CScream \u0026amp; Shout\u201D. Whenever they\u2019re coming, they\u2019re \u201CBringing It Back\u201D. Now, that, I think, is pertinent to how I have been feeling during these debates. There is a little bit of making me want to \u201CScream \u0026amp; Shout\u201D, because I have tried over and over again to try and engage with the Minister about how it is that the words in his bill make sense and how it is that they don\u2019t contradict each other. There is clearly confusion in the Government because we heard in question time, in real time, yesterday but still on 6 May in this House, that Acting Prime Minister Winston Peters at his first go at answering a question said, \u201CNo, no. This is just about culling.\u201D But then we hear all these other speeches: \u201CNo, this is about housing.\u201D \u201COh, this is about Government roads.\u201D Then we find out that, no, it\u2019s definitely not about Government roads, because section\u00A071 applies to those, not section 53. That is what the Minister said. It doesn\u2019t apply to new Government roads.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232601127-a1e9-4ba0-b6af-99865a84a209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225b2c6a3923234bcb83555f626cd77d87\u0022\u003EHon Tama Potaka\u003C/span\u003E: New roads.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d00c49eb818d4349b6b9835dc2ab74da\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister\u2019s interjecting here, I think. His head is down, but he is saying \u201Cnew roads\u201D. That\u2019s right; new roads. They have to go through section 71, which is quite different from the rhetoric that we heard in the speeches from Government members. This bill is a hot mess. I mean, it just shows the craziness of using urgency for all stages, particularly when the policy problem has only arisen recently, so there\u2019s clearly not been much time to develop that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EThat is me being positive rather than cynical about why this bill is in fact in front of us in urgency for all stages. A cynical version could be \u201CWell, we know that the Minister for Resources doesn\u2019t like wildlife protections of any sort.\u201D He thinks that the only mammals we should be concerned about are humans. \u201CGoodbye, pekapeka. Goodbye, Freddy the frog.\u201D, he says. We know that he has already passed the terrible fast-track legislation that overrides environmental protections. One aspect of the fast track, which I don\u2019t disagree with, is that you can be a one-stop shop. You can look at different permissions that you would need.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EOften a big project, such as a large road, will require some sort of resource consent and also an authority under the Wildlife Act, so you can have the decision makers consider both of those decisions together. We know that there are projects on that fast-track list that get a private benefit by not having to abide by the normal environmental protections that other consent applicants would have to do. We know that some of those are in areas where there is wildlife. We keep hearing the Minister for Resources talk about Freddy the frog.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EIs this bill really here under urgency for all stages because of Freddy the frog? We don\u2019t know. We haven\u2019t had a regulatory impact statement. We don\u2019t even know if the applications under the Fast-track Approvals Act that might be in national parks might involve some ancient legislation that is mentioned in Schedule 9 of the Wildlife Act\u2014whether this bill in front of us will apply or not; we don\u2019t know that. We do know that this Government has cut funding to conservation, has cut funding to anything environmental, and has a total disregard for the importance of our economy being based on our environment. It seems that all you need are roads. You don\u2019t need to worry about the air that we breathe if you listen to the ACT contributions on this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003EThat is why we are opposing this bill. It is a dreadful process. The Government doesn\u2019t know what it\u2019s doing, and shame on them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002294b52412-f97b-4bbd-8009-5dc49520f7f4\u0022 data-id=\u0022b4a90c11435540ef98934eff2e862ff8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002294b52412-f97b-4bbd-8009-5dc49520f7f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b4a90c11435540ef98934eff2e862ff8\u0022\u003ERYAN HAMILTON (National\u2014Hamilton East):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Speaker. There\u2019s been a lot of reference to New Zealand music, it being New Zealand Music Month, and I\u2019m pleased to say that Homegrown, New Zealand\u2019s largest music festival, will be held in the city of the future\u2014Hamilton\u2014in March\u00A02026, so I\u2019m looking forward to that. On that note, I commend this bill to the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022a422a0714e58497285a700bc00c9700a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a422a0714e58497285a700bc00c9700a\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Rachel Boyack\u2014a five-minute call. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022 data-id=\u0022cd5d11d9ca0f45eb85683bd08263e0de\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cd5d11d9ca0f45eb85683bd08263e0de\u0022\u003ERACHEL BOYACK (Labour\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Speaker. I\u2019d like to just indulge the House quickly, if I might, because the Brook Waim\u0101rama Sanctuary has, yesterday, reintroduced kiwi into Nelson Whakat\u016B, and I\u2019d like to congratulate them. I\u2019ve got K\u0101piti Kiwi here with me just to celebrate the immense achievement for the team at the Brook. I think it\u2019s appropriate, when we\u2019re talking about this bill, that I congratulate the team and acknowledge and bring K\u0101piti Kiwi into the House. This is to the team at the Brook: thank you for all of your mahi over so many years to get us here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003ENow to the bill, which is not something to celebrate. I might just start by focusing on the process that we\u2019ve followed so far. My colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking has traversed this very, very well, but there are some really significant process reasons why we are not supporting this bill today. There was no regulatory impact statement, there are no Cabinet papers available, and there was no select committee. Now, we\u2019ll get to, in a little bit, the impact of that, but the lack of a select committee has led to us having a situation where this bill is just not in a workable state. The Minister\u2019s going to have to come back to progress further legislation, or there\u2019s going to be stuff in the courts that\u2019s going to come up as a result of it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003EThe other thing is that, last night in the committee stage, I must say it would have been really helpful if the Minister could have been more concise in his answers. One thing he said, I think, was a good example. He said, about the discussion in committee stage, that \u201CWe\u2019re starting to stray \u2026 into feral space based on speculation and conjecture.\u201D What does that even mean? The Minister could have spent some time answering questions properly\u2014some really legitimate legal questions that we had yesterday.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003EAs the Hon Rachel Brooking has said, there are a couple of matters that are quite critical to this. We don\u2019t disagree that there\u2019s actually an issue that has been raised by the courts that needs to be addressed. The Minister could have reached across the House and talked to us, and we would have been able to come up with some shared solutions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226100695a951b429d90e99b82ff1120c0\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Did that happen?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b9a930d37ac1447f83165230ce2ff393\u0022\u003ERACHEL BOYACK\u003C/span\u003E: It didn\u2019t happen. I\u2019d say to him, next time, to come and talk to us in advance because I agree, as the animal welfare spokesperson, that there\u2019s an issue to be resolved. I\u2019m quite happy to engage about what is the pragmatic solution, because this isn\u2019t it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003EThe Minister finally admitted that section 53 doesn\u2019t apply to Government transport projects, which was actually the court case. The court case involved a Government roading project, and it doesn\u2019t actually address that specific issue. Why are they doing this? Why are we doing this under urgency? Why? I mean, what else could be going on here? We\u2019ve got fast-track projects coming through. What is that going to mean for our wildlife if the Government, it appears, is seeking to make a more permissible approach to killing wildlife, potentially to get some of their little pet projects through, when it doesn\u2019t actually address the very, very issue that came to the House via the courts?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003EThe Minister also could have sent this to a select committee. I sat on the Governance and Administration Committee a couple of years ago where we had two bills related to Cyclone Gabrielle come through. On both occasions, we had short select committees\u2014two or three days. We reached out to potential stakeholders and submitters. We heard from submitters, and that helped ensure that there was robustness around the select committee process. We got better law as a result.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8550e1a-ed25-44a2-b0e2-b0a8d52a7a80\u0022\u003EThere is a reason why Parliament has select committees. That\u2019s what they\u2019re there for. They\u2019re actually there to directly engage with officials and with the Parliamentary Counsel Office. The Wildlife Act itself is well overdue for a rewrite. If you read through section 53, it\u2019s challenging to interpret anyway. Now, you\u2019ve added new section 53A, inserted by clause 4, which is written in gobbledegook, in my view, and the two combined together make it even more challenging. There\u2019s going to be a huge job for lawyers and a huge job for the courts to actually try to get their head around understanding this bill. I predict the Minister is going to be back, because I think others, probably the Minister of Transport, might be a bit concerned to hear that it doesn\u2019t actually apply to his Government transport projects. He might have a yarn to the Minister and ask for them to come back. I don\u2019t commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225665380b-62fd-4d75-85e0-0ed801a402e0\u0022 data-id=\u002244524acb98fb42e7bdbb4e748b89b2ba\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225665380b-62fd-4d75-85e0-0ed801a402e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002244524acb98fb42e7bdbb4e748b89b2ba\u0022\u003EMIKE BUTTERICK (National\u2014Wairarapa):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill just validates existing permits, ensuring the holders of those authorisations can actually continue their activities without legal risk, provided they comply with conditions. It applies to a wide range of activities, such as infrastructure and environmental programmes like TBfree, which may cause incidental harm. It\u2019s not about allowing unchecked development; it\u2019s about protecting people who\u2019ve followed the rules. We\u2019re validating those authorisations granted before 5\u00A0March\u00A02025 and restoring the ability to process new applications responsibly. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022 data-id=\u0022c7727ca07e8a4377ab47aac73906c81f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c7727ca07e8a4377ab47aac73906c81f\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is the first opportunity that I\u2019ve had to take a call on the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill. To be quite honest, I just wanted to make a few comments around the process of this bill. This is the second bill that we have seen go through this House through all stages in urgency with no regulatory impact statement and with retrospective effect. Now, this is very similar to the last bill that we saw go through urgency, which had no regulatory impact statement and had retrospective effect. What kind of Government is this that puts forward these types of bills? These are not minor issues. These are not cleaning up tiny things. These are things like bringing in laws that would get rid of the pay in women\u2019s pockets and allow, and most likely cause, further deaths for our wildlife and make it easier for those to occur in this type of legislation. This is absolutely shocking behaviour by this Government, and it\u2019s something that everyone on the other side of the House should be ashamed of.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EI haven\u2019t been involved in this bill\u2014there hasn\u2019t been much opportunity, I have to say, to be involved in this bill. Normally, we\u2019d say, \u201CI wasn\u2019t able to be at select committee.\u201D, but, unfortunately, there was no select committee for this particular bill. This bill was really the result of a decision by the courts, which, as my colleague Rachel Brooking\u2014and then my colleague Rachel Boyack added in a later contribution\u2014explained, was a court case where there was a very particular finding that the Government is overtly reacting to with this particular legislation, bringing in retrospective law without any thought as to what it could be.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EThis is an area that I know is very important to a lot of New Zealanders. A lot of New Zealanders care very much about the natural environment. A value that many New Zealanders share is that we should protect our natural environment. In New Zealand, we have a very, very important natural environment with a lot of different animals that are there and that should be protected. We do have a lot of endangered species, and we have a lot of bird life and marine fish species. We\u2019ve got a lot of native reptiles and frogs, and I know my colleague Rachel Brooking is very passionate about the fact that we should protect our bats.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EWe need to take pragmatic decisions as adults, sensible decisions, to make sure that, when we are implementing law change, we are not putting these species at risk. These species are obviously not in a position to advocate. It\u2019s up to us to look at our biodiversity and make sensible decisions around the laws that we bring in. I\u2019ve had a look through this particular law, and I have to say there are a number of aspects of it that are incredibly concerning. I don\u2019t think it would take many New Zealanders very long to reach that same conclusion if they were looking at this particular bill. Essentially, it makes it easier and more permissible, as far as I understand\u2014and I\u2019m not the major expert here, but you\u2019ve heard from some of my colleagues who are\u2014and more likely that important wildlife will be killed, and I don\u2019t think that\u2019s acceptable. I don\u2019t think it would be acceptable to most New Zealanders. I don\u2019t think the legislative process is acceptable. I think this is bad law. I think the other side of the House should be ashamed not only at the content of this law but at the process that it has gone through.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EThe Labour Party will not be supporting this particular bill, and I would like the Government to really reflect on why it continues to take these reactionary steps when there have been well-thought-out decisions made by our courts and when these are important decisions to be made that have implications on our natural world, and to reflect on why they need to bring these through urgency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227535d92-0798-4e04-be80-9e91b53610e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ef95622e03ae4097b660823c2dc90eee\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: All stages.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226a29a523ec5d40d2a7efd02ae2d1facd\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH\u003C/span\u003E: All-stages urgency. It is absolutely shocking. I feel that, as my colleague Rachel Brooking said, this bill will be back in the House, so it will waste further time. This is the deep irony of urgency. When you bring a bill that isn\u2019t fully thought through, that hasn\u2019t had the opportunity of submissions from the select committee, and where there hasn\u2019t been the opportunity to scrutinise all of the nature of the bill, often it needs to come back to the House as an amendment bill, and that wastes time. If the Government is trying to save time, actually, they will waste more time in the long run, and they will waste New Zealanders\u2019 money, because there will be court cases and there will be aspects of this bill that are unclear. This is not how we should make good law. We saw that yesterday when the pay equity changes were rushed through under urgency, and we\u2019re seeing it again today. Unfortunately, we do have other bills on the urgency agenda here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a503e324-3a0b-4efd-bf44-ec6740ec9a62\u0022\u003EThe Labour Party will not be supporting this bill, and I, again, would ask colleagues on the other side of the House to really reflect on how they have determined to make law, what that says about them as a Government, and the future implications for New Zealand and our wildlife as a result of this terrible bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002244967dc4-6cc7-4567-b8ef-cc3a9b354544\u0022 data-id=\u002270a248a325c347f58c331077450c0ae2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002244967dc4-6cc7-4567-b8ef-cc3a9b354544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002270a248a325c347f58c331077450c0ae2\u0022\u003EGRANT McCALLUM (National\u2014Northland):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take the final call in support of the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill at its third reading. All we\u2019re doing here is just getting things back on track so that we can go out there, we can do the pest control, we can control the possums in the bush, and we can build the roads, including the one over the Brynderwyns. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022dc8759357aed45d4a91bf8d8ddb7863f\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000351\u0022\u003EBill read a third time.\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022af1537cadac240659b629bf593598a9e\u0022\u003ESocial Security Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ca2a5d02993f4d229cf2c442d8b6ded4\u0022\u003ESecond Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022 data-id=\u00228fce1fa13dfd48dda3e5d11c34381627\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228fce1fa13dfd48dda3e5d11c34381627\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment):\u003C/span\u003E I present a legislative statement on the Social Security Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225470485ac7e0430f9ce41efd4a2f159e\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229dcff6e7f59b48cea0fb6e6e120a0ea7\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: I move, That the Social Security Amendment Bill be now read a second time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EOur Government believes that people are better off in work. Since 2023, unfortunately, the number of working-age individuals receiving a main benefit has steadily increased. It is critical that we have a welfare system that actively supports job seekers into work, rather than allowing them to get stuck on welfare.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EThis bill seeks to amend the Social Security Act and the Social Security Regulations to expand and enhance welfare settings to support people off benefit and into employment. The welfare system will always be available to support people when they need it, but they need to meet their obligations to look for a job and be held accountable when they don\u2019t. That\u2019s why, last year, I launched the traffic light system to communicate to clients what\u2019s expected of them when they are on a benefit. Those changes reinforce the expectations for those on benefits, and, now, I\u2019m ready to expand and strengthen the tools available to support people into work through this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003ECurrently, a financial sanction is the only option available to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) when responding to an obligation failure. Clients who have a grade 1 financial sanction imposed have their main benefit reduced by half. This bill introduces non-financial sanctions\u2014money management and community work experience\u2014which will expand MSD\u2019s toolbox. They provide an alternative option, for some clients\u2019 first failure, that enables them to keep their full payment while reinforcing the message that failing to meet obligations is not acceptable. The bill also extends the period over which an obligation failure counts against clients from 12 to 24 months, increasing the likelihood that those who are repeatedly refusing to comply with their obligations will have their benefit cancelled if they remain on the benefit for more than a year.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EI also propose two other changes that focus on assisting people into employment. The bill will require new applicants for certain benefits with work-related obligations to have completed a jobseeker profile before their benefit is granted. This change will encourage work-focused conversations from the earliest possible opportunity and help MSD to better match people to suitable job vacancies. The bill will also reduce the amount of time before someone on jobseeker support must reapply, from 52 weeks to 26 weeks. This means that clients will have more frequent engagements with MSD about employment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EI\u2019d like to put on record my thanks to the Social Services and Community Committee for its careful consideration of the bill. I also want to thank members of the public and organisations who provided both written and oral submissions. I have heard and want to acknowledge the concerns associated with these changes, and I want to reassure members of this House and the public that the non-financial sanctions proposed in this bill will only affect those who are not complying with their obligations. Non-financial sanctions will ensure accountability while recognising that financial sanctions are not the answer for everyone. I accept that the Opposition would prefer to have financial deductions taken off people\u2019s benefits. This side of the House doesn\u2019t see that, necessarily, as the best first option.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EOther changes in the bill reinforce the Government\u2019s commitment to helping people transition off benefit and into employment. It is not acceptable that over 70 percent of people on jobseeker support who are not in employment case management will experience only one work-related engagement in a year in their 52-week reapplication. Having more frequent work-focused engagements through reapplications will reinforce the importance of looking for work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EAfter its consideration of the bill, the Social Services and Community Committee has recommended the introduction of two additional non-financial sanctions, as well as further minor amendments, to better support the effective administration of the proposals in this bill. The two additional non-financial sanctions are \u201Creport job search\u201D and \u201Cupskilling\u201D. These will sit alongside the other non-financial sanctions detailed in the bill as introduced. As they appear, clients will be required to report on their job search activities. If people are undertaking job search activities, it is more likely they will find a job. Also, the other one is to participate in employment-related training. As with money management and community work experience, these new non-financial sanctions will not impact clients\u2019 entitlements and will reinforce the expectation that they are searching or preparing for work. I want to, again, thank the members of the Social Services and Community Committee for their careful consideration of the bill, and I look forward to seeing the amendments progress towards the initial changes proposed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EThis bill represents another important step forward in refocusing our welfare system to better support individuals towards employment. By introducing these changes, we aim to create a more transparent, accountable, and work-focused environment for jobseekers. I look forward to seeing this bill progress through the remaining stages of the parliamentary process, and I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022035c10f07f154068b417e1d7b2105c5b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022035c10f07f154068b417e1d7b2105c5b\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022 data-id=\u0022e6cbc0c4265a48dd80bf2caeef7b17b1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e6cbc0c4265a48dd80bf2caeef7b17b1\u0022\u003EHon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I rise, once again, in this Parliament to speak against this Government\u2019s cruelty and spite\u2014cruelty and spite\u2014aimed at the poorest and most vulnerable with this appalling amendment to the Social Security Act. Following on from what happened yesterday, we should not be surprised\u2014we should not be surprised\u2014because this is all about saving money in the Budget. That\u2019s what yesterday was about\u2014saving money at the expense of women around the nation. I salute all the women who stood up, particularly our women in Labour, and the vote of no confidence they put in this Government yesterday.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003EI bring this up because this is very, very similar to what\u2019s happening in terms of this Social Security Amendment Bill. Yesterday, we traded away generations\u2014generations\u2014of great work by people, all to save Nicola Willis\u2019 Budget. It was a disgraceful act from the Government yesterday, and particularly with our women lined up\u2014some of them National Party women. I look at the Minister now, who\u2019s been a former Minister for Women, and I ask her how yesterday could have happened. The whole nation is asking questions. The whole nation is asking questions about how a National Party, who previously supported equity in terms of equal pay, could walk away from that yesterday. It was a disgraceful act, and even the right-wing\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229b26713d44fd4c6880b99ea86b9d0125\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Jackson, they\u2019re probably waiting for you to get on to this bill, too.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227d9dbd665fbd48369f9a8c7c9781c0a5\u0022\u003EHon WILLIE JACKSON\u003C/span\u003E: I had to make that comparison with yesterday, because it\u2019s all very, very, very similar. Anyway, this is not about improving the welfare of our most disempowered Kiwis; this is about punishing them. That\u2019s what this kaupapa is about today. Very similar to yesterday, it\u2019s about punishing them for having the audacity to look to the New Zealand State for help. How sad it is that they\u2019re being punished for asking the Government for help. They\u2019re getting continually punished, damned with needless bureaucracy that will be managed by a faceless AI program\u2014as if their disability has magically healed since you last asked them\u2014and penalised with sanctions that remove their agency in spending money with a money management scheme that makes it impossible\u2014makes it impossible\u2014for beneficiaries to pay for rent, power, and school uniforms.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003EThis is what this Government is doing. They\u2019re doing it under the umbrella of urgency, and they\u2019re forgetting about our vulnerable people at the coalface, who are not able to organise themselves at times, who need a bit of support, who need a bit of awhi, and who need a bit of community help. This is what this Minister is doing, a former Minister for Women. This isn\u2019t welfare reform; it\u2019s revenge against the poor for having the temerity to ask for help from the Government, who have purposely crashed the economy and pushed up unemployment. No doubt about that\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222170b5bd-171f-4d9f-bfa6-cab72178f108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b9a00fee386b4da4bedd8e7cc0a68545\u0022\u003EJoseph Mooney\u003C/span\u003E: Ha, ha, ha! \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221cca2da1a1224eb585175b4556dd89ef\u0022\u003EHon WILLIE JACKSON\u003C/span\u003E: Check the M\u0101ori unemployment rates out if you\u2019re having a laugh over there, Mr Mooney\u2014check the M\u0101ori unemployment rates out. You\u2019ll see that the M\u0101ori unemployment rates are getting worse and worse.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fe342415-6351-4072-a17e-19dab2ef184d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fa6cafe510e045e5964b7fb13ab0c766\u0022\u003EFrancisco Hernandez\u003C/span\u003E: And the regional unemployment rate as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cc7d6356a0ed418b8227f55482f8fd05\u0022\u003EHon WILLIE JACKSON\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, there is no change there. How outrageous it is, though, for Joe Mooney and his crew to crash the economy. They\u2019ve just spiked unemployment, and now they\u2019re punishing those Kiwis needing help from their economic decisions. \u201CWe don\u2019t have money for beneficiaries.\u201D Oh, but we do have money. We do have money for military. We do have money for more military. We do have money for tax cuts. That\u2019s the theme\u2014it\u2019s always the theme here. We have got money for the tax cuts, we\u2019ve got money for the rich landlords, and we\u2019ve got $200 million for New Zealand First\u2019s mates in the tobacco industry. Let\u2019s be clear: there is money, but there\u2019s just no money for the poor, there\u2019s no money for the vulnerable, and there\u2019s no money for those who are struggling. There\u2019s now no money.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003EThey\u2019re taking money away from everyday New Zealand women, and this Government will pay. They will pay for their decision yesterday. They know it. It\u2019s one of the worst decisions they\u2019ve ever made, and it\u2019ll catch up with them. This kaupapa\u2014these amendments\u2014will result in more beneficiaries and their dependants being unable to buy food and to pay rent and other basic bills. The policy will generate more hardship, more poverty, and more homelessness. The community work experience\u2014oh, that sounds nice! Joseph Mooney and his mates will go out and give you a boring speech in the community. That all sounds nice, but it amounts to forced labour, and if people don\u2019t complete it\u2014if they don\u2019t complete it\u2014they lose their welfare. They lose their welfare. That\u2019s what this community experience is all about: making those on welfare poorer and more abused so that the poor will cower and ask for more help, \u201CPlease, Government, please, help us.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003EThis is the sort of bullying, of course, that Donald Trump does, and we know that the Government is a great fan of Donald Trump\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fe342415-6351-4072-a17e-19dab2ef184d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229b419b54d0734336927a02ce0b2b7767\u0022\u003EFrancisco Hernandez\u003C/span\u003E: They love Trump. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a484c29e3a644c83aba327bf1e0a961a\u0022\u003EHon WILLIE JACKSON\u003C/span\u003E: They love Trump; Winston says so. They replicate and duplicate him all the time, and that\u2019s the strategy. It\u2019s all about bashing the vulnerable. This terrible Government is in trouble when it starts bashing beneficiaries for nothing more than its reactionary, angry voters, because that\u2019s all this is. It\u2019s about bashing beneficiaries. I\u2019ve just come on to the select committee, but I\u2019ve seen the type of resistance given by the Greens, ourselves, and Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori. It\u2019s been a good response in terms of this kaupapa. All of this is highly counterproductive and will only entrench poverty by spawning an underclass frightened to engage with the system. That\u2019s the type of feedback I\u2019m getting back from the experts out there. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003EThe Government wants to make the process of obtaining welfare as difficult and Draconian as possible so that it intimidates and frustrates those attempting to use it, in the hope that they will simply go away. That\u2019s the strategy. That\u2019s what this Government is really doing with this amendment. They want all the poor people to go away. It\u2019s like the emergency housing kaupapa. You hear them waffling on about the numbers. They are carrying on, \u201CWe\u2019ve reduced the emergency housing numbers.\u201D No one knows where these people have gone. If you ask Minister Potaka, he\u2019ll say, \u201CI don\u2019t know where they are.\u201D, but Minister Bishop will come out with, \u201CWell, we\u2019ve reduced it from so many.\u201D It\u2019s just a disgrace. They\u2019re putting them out on the road. They\u2019re putting them out on the road. People are dying out on the streets.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003EThe most appalling part of this is that the Government are making these types of cruel decisions because, as we all know, they refused point blank to tax their rich mates. That\u2019s just a reality. They want to look after their rich mates. That\u2019s what this is all about. New Zealand knows it. Who are you going to boot? \u201CWe\u2019ll boot the women, we\u2019ll boot the vulnerable, we\u2019ll boot the beneficiaries, and we\u2019ll boot the M\u0101oris.\u201D They are a disgrace.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227ed713ef6d9643c287545236ac1cce20\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, Mr Jackson, if you can just tell us what it is that the Government are doing and what came out of the select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c8a5e5943a9c4b31afc1edcb1cbce927\u0022\u003EHon WILLIE JACKSON\u003C/span\u003E: Lots came out. I thought I\u2019d been doing that, Mr Speaker. Well, let\u2019s talk about community work experience\u2014thank you for that reminder. The community work experience and the money management scheme are the key to the Minister\u2019s success. They won\u2019t be able to access emergency housing or special needs grants. That\u2019s the problem here. The Government is saying, \u201CWe\u2019ve got the panacea. We\u2019ve got the recipe here. We\u2019ll look after you. We\u2019ll look after you by going from 52 weeks to 26 weeks.\u201D Come on. We can\u2019t keep bashing beneficiaries and think that\u2019s the solution. They\u2019re setting every poor person up for failure by punishing them with sanctions. They\u2019re making it impossible. That\u2019s the key here. They punish them with sanctions, and then they make it impossible for them to access grants or their housing special needs grants.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s not about the welfare of the people. Mr Mooney, you should know that. In fact, you should hang your head in shame, being the chairman of the select committee. You were driving this for your rotten Government. This isn\u2019t about the welfare of the people; it\u2019s about punishing the poor with ever-increasing thresholds\u2014that\u2019s the key\u2014purposely designed to confuse, frustrate, and demean individuals. They make it so difficult\u2014they make it so tricky\u2014to traverse these areas that some of the beneficiaries just give up. They just give up. They\u2019ve got to pick this call up. They\u2019ve got to ring Joseph Mooney. It\u2019s just an impossible strategy. No, they\u2019ve got to comply with this National Party.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s no aroha from this Government and no compassion and no kindness in their welfare. It\u2019s a bleak diet of animosity and hostility. The National Party and this coalition Government should be ashamed of themselves. It\u2019s all going to come home to roost, mark my words. Kia ora. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022 data-id=\u002250d683657be74a8a9063498dd6a5a200\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002250d683657be74a8a9063498dd6a5a200\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green):\u003C/span\u003E This Government should hang their heads in shame for trying to push a bill that will literally increase poverty and deprive people of the means of survival. No matter how much spin we get from the Minister for Social Development and Employment that these are so-called non-financial sanctions, if anyone reads this bill, they\u2019ll understand that if you\u2019re subjected to these non-financial sanctions, you can\u2019t access hardship assistance. What that means is\u2014they would understand if any of them actually talked to people on the benefit\u2014that many people on the benefit rely on hardship assistance on a regular basis to put food on the table. If you\u2019re subjected to non-financial sanctions, you have a financial impact on you, which is that you can\u2019t put food on the table. I find it appalling and actually ignorant for the Minister to say that we prefer financial sanctions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EIf it was up to the Greens, we would have a welfare system that actually adequately supports people into employment. This is not what the Government is doing. The Government is not actually supporting people into employment. They have created so much bureaucracy for Work and Income that they now have to stop other programmes because\u2014and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) said it themselves\u2014their front line is oversubscribed thanks to the Government\u2019s own cuts, own actions, and ineffective policies that do nothing but create more hardship. The sanctions in this bill will simply push people deeper into poverty, make no mistake. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EI can\u2019t accuse anyone on the other side of the House of lying, but, at the very least, what I can do is point out the facts that they just seem to ignore. The facts in this bill\u2014for anyone who reads the report, because members seem to be either unable to read or unwilling to see the truth\u2014are that this bill will literally push people into potential homelessness.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EFor example, compulsory money management: what it will do is put 50\u00A0percent of someone\u2019s income into a green card. What it will mean is that people who spend around 50\u00A0percent of their income weekly on rent will literally be unable to put food on the table. Again, here are some more facts: we just need to look at the ministry\u2019s own figures to show that, on average, people on jobseeker support spend more than 50 percent of their income on rent. That means that people subjected to compulsory money management won\u2019t be able to afford their rent and they won\u2019t be able to access emergency housing, actually, if they\u2019re subjected to that benefit sanction. According to the non-financial sanction, they won\u2019t actually be able to obtain that level of support.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EI see members of the ACT Party yelling at me, but I dare them and challenge them to actually talk to anyone who they\u2019ve punished, anyone who they\u2019ve sanctioned, and talk to them about whether it\u2019s easier to find employment when you\u2019re struggling financially, when you can\u2019t even access financial support that allows you, for example, to get a uniform for an interview, and when Work and Income\u2019s wait times on the phone to access support when you need financial help for transport are so, so long that you may be missing appointments to actually help you get a job.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EAotearoa actually invests less than other comparative countries on initiatives that help people get into employment. It\u2019s all smoke and mirrors from the Government when they tell us that their goal is to get people into employment. Their goal is to simply strip people of the income support. We know this because of, again, facts: the Government has a target to get people off the benefit. This target does not include getting people into jobs; it simply includes stripping people of the means to survive.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve got other benefit sanctions in this bill, including the community work experience, which is\u2014as others have talked about\u2014forced labour. Did the Government take into account the feedback from community organisations? No, they didn\u2019t. Community organisations who submitted to the Social Services and Community Committee told us very explicitly that they were not adequately consulted, that, actually, most of them did not have the means to accommodate people on benefits subjected to this kind of sanction, and that it actually destroys the purpose. This is what we heard from submitters. No matter how much those members want to cover their ears, if people are forced to attend volunteer organisations, it destroys the very purpose of volunteering and the spirit of community that is built by those very organisations, many of whom are filling the gaps thanks to the cuts that this Government has made.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EThe Government, on top of that, decided to introduce two additional benefit sanctions with absolutely zero scrutiny. I look forward to scrutinising the Government for this terrible lawmaking that they\u2019ve decided to pursue by actually adding further benefit sanctions without public consultation and without the ability for members of the public to give their feedback. Actually, public feedback is critical here. We had over 3,500 submissions sent to this bill. Over 97 percent of people did not support this bill. Less than 3 percent of people actually supported this bill. If this Government was so confident that the reforms were so popular, why didn\u2019t their supporters actually swarm the select committee to tell us how much they love punishing beneficiaries? I know that, actually, everyday people want all of us to do well. When we have people who are stripped of the means to survive and who end up is in the streets with poor health, there are costs to livelihoods attached to that. Even within their fiscal conservatism, it makes absolutely no sense.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EEconomists across the world have told us that, actually, it makes sense to invest in a welfare system that adequately supports people. Yet this Government does not care. They don\u2019t care about the evidence that sanctions do not support people into employment. We literally just had media reports that quoted MSD saying that there\u2019s no actual correlation they can find between sanctioning someone and someone then finding employment, which means that all these sanctions end up doing is pushing people into hardship. It\u2019s intellectually dishonest for the Government to call these non-financial. There are literal financial consequences attached to this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EWe also know\u2014again, facts\u2014that the Government is simply trying to make it harder for people to stay on the benefit by making them reapply for a benefit twice as often. When we have the Ministry of Social Development already telling us that the front line is oversubscribed, I can\u2019t see how this will actually help anyone in any meaningful way. All it will do is add busybodies to the front line who are trying\u2014many of them\u2014to simply support people to have the bare minimum. Once you have a front line that is doing all this additional admin work this year and applying all these nonsense sanctions, they actually don\u2019t end up giving the tools and the means to support people to be their best selves to enter employment that meets their skills and aspirations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EThe Government has also sneaked through other changes that will make it harder for people who are in part-time employment to remain on the benefit by changing the definition of a \u201Cwork gap\u201D. Again, all this shows is that this Government does not care about our poorest. If they did, they wouldn\u2019t be pursuing this bill. If they care about people in precarious employment\u2014the kind of employment that many people likely will go to from being on the benefit\u2014they would not be cancelling all the pay equity deals that were being worked through. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EThe Government can\u2019t have it both ways. They can\u2019t say that work is the pathway out of poverty and then undermine those very same low-income workers that most likely will be people who were on the benefit shortly before this Government came into power. They can\u2019t have it both ways. Where they\u2019re investing the most is on tax cuts for landlords and on military spending but not on the things that people need to be well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EThis is a shameful, shameful bill that does nothing but increase poverty. We are already seeing the evidence and other reports about the impacts of this Government\u2019s policies. We have seen how material hardship for children is increasing. We are seeing how food insecurity for children under this Government\u2019s watch is increasing. This Government\u2019s decisions are literally making it harder for children to have what they need to be well. We\u2019re going to create a generation growing up in poverty without the opportunities to do well. No one is buying the trickle-down economics that were well debunked 40-plus years ago and that equate the idea that if we give more money to the rich, it will suddenly trickle down to people on the benefit and low-income workers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s straight up factually incorrect. The Greens will keep campaigning to abolish all of the sanctions in this bill and more\u2014all the financial sanctions that the Government claims that we like. There is no place for benefit sanctions in a welfare system that is designed to support people into employment. I challenge members of the Government to get out in the streets more and talk to people on the benefit and to actually engage with the people who submitted to the select committee and told us that they didn\u2019t like it. All I can see is the Government members conjuring a beneficiary, in their head, that they never met, they never engaged with, they never talked to, and they don\u2019t care about to punish those who are in some of the toughest situations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EI look forward to these members of the House finding themselves on a benefit after the election and being subjected to the very same policies that they\u2019re putting through. They will hopefully, one day, realise the damage that they have caused to generations across the country. The Greens will continue standing for taxing the wealthy few so that we can have a healthcare system that works for all and an income support system that lifts people out of poverty, and we\u2019ll continue fighting back against the policies of austerity and cruelty.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EI look forward to scrutinising the Government in the committee of the whole House as well about, for example, how their policies in relation to obligation failure will simply just kick people off the benefit. I also look forward to scrutinising the Government about how they even think that case managers will be making the correct decisions when we know, right now, almost 50\u00A0percent of people can\u2019t even have their benefit entitlements accurately assessed, because most of the safeguards in this bill rely on discretionary decision-making that is not correctly happening right now. We condemn this absolute nonsense of a cruel bill, and we will keep fighting to ensure that this Government doesn\u2019t get a second term.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228f20b644-642a-4c85-ade9-d5af32dc690b\u0022 data-id=\u00220318fa21fcd949f5a95284d1d9e627b8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228f20b644-642a-4c85-ade9-d5af32dc690b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220318fa21fcd949f5a95284d1d9e627b8\u0022\u003ELAURA McCLURE (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of this bill. This is, actually, one of the ACT-National coalition agreements. Firstly, I just want to thank the select committee for your diligent work. We had to split up into a couple of subcommittees to hear from all those that were submitting on this bill. I think it\u2019d be quite appropriate to acknowledge what the previous speaker, Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March, was saying around those that submitted and those who support or don\u2019t support the bill. Well, guess what? Who pays beneficiaries in New Zealand? The taxpayer. What are the taxpayers often doing? They\u2019re out there working hard. They\u2019re out there making money for their families. I think that a lot of taxpayers that are propping and playing\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022626e492a171b4ed289546b5e48a5b459\u0022\u003ERicardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u003C/span\u003E: Beneficiaries are taxpayers too.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228f20b644-642a-4c85-ade9-d5af32dc690b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220e86c180e49a4f3a933582c46d4041c2\u0022\u003ELAURA McCLURE\u003C/span\u003E: Beneficiaries pay tax, but do you know what? At some point in time when you accept money from the State, that comes with obligations. Having a job comes with obligations. We can\u2019t just not show up for work\u2014although some of us in this House seem to think that\u2019s OK. We can\u2019t just not show up for work. Every day, people need to get up and get ready and get out the house and do the grind. How is it unreasonable to expect those that are receiving money to have to adhere to some kind of obligations? I think it\u2019s absolutely outrageous. Attending a work seminar, having a jobseeker profile\u2014this is the bare minimum that you should be doing if you are on a benefit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a67649f70e3a49ada355019faaf50870\u0022\u003ERicardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u003C/span\u003E: Are you going to talk about the bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228f20b644-642a-4c85-ade9-d5af32dc690b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002258498ddcc604444b990c642ec1810bcc\u0022\u003ELAURA McCLURE\u003C/span\u003E: I 100 percent want to talk about the bill, because I think it\u2019s important. The aim is to reduce those that are on the jobseeker to support people into employment. It is to reduce costs to Government by decreasing benefit numbers. It\u2019s going to reinforce expectations on beneficiaries to work, where appropriate. Those who can work should be working.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228f20b644-642a-4c85-ade9-d5af32dc690b\u0022\u003EThis in no way diminishes those very real people that are unable to work. Those with disabilities, those with chronic health conditions, and those people that are genuinely unable to work should be taken care of. I think there is a place and a role for the State, and I think a lot of people can agree that we should be taking care of those people. If you can work and you are not working, you, at the moment, only have to apply once in a 52-week period to stay at home, potentially. It\u2019s absolutely outrageous. A 26-week period to have to renew, getting on the phone, and filling in forms are very minor, little things that you need to do in order to actually go ahead and take this money from the taxpayer\u2014the rightful taxpayer, should I say.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228f20b644-642a-4c85-ade9-d5af32dc690b\u0022\u003EMoney management: what is money management? This is a type of sanction that will only apply to about 3 percent of those people that are receiving the benefit that aren\u2019t actually meeting their obligations. I do want to thank those beneficiaries that are meeting their obligations. Quite a few of them are. If we think about this, is it fair that if we do not meet some of those obligations? We say, \u201CHey, look. I think there are better ways of doing this. Maybe we should be paying your rent for you. Maybe we should be making sure the bills are paid.\u201D I 100 percent think that this is a good policy. I think that those hard-working Kiwis out there want to support people, they want to give people a hand up, and they want to support people that do find themselves in a really unfortunate position. At the same time, they want to make sure that their money is being well respected. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b21beb09-9d9b-4414-9bb1-ddba249459d5\u0022 data-id=\u0022c6f94e84c5db4523a216a0a17ed826c3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b21beb09-9d9b-4414-9bb1-ddba249459d5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c6f94e84c5db4523a216a0a17ed826c3\u0022\u003ETANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Social Security Amendment Bill. Also, being on the Social Services and Community Committee, I would like to say that it was a very, at times, emotional and passionate time listening to the submitters. I want to acknowledge all of my colleagues in the House who were on the committee with me. Even though there was passion at times, it was still done in a very respectful manner, which is the way it should be done. To the submitters who submitted, I know that many of you struggled to submit. It was a very emotional submission, and it takes a lot of bravery to stand and do that, so I just want to acknowledge you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b21beb09-9d9b-4414-9bb1-ddba249459d5\u0022\u003EJust very briefly, this bill is in alignment with New Zealand First\u2019s policy of believing in a hand up rather than a handout. Whilst we really believe that people need to be helped in our community, we also know that we need to look at long-term rewards for individuals and encourage personal responsibility for people to find it in themselves to get out there and make their lives better if they can, and we also need to keep the country in mind when we do that. We feel that this is a balanced approach, and whilst it does create passion and emotion in the discussion, it needs to be said at times that we do want to encourage personal responsibility with individuals. I know that some may find that hard to hear, but it is something that we really do, as a party, believe in. We feel that that encourages not only fairness but also responsibility, and it will hopefully break this long-term cycle of dependency, which does sometimes stick. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022086fa97dc72a4cd287ed9eb5b87071af\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022086fa97dc72a4cd287ed9eb5b87071af\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Five-minute split call\u2014Mariameno Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002227600399-0a88-4371-a784-b5a7bc7afc37\u0022 data-id=\u00226f0d450492ca474693656d02b46c6514\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227600399-0a88-4371-a784-b5a7bc7afc37\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226f0d450492ca474693656d02b46c6514\u0022\u003EMARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori\u2014Te Tai Tokerau):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koe e te P\u012Bka. T\u0113n\u0101 t\u0101tou e te Whare. It\u2019s less of a pleasure and mostly more of a duty to stand and have a crack at this ridiculous nonsense called the Social Security Amendment Bill. One would think that when it\u2019s called \u201CSocial Security\u201D, those things are actually present in the mind and what you come up with, but, frankly, it is completely the opposite to that; there\u2019s nothing \u201Csocial\u201D nor \u201Csecure\u201D about this. This bill erodes basic human rights. Why do I talk about it in this way? I\u2019ve worked in this sector, and I know this sector from the ground up. I\u2019ve worked in the social sector and health sector for long enough to recognise that this will work against us and create far more harm than need be the case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227600399-0a88-4371-a784-b5a7bc7afc37\u0022\u003EIn the actual select committee process, I\u2019d like to say things were passionate, but it was more than that. It was depressing, and it was confronting. It\u2019s hard to show respect to a process when the ideas and the ideology that were running through it were loaded with bigotry, ignorance, and absolutely no sense of reality. I recognise some of the discussion before. As painful as it is to listen to, I want to share these thoughts. During the submission process for this bill, we received a particularly confronting piece of testimony from one organisation. Through their submission, the voice of a young person experiencing homelessness in T\u0101maki was shared, someone who had tried to engage with the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) for support. He rangatahi ia, koinei wana k\u014Drero. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227600399-0a88-4371-a784-b5a7bc7afc37\u0022\u003E[This is a young person; here are their comments.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227600399-0a88-4371-a784-b5a7bc7afc37\u0022\u003E\u201CI was asking MSD for help. It made me always feel like [s-h-i-t]. They don\u2019t help me. Half the time, it feels like they aren\u2019t listening. I hate it. It makes me feel alone.\u201D These words should have stopped that committee and asked them to change their minds, and they should stop every person in the House right now in their tracks\u2014in their \u201Cfast track\u201D and getting something \u201Cback on track\u201D\u2014because, while we were hearing this submission, this young person, whose experience was shared with us, was lying-in-state. To their wh\u0101nau and to the community still holding the pain of that loss, I want to acknowledge that grief. It is likely still to be very raw and still unanswered and still unmet by any action from this House and by those on the left of this House sitting next to me.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227600399-0a88-4371-a784-b5a7bc7afc37\u0022\u003EThis is not just a bill. It is about the real-life cost of systems that fail our people tremendously\u2014daily and minute by minute. This House failed that young person, and this bill will deepen that failure. These are not just administrative tweaks as they suggest it is. These are policies that continue to cause harm. Whether it touches you\u2014it\u2019s likely that it doesn\u2019t, because when I was listening to the nonsense earlier, I was like, \u201CWell, just because it doesn\u2019t touch you and you don\u2019t get it, it doesn\u2019t mean that it doesn\u2019t harm the rest of our wh\u0101nau in our communities.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227600399-0a88-4371-a784-b5a7bc7afc37\u0022\u003EThis bill is a stain on the voices of rangatahi, on single m\u0101m\u0101 and p\u0101p\u0101, on wh\u0101nau with disability, on M\u0101ori, and on minority communities\u2014you might not recognise any of those words, but you need to read more, koutou m\u0101 [all of you]\u2014all who came forward in the submissions and told you to change your mind: \u201CThink about this\u2014think about this.\u201D If this place is about the test of good ideas, frankly, there are too many that are poor ideas that are not tested, that are not understood in reality, and that cause more harm. That\u2019s what privilege does. Privilege, particularly white privilege, blinds you to the reality of people, of many, many families and wh\u0101nau. I want to make this point: passing this bill won\u2019t just ignore those voices, it will reinforce the very experiences that drove some to lose hope entirely. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227600399-0a88-4371-a784-b5a7bc7afc37\u0022\u003EThis Government has shown and, I\u2019ve no doubt, will show in the upcoming Budget that they are business orientated and money focused and the suffering of people is just better for the economy and it\u2019s better for business but not for wh\u0101nau\u2014not for wh\u0101nau in Tai Tokerau, not for wh\u0101nau in Tair\u0101whiti, not for wh\u0101nau M\u0101ori, not for wh\u0101nau e hauare ana [families that are missing the mark]. To these nonsense voices to the left to me, you don\u2019t know what you don\u2019t know, and you remain in your seat of ignorance and privilege. Shame on you. It\u2019ll come back to haunt you. This bill must be condemned. I despise it with all my might, as does Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori. Kia ora t\u0101tou. [Interruption] Thank you\u2014stop nattering. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022676b0bc5-331b-4818-b261-ecf892d0bf23\u0022 data-id=\u0022049e65d8f0084ea89d4137479c9e26f2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022676b0bc5-331b-4818-b261-ecf892d0bf23\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022049e65d8f0084ea89d4137479c9e26f2\u0022\u003EJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to bring it to your attention that the member who\u2019s just resumed her seat was bringing you into the debate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u00224a733275f3b344a2b6bc54711ce91c67\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224a733275f3b344a2b6bc54711ce91c67\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I\u2019d just\u2014thank you. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227a31ee40-34c3-42b0-9459-7a7e9c815d6a\u0022 data-id=\u0022868331ec7d6b4c77be248fc4c67111be\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a31ee40-34c3-42b0-9459-7a7e9c815d6a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022868331ec7d6b4c77be248fc4c67111be\u0022\u003EKAHURANGI CARTER (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa to oppose, in the strongest terms, the Social Security Amendment Bill. This bill is not about dignity, it\u2019s not about evidence, and it\u2019s certainly not about supporting people into meaningful employment. This bill is about punishment, punishment dressed up as reform and designed to make life harder for people who are already struggling under the weight of systemic inequality.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a31ee40-34c3-42b0-9459-7a7e9c815d6a\u0022\u003EDuring the select committee process, we sat and listened to hundreds of voices\u2014submitters who took their time, many of them with lived experience, to share their truths, people living on the benefit, disability advocates, and child wellbeing organisations. Over 97 percent of submissions oppose this bill\u20143,413 out of 3,499 submitters\u2014and only 19 submitters submitted in support. Yet here we are again, debating legislation that ignores the overwhelming weight of public feedback.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a31ee40-34c3-42b0-9459-7a7e9c815d6a\u0022\u003ECCS Disability Action warned us that \u201CThe sanctions that are being proposed will cause direct harm to disabled people and their families, it will result in those receiving Government assistance being unable to buy food, pay for housing, afford medical treatment, and other basic necessities in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis.\u201D How can any Government with integrity ignore that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a31ee40-34c3-42b0-9459-7a7e9c815d6a\u0022\u003EWe heard from Save the Children, who raised a deeply concerning impact on disabled people who are forced to rely on jobseeker support because barriers prevent them from accessing the supported living payment. They said, \u201CWith the proposed changes forcing disabled people to re-apply for the benefit every six months, this group will be further detrimentally impacted by the additional doctors\u2019 fees required to prove the person is still eligible.\u201D\u2014because maybe they don\u2019t have their disability any more? This is cruelty by design. This is bureaucracy wielded as a weapon.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000424\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a31ee40-34c3-42b0-9459-7a7e9c815d6a\u0022\u003ELet\u2019s be clear: the measures in this bill\u2014compulsory money management, increase reapplication burdens, and so-called community work experience\u2014are not about employment. The Minister was asked repeatedly to provide evidence that these sanctions led to better outcomes. She could not, because that evidence does not exist. What does exist is the Welfare Expert Advisory Group\u2019s advice. Their report told us that sanctions do not work. In fact, they increase material hardship, reduce trust in the system, and worsen outcomes for children.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a31ee40-34c3-42b0-9459-7a7e9c815d6a\u0022\u003EInstead of listening to the experts, the Government has chosen ideology. Instead of working with communities, you are punishing them. Let\u2019s talk about these so-called non-financial sanctions. When a person is placed under compulsory money management or community work sanctions, they lose access to hardship assistance. That\u2019s not non-financial; that\u2019s people being unable to pay for food for their children, pay rent, or get to a job interview. That\u2019s a financial punishment with real-life consequences. This bill will hurt disabled people the most, people who are already navigating barriers across health, housing, and employment. We heard from submitters that many are on the wrong benefit already, facing job-seeking obligations that they should never have been subjected to. Instead of addressing those systemic failures, which the Government could have chosen to do, this bill piles on more obligations, more sanctions, and more barriers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a31ee40-34c3-42b0-9459-7a7e9c815d6a\u0022\u003EThe Green Party has long called for a welfare system rooted in trust, not suspicion. I\u2019m proud to be able to help people in need, and I think that most New Zealanders would take the shirt off their backs to help their neighbours. Why don\u2019t we as a Government actually act with that integrity and support people who are vulnerable, children who aren\u2019t getting fed, and disabled people? We want to see the recommendations of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group implemented. We want to see sanctions abolished. We want income support to lift people out of poverty. The select committee heard these voices. The Government just chose not to listen. The Green Party recommends this bill be discharged immediately.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022d73359b4a0dd42f38dc01c09b510792b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d73359b4a0dd42f38dc01c09b510792b\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 2 p.m. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000428\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003EDebate interrupted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022040b3531c56243428bc01fada260d48c\u0022\u003EBusiness Statement\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d8f85205e89341dcb1cb47114df03312\u0022\u003EBusiness Statement\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022062de70374ba4ad1b4449ac79232717c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022062de70374ba4ad1b4449ac79232717c\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The House is resumed. I understand the Leader of the House wishes to deliver a Business Statement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022 data-id=\u0022fd269caf1a6b4c8e914120973ec2e9a9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fd269caf1a6b4c8e914120973ec2e9a9\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Deputy Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Speaker. Next week, the House will consider the last of the annual review debates covering the social development, children, workplace relations, Police, environment, conservation, M\u0101ori development, and climate change portfolios. On Wednesday, there will be extended hours for the first reading of the Ng\u0101ti H\u0101ua Claims Settlement Bill and the remaining stages of the Ng\u0101 Hap\u016B o Ng\u0101ti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f8eb2ab28cff4d66984e019bf7f14676\u0022\u003EMotions\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000435\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00229436e762a599494793658ee22c47bdd4\u0022\u003EWord War II\u201480th Anniversary of Victory in Europe\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022 data-id=\u0022c05c6499dfd64f1488c31f51c4e7604f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c05c6499dfd64f1488c31f51c4e7604f\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate to mark 80 years since the end of World War II in Europe.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f55406d5be55439fb5887759144f2f2e\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There appears to be none.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220ec663ea517d4754bd2766a07500a9f2\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: I move, That this House notes that 8 May 2025 marks 80 years since the end of World War II in Europe, VE Day or Victory in Europe Day, and subsequently in the Pacific; recognises that this anniversary represents an enormous cost to human life, fundamental questions of human freedom, self-determination, and dignity, and a global fight for the freedoms enjoyed by New Zealanders, the establishment of a new rules-based order centred around the UN charter, and a new body of international law; and recognises those who sacrificed themselves in the war for the hard-won conditions of peace and prosperity that we have enjoyed over our last three generations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000440\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00226de9c0b6577d497fb56f1a1d4224a827\u0022\u003EOral Questions\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00223b238cb822bf4d3aa809e598a31565ee\u0022\u003EQuestions to Ministers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00225129981fb5894e3093692377d9b2954e\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 1\u2014Women\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022 data-id=\u00222534c5854cd44ddcb5b46295d22f127a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E1. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222534c5854cd44ddcb5b46295d22f127a\u0022\u003EHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader\u2014Labour)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister for Women: Does she stand by her answer to oral question No. 4 yesterday, in relation to the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, that \u201CI always advocate for women, and I have been consulted on and advised on this legislation from the outset\u201D; if so, on what date was she first consulted regarding the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety\u2019s Cabinet paper reviewing pay equity policy settings?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002293272d4e-6912-4148-8b35-c9622e18b814\u0022 data-id=\u00221ab92112c3e34d049f642d2c4ccbea4b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002293272d4e-6912-4148-8b35-c9622e18b814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221ab92112c3e34d049f642d2c4ccbea4b\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for Women):\u003C/span\u003E In relation to the first part of the question, yes, I do stand by my statement. In relation to the second part of the question, I was consulted on the Cabinet paper referred to once it was drafted in March, but I was involved in earlier conversations about the development of the paper and policy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022211380423345480f851bec93bc772e00\u0022\u003EHon Carmel Sepuloni\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety\u2019s Cabinet paper correct that the Government didn\u2019t even bother to consult the Ministry for Women on their proposal to cancel pay equity claims; if not, on what date was the Ministry for Women consulted?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002293272d4e-6912-4148-8b35-c9622e18b814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fe7e7cb5ec36499f99bf31d1aaba419f\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA GRIGG\u003C/span\u003E: In relation to the first part of the question, as has been noted in the Cabinet paper, the Ministry for Women was not involved in the consultation. However, I am the Minister for Women, I am responsible for that ministry, and I have been involved from the outset.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000447\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dd7cc650740a46b7ace6eab7ed6b9871\u0022\u003EHon Carmel Sepuloni\u003C/span\u003E: What feedback did she give on how many of the now 33 cancelled pay equity claims were not based on sex-based discrimination but based on other factors as claimed by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002293272d4e-6912-4148-8b35-c9622e18b814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a2df23bf24fd4107971576f695df59bd\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA GRIGG\u003C/span\u003E: Throughout the course of the development of this policy, I\u2019ve been involved in a number of discussions with my ministerial colleagues across our coalition. I advocated on a number of occasions for a fair and robust pay equity system, which is why I\u2019m so pleased that we are retaining a system that will finally, genuinely address sex-based discrimination.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000449\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022848572f327534275841f01d02ad510ba\u0022\u003EHon Carmel Sepuloni\u003C/span\u003E: If the Government\u2019s proposals to scale back pay equity were \u201Cdeveloped in a short time frame with limited time to assess implications and unintended consequences\u201D, as the Cabinet paper states, how can she be confident that this policy will not disadvantage women?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000450\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002293272d4e-6912-4148-8b35-c9622e18b814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229ccacfb82ccd42459b341d4c2af824da\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA GRIGG\u003C/span\u003E: I think, as I outlined to the House yesterday, the resulting Act that was amended over the past few days by this Parliament will have positive outcomes for women. It will finally and fairly set in legislation a process to raise and resolve gender-based discrimination in various workforces. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a06aa88a6e8a4060ad0d20958c5018da\u0022\u003EHon Carmel Sepuloni\u003C/span\u003E: Is former National Party chief press secretary Janet Wilson correct that\u2014[Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000452\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221dd26b5a85174cb6b3b94ea70fc59608\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Start again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002241902d93928b44fabaf9504fa297aaed\u0022\u003EHon Carmel Sepuloni\u003C/span\u003E: Is former National Party chief press secretary Janet Wilson correct that \u201Cthe coalition Government is complicit in pulling together a dirty little deal that saves it billions while denying working women their day in court.\u201D; if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000454\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002293272d4e-6912-4148-8b35-c9622e18b814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bb28e88f8efb4e59978b0e91ebeef59a\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA GRIGG\u003C/span\u003E: Look, Janet Wilson is obviously a citizen of this country, free to share her opinions as she sees fit. I would like to clarify, for the record, one more time for the Opposition benches, who do not seem to be understanding it: we are not walking back our commitment to equal pay or pay equity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000455\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002276cef0fb33fb4d96a0bb5030c0298c7c\u0022\u003EHon Carmel Sepuloni\u003C/span\u003E: Does she agree with the Prime Minister that no pay equity settlement has occurred since 2020 or with the Public Service Commission, which says that over 100,000 women have benefited from pay equity settlements since 2021?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002293272d4e-6912-4148-8b35-c9622e18b814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226a5d642ea5964881a36dec7fb3070472\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA GRIGG\u003C/span\u003E: I always agree with the Prime Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227d89dbb04b2b46f8b7066f5edf1dfb38\u0022\u003EHon Carmel Sepuloni\u003C/span\u003E: Who is correct, the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, who said that this is a \u201Cblatant and shameful attack on women\u201D, or Kristine Bartlett, who said that \u201Cwomen have just been let down so terribly\u201D by this Government or the Minister for Women, who claims that this is \u201Cpositive news for women\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002293272d4e-6912-4148-8b35-c9622e18b814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b2c1445c5fda4e288f49aff443ebee86\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA GRIGG\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019d say, to all of those people who have offered comment, that this Government is committed to addressing sex-based discrimination in the workplace. We have amended the Equal Pay Act to make the process more robust, more sustainable, and more workable. There will still be a way to raise and settle pay equity claims.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b0acaa4b5fb64f3399060e1f754f0fea\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 2\u2014Finance\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002257c0c650-e6a0-4475-b66d-5281ede8b1e3\u0022 data-id=\u0022844b0b12b11547ac88f38fab42540bbc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257c0c650-e6a0-4475-b66d-5281ede8b1e3\u0022\u003E2. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022844b0b12b11547ac88f38fab42540bbc\u0022\u003ESUZE REDMAYNE (National\u2014Rangit\u012Bkei)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the Government\u2019s fiscal position?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022 data-id=\u00221cf17d3cc3de438ab6e31d1a1e0e5545\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221cf17d3cc3de438ab6e31d1a1e0e5545\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance):\u003C/span\u003E I see a number of reports, and this morning the Treasury released the interim financial statements of the Government for the nine months ended 31\u00A0March\u00A02025. The statements include Crown revenue and expenses for those first nine months of the fiscal year. They also update both the operating balance before gains and losses, excluding ACC\u2014that is OBEGALx\u2014and the Crown\u2019s interim debt position.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257c0c650-e6a0-4475-b66d-5281ede8b1e3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229664e9a892d847d8bd3aa4696ecfd662\u0022\u003ESuze Redmayne\u003C/span\u003E: What do the financial statements say about Government revenue and expenses?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000463\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002236ac176e855740e8aec7d782ddada796\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Core Crown tax revenue was around $200 million higher than what was forecast at the half-year update in December, and core Crown expenses were around $600\u00A0million lower than forecast. There are a number of reasons why the financial statements vary against forecast, and these variations can correct themselves over the course of a year. However, Treasury has advised me that they expect core Crown expenses for the whole year to be less than previously forecast. In part, this represents genuine savings within the year, and, in part, it reflects some rephasing of expenses into the next fiscal years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257c0c650-e6a0-4475-b66d-5281ede8b1e3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dbc2fe11757f4ca4816ba7685376a690\u0022\u003ESuze Redmayne\u003C/span\u003E: What do these variations mean for the operating balance?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022825aec9e730a44adbfc5f54f7eeba83a\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: As at 31\u00A0March, the OBEGALx deficit was around $500 million smaller than forecast. This was mainly a consequence of the lower core Crown expenses I just mentioned. On the basis of an enduring reduction in core Crown expenses across the year, I would expect that the OBEGALx deficit this fiscal year will be lower than that forecast in the half-year update. However, the rephasing of expenses across years and the impact of tariffs and global economic uncertainty will have a negative impact on OBEGALx in future years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257c0c650-e6a0-4475-b66d-5281ede8b1e3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002270e7ae649a454478a76fce51fd9fb719\u0022\u003ESuze Redmayne\u003C/span\u003E: What do the financial statements say about Government debt?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bfccb0a428e14ac7a931bf6130fbd12f\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: The Government\u2019s cash flows in the first nine months of this year were $1.7\u00A0billion lower than forecast at the half-year update. Much of this is for technical and timing reasons. Together with higher-than-expected gains on some financial instruments, it means net core Crown debt nine months into the year was more than $2 billion lower than previously forecast. The Treasury\u2019s next fiscal release is in two weeks, when the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update is released alongside the Budget.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00224b69d28aa1e34446826bffde7a040be4\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 3\u2014Finance\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u00227c3e1bdf695a4f42a1fc326c288858ca\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227c3e1bdf695a4f42a1fc326c288858ca\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Before I call the Hon Barbara Edmonds, I have been notified that the answer to this question, given the nature of the question, may be a little longer than usual.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261725fea-7d5e-4d1f-8fd3-e5779bb7a14d\u0022 data-id=\u0022a4a1546154de4497b1790510410e7963\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000470\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261725fea-7d5e-4d1f-8fd3-e5779bb7a14d\u0022\u003E3. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a4a1546154de4497b1790510410e7963\u0022\u003EHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour\u2014Mana)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Finance: When did she first consider the pay equity changes for inclusion in Budget 2025, and what modelling did she receive, if any, on the number of workers likely to be affected by the Equal Pay Amendment Bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022 data-id=\u0022ca33b2b8462c4339a48f2bfce0fef04f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ca33b2b8462c4339a48f2bfce0fef04f\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance):\u003C/span\u003E Upon becoming Minister of Finance in December\u00A02023, I was quickly made aware by Treasury of the amount of money that was built into the Government\u2019s forecasts to meet future pay equity settlements. I was shocked by the size of the number, which had not been previously disclosed publicly, and which had grown very rapidly. A significant portion of the money was set aside for the Government to fund what is known as \u201Cthe funded sector\u201D, which is the non-Government sector settlements. This is private sector, NGO, or community service providers that the Government contracts and, therefore, does not employ as its workers. The previous Government had made a decision that meant the full costs of these settlements were being factored into the books, as well as the actual public sector settlements that the Government wasn\u2019t obligated to fund. I took some time to receive advice on these issues, and I took proposals to Cabinet, in April\u00A02024, to adjust expectations around funded sector claims. This lessened the projected cost to the Crown of these claims, but only by a relatively small amount. As this pay equity reset was being implemented last year, it became clear that there were deeper, more underlying issues with the Act, which had a broad scope and had departed from its original purpose of addressing genuine sex-based discrimination. Last December, the Cabinet Strategy Committee discussed the high-level legislative settings for pay equity and indicated a preference to confront those underlying issues quickly. I outline all of this to make clear that, in answer to the first part of the primary question, changes to pay equity settings were considered through last year and into this year, and as that work progressed, since last December\u2019s Cabinet discussion, the financial implications were taken into account in Budget 2025 discussions. In answer to the second part of the member\u2019s question, with regard to the specific bill, I previously received advice from Treasury about the number of workers involved in particular claims, but that is not the same as what the member is asking. By its very nature, and like other employment legislation, the bill affects all workers, because anyone can consider their rights to make a claim.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221cf25d66794a4ba995c82f1d175eb641\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. That question was answered in about 20 seconds\u2014the first minute and a half was totally unnecessary. Giving you a prior warning that there\u2019s going to be a longer answer is proper process if the whole answer is required to address the question; it was not. That was abused as a way to try and rewrite history or to put forward their perspective as to what happened. That wasn\u2019t the primary question. The minute the Minister said, \u201CIn answer to your question,\u201D that\u2019s when the answer actually started.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dba615cec5a24efa88d3822867a70d8c\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That is the opinion of the member. It\u2019s not the way I heard it, and I\u2019ve read the primary and would ask the member to do the same. I don\u2019t think the Minister stepped outside what is required to answer that question, and I think it was an appropriate courtesy to the House to inform the House it would be slightly longer but, quite frankly, not all that much longer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261725fea-7d5e-4d1f-8fd3-e5779bb7a14d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002221f02c4decba4e41a5fd3f264238f813\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: How many women will lose the right to make a pay equity claim under these changes?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002209f69076736343ff9cc6bc475f6cb705\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Any woman who can demonstrate that she has a case with merit\u2014that she was discriminated against in her pay on the basis of her sex\u2014will be able to make a claim under this legislation. It will be a legal judgment as to which cases meet that test, and it is not for me, in this House, to offer a legal judgment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261725fea-7d5e-4d1f-8fd3-e5779bb7a14d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ffaec63de1ae4b3dafdb5333408f9fd9\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: How were the Treasury able to quantify the savings from this policy if she doesn\u2019t actually know how many women will be affected?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ecee52a177744b5b978aaa576499be8\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: What the Treasury had done as a practice under the last Government was that because the last Government did not allocate any funding in its operating allowances for pay equity settlements\u2014did not allocate any money for those settlements\u2014the Treasury formed a view that it was likely that those costs would otherwise be incurred by the Crown, and so they put them in the forecast. That is, they affected the surplus and deficit position. They formed those forecasts, I am advised, on an assessment of what they thought the claims would be, how many workers they thought would be affected, and what the costs were. But, of course, the ultimate number of people that would be affected was determined by whether or not those claims were successful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261725fea-7d5e-4d1f-8fd3-e5779bb7a14d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bfed095f1e3742a69f4b5eef455fe974\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: Does she stand by her statement that \u201Cpay equity processes should be used for genuine issues of discrimination\u201D; if so, which of the 33 cancelled claims were not \u201Cgenuine discrimination\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f7c18a2c46c74051b009f7a225365a64\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I stand by my statement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ac15a511afd84753bc543620130d7d09\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Can I ask the Minister: will any person with a pay equity claim be able to make one under the new legislation, or have some engaged in hyperbolic, distracting psychobabble?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229493a930f1d54ff69d24d12b6cabbc61\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: I do think that it is of regret that members opposite with a responsibility to their communities, I think, have made relatively misleading statements about the rights that are now available to New Zealand women, who still have the right to equal pay and the right to make pay equity settlements, contrary to what some members opposite are trying to allege.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224dd6b7a54061463fae29aca19d8a66e3\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: How can you expect us to have order if you\u2019re going to let that happen?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002216dd195a4f774f6ca8f8242f50ae22f4\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I beg your pardon? Are you now challenging my rulings of the House?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000484\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cc79e3d40ac84259a265f004279ab88a\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Well, there was no ruling.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022248656e486d84cdfac4c16d9e82f9507\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, there wasn\u2019t, and it\u2019s not for you to make them or to require them, other than through a point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261725fea-7d5e-4d1f-8fd3-e5779bb7a14d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221d421070cee044ef9d143071dffacc6b\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: How can she stand by her position that she is dedicated to pay equity, when Te Tai Tokerau Principals\u2019 Association have called it an \u201Cappalling slap in the face for women\u201D, and Hospice New Zealand calls these changes \u201Ca real kick in the guts\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223f031bd330d342708f1c229091e96199\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Because the Government has a very clear position that it is upholding settlements for existing pay equity claims and, furthermore, has created a transparent, workable, practical process for further claims to be raised. What\u2019s more, because we have advanced that legislation rapidly, people will be able to submit claims the minute the Governor-General gives assent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a31ee40-34c3-42b0-9459-7a7e9c815d6a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220862c02b51214f3fad402f81fd682dcf\u0022\u003EKahurangi Carter\u003C/span\u003E: Which of the 33 pay equity claims were not based on genuine discrimination?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aead27b1c87543d1937b0aff7f6af286\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I\u2019m being asked for a legal judgment, which is not for me to give. But I would also note that it is not simply an issue of whether the claims have merit\u2014[Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a787cbc2abbd4665bf1de400b400a712\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m sorry. I can\u2019t have people chipping at me for not intervening in a question, when it\u2019s very hard to hear the answer because of the barrage that\u2019s being directed at the Minister answering.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228cf3faa5ec2a4185b9d1f98f734565d5\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: I would also note that it\u2019s not simply an issue of which claims progress, and I\u2019m advised that it\u2019s expected that a number of claims will continue to progress; it is a matter of, once they are in progress, how they are assessed and the comparators that are used. The Government\u2019s concern has been that other market-based factors were being brought into the assessment. This law should be about gender and sex discrimination, not issues that are more properly dealt with through the normal bargaining process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00223d84c1dcb4604e6f99feac9d515b0ae3\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 4\u2014Children\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227a31ee40-34c3-42b0-9459-7a7e9c815d6a\u0022 data-id=\u0022d68e65cc8d74459086ec1c5c4c709337\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a31ee40-34c3-42b0-9459-7a7e9c815d6a\u0022\u003E4. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d68e65cc8d74459086ec1c5c4c709337\u0022\u003EKAHURANGI CARTER (Green)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister for Children: E tautoko ana ia i \u0101na k\u014Drero me \u0101na mahi katoa?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a31ee40-34c3-42b0-9459-7a7e9c815d6a\u0022\u003E[Does she stand by all of her statements and actions?]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002286ae9a20-33bd-4912-8dc1-5b4eb670be44\u0022 data-id=\u0022254bbe6a98a140a4aeca120f0b25b254\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002286ae9a20-33bd-4912-8dc1-5b4eb670be44\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022254bbe6a98a140a4aeca120f0b25b254\u0022\u003EHon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children):\u003C/span\u003E Yes, in the context in which they were made at the time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000496\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a31ee40-34c3-42b0-9459-7a7e9c815d6a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fa183e7106c94fa38a557df9dc571224\u0022\u003EKahurangi Carter\u003C/span\u003E: Does she still stand by her statement \u201CThere will be no financial impact and there\u2019ll be no impact on \u2026 front-line services. This is a guarantee.\u201D; if so, why are multiple reports, community services, social workers, and the Children\u2019s Commissioner saying otherwise?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000497\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002286ae9a20-33bd-4912-8dc1-5b4eb670be44\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eaf566e7f4e84b7d9c01b5791c9d9254\u0022\u003EHon KAREN CHHOUR\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m not sure where that quote came from, so if you would give me time to verify that quote, I would stand by or not stand by it. But what I would say is that we have had to clean up a system that had no accountability and no responsibilities when it came to where money was being spent and whether money was being spent well and what outcomes we were getting for that money. Some tough decisions had to be made. Yes, some people were affected by that, but I still stand by the decision to clean up the system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000498\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a31ee40-34c3-42b0-9459-7a7e9c815d6a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ca070a3262ee41168ebff4bb9b6cb5d4\u0022\u003EKahurangi Carter\u003C/span\u003E: Is there an impact on front-line services due to the Minister\u2019s policies and decisions?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002286ae9a20-33bd-4912-8dc1-5b4eb670be44\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002293d7cb20daf94cb394ab79cdcaee11f1\u0022\u003EHon KAREN CHHOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Any decisions made around contracts are an operational matter, but what I would say is that the system has been broken for a very long time. Now, there is accountability. Now, there is a Government that is focused on outcomes for the people that that money is meant to be put towards, and we are focusing on the safety and wellbeing of children.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000500\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a31ee40-34c3-42b0-9459-7a7e9c815d6a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022be761eeddbce4e598e1adaf9d4a28da6\u0022\u003EKahurangi Carter\u003C/span\u003E: How does she explain the worsening outcomes for tamariki, such as declining immunisation rates and rising mental distress, as reflected in the 2023-2024 child and youth wellbeing indicator report, if it is not a direct result of her decisions to underfund Oranga Tamariki?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000501\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002286ae9a20-33bd-4912-8dc1-5b4eb670be44\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002206677a8842614a38ba07475b868142ee\u0022\u003EHon KAREN CHHOUR\u003C/span\u003E: I don\u2019t believe that I have responsibility for immunisation results, and I don\u2019t believe I have responsibility for many of the things that were mentioned within the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000502\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227a31ee40-34c3-42b0-9459-7a7e9c815d6a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002296b3c28823ae41638b1ee259cc6dceda\u0022\u003EKahurangi Carter\u003C/span\u003E: How receptive does she think the social workers that she thanked yesterday in question time are to her acknowledgment when they are the ones who responded to those 95,000 reports of concern, managed unsafe caseloads, and struggled with their own wellbeing, all while knowing that 1,300 vulnerable tamariki don\u2019t have a caseworker?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002286ae9a20-33bd-4912-8dc1-5b4eb670be44\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228329870e76514f3cb7bb9e3d047a3a9a\u0022\u003EHon KAREN CHHOUR\u003C/span\u003E: I would, once again, like to thank those social workers for the job they do. They pick up the phone, and they deal with a large amount of reports of concern. It\u2019s their job to pick up the phone and respond to reports of concern. The fact of the matter is that the cases that that member has just spoken to\u2014the 1,300 unallocated cases\u2014the number currently is at 1,184 unallocated cases. In 2023, when there were 45 percent fewer reports of concern, the number was 1,150. That number is not OK. But what I can say is I would shudder to think what that number would be if we hadn\u2019t cleaned up the system and made sure that it was working well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022180c07bdd9d24931867a1dea43135f30\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 5\u2014Children\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228f20b644-642a-4c85-ade9-d5af32dc690b\u0022 data-id=\u00226ec8a11a3ac4489ca12ce0c595704e15\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000505\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228f20b644-642a-4c85-ade9-d5af32dc690b\u0022\u003E5. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226ec8a11a3ac4489ca12ce0c595704e15\u0022\u003ELAURA McCLURE (ACT)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister for Children: What recent announcements has she made regarding key performance indicators for Oranga Tamariki?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002286ae9a20-33bd-4912-8dc1-5b4eb670be44\u0022 data-id=\u0022bc27f30b4e3448539e701e46db741cdb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002286ae9a20-33bd-4912-8dc1-5b4eb670be44\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bc27f30b4e3448539e701e46db741cdb\u0022\u003EHon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children):\u003C/span\u003E Last week, I announced that Oranga Tamariki has made progress across all four key priority areas I have asked them to focus on. These are things that will make the biggest difference to the wellbeing and safety of children. These four key priorities are: ensuring the safety of children and young people, supporting caregivers, addressing youth offending, and improving complaint management practice. These improvements show that when we set targets and focus on delivery, we can see results and clear improvements in the delivery of services.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000507\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228f20b644-642a-4c85-ade9-d5af32dc690b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002283802b9170bf43519a8c8c722b6b15fb\u0022\u003ELaura McClure\u003C/span\u003E: What are some of the key performance indicators that have improved under her watch?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000508\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002286ae9a20-33bd-4912-8dc1-5b4eb670be44\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eba0ae7c23ee4a6b989e211f55e4fe7c\u0022\u003EHon KAREN CHHOUR\u003C/span\u003E: The latest quarterly report shows that the proportion of complaints that were handled in a way that meets the high standards we have set has increased from 51 percent to 59\u00A0percent. There is more work under way to improve this even further. The percentage of children in care who have been visited by their social worker within the target time to ensure their ongoing safety and wellbeing is at 96 percent. Thank you again to the social workers that work so hard for our young people. We know that frequent social worker visits are one of the most important things we can do to make sure that children are safe in their placements and that their needs are being met.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000509\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228f20b644-642a-4c85-ade9-d5af32dc690b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fa321a9f3289444ca8a20f8401f2659a\u0022\u003ELaura McClure\u003C/span\u003E: What are some of the other priority areas?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000510\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002286ae9a20-33bd-4912-8dc1-5b4eb670be44\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002216bacf83886d47de9fbb4fb89ad1ddcf\u0022\u003EHon KAREN CHHOUR\u003C/span\u003E: One of the other priority areas we have set is to address youth offending. I\u2019m particularly pleased with the dramatic improvement we have seen against the reduction in youth offending targets. This is a Government that is focused in this space, and we have a target to reduce the number of children and young people with serious, persistent offending by 15 percent by 2030. As of this month, we have already seen a 12 percent reduction in the first year alone\u2014well ahead of the estimated projections.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000511\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228f20b644-642a-4c85-ade9-d5af32dc690b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022121645a61f544c6e80bf1c118d7a6775\u0022\u003ELaura McClure\u003C/span\u003E: Are there any indicators that are not on track?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000512\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002286ae9a20-33bd-4912-8dc1-5b4eb670be44\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002217b8657a0cfe40e1ba6aa132f241d028\u0022\u003EHon KAREN CHHOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. Whilst through efforts, there are some things that we are still concerned about. The percentage of reports of concern that are responded to within the established time frames is currently at 86 percent against a target of 95 percent. Performance against this measure is largely driven by the volume of reports of concern. There has been an unprecedented increase in reports of concern in 2024 and 2025\u2014up 58 percent in the first six months compared to the previous year. Despite this unprecedented increase, the timeliness of responses and the number of unallocated cases has remained at similar levels as under the previous Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000513\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022da93c46b66c24cdfba88a70ce2c96779\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 6\u2014Education\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221ebd1031-ea10-4c3d-bb56-2cd99528ae91\u0022 data-id=\u002215abc0680aee428f8ee1149b7f614562\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000514\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221ebd1031-ea10-4c3d-bb56-2cd99528ae91\u0022\u003E6. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002215abc0680aee428f8ee1149b7f614562\u0022\u003EHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all of her answers to oral question No. 11 on 6\u00A0May\u00A02025? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022275c91f8-c6b8-42fd-b3ab-d8fc000dd41f\u0022 data-id=\u00227e6b145052f3438197b620052d5479d1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000515\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022275c91f8-c6b8-42fd-b3ab-d8fc000dd41f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227e6b145052f3438197b620052d5479d1\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education):\u003C/span\u003E Yes, I stand by my answers that were given on 6\u00A0May, especially where I acknowledged that my systems have not reflected best practice, and I have taken multiple steps to make changes to improve them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000516\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221ebd1031-ea10-4c3d-bb56-2cd99528ae91\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c260b24a94d34cbabbbce84d11c1fa4d\u0022\u003EHon Willow-Jean Prime\u003C/span\u003E: Is sending or receiving over a hundred communications to her Gmail account avoiding the use of personal accounts for ministerial business as far as possible, as required by the Cabinet Manual? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000517\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022275c91f8-c6b8-42fd-b3ab-d8fc000dd41f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022822cb70597a34455a3a052853b73c867\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: As I\u2019ve said, I have acknowledged that it was untidy. It was not best practice. I\u2019ve taken a lot of measures to ensure that that doesn\u2019t happen again. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221ebd1031-ea10-4c3d-bb56-2cd99528ae91\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c78b1ffdf5da4506bdf8a315c1edbe3c\u0022\u003EHon Willow-Jean Prime\u003C/span\u003E: How many different personal email accounts has she used to communicate on issues relevant to her ministerial responsibilities? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000519\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022275c91f8-c6b8-42fd-b3ab-d8fc000dd41f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022adbf0eeff8264cbb85370034e387b733\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: I have one parliamentary address that I have used to\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000520\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221ebd1031-ea10-4c3d-bb56-2cd99528ae91\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bd7a3979f26041ecabce89092dd76d24\u0022\u003EHon Willow-Jean Prime\u003C/span\u003E: Personal. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000521\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022275c91f8-c6b8-42fd-b3ab-d8fc000dd41f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c8966357ca414e049ae03bd58f0baecd\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve got one personal\u2014sorry. I\u2019ve got one personal email address that I\u2019ve used in regard to this question. Sorry. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000522\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221ebd1031-ea10-4c3d-bb56-2cd99528ae91\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226cfffe8bea2240a5a6cbaf59f95c41e4\u0022\u003EHon Willow-Jean Prime\u003C/span\u003E: How does it enable the accurate preservation of ministerial decision-making, as required by the Public Records Act 2005, to forward emails sent to her Gmail address to her parliamentary address several months after they were sent to her personal email address?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000523\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022275c91f8-c6b8-42fd-b3ab-d8fc000dd41f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022420ffd7c7a73462eafd7fe52ec8ac51a\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: As I\u2019ve said a number of times, I acknowledge that this has not been tidy, that it has not been best practice, and I\u2019ve made a number of changes to our practices. I would acknowledge, though, that every time I\u2019ve been asked to comply with the Official Information Act, I have.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000524\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002206acbafb3cf746b5a1e2bebf366dfad2\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister realise that the Cabinet Manual does not actually preclude such a use, but it has a proviso with respect to best endeavours\u2014but it does not preclude such a use, and there is a whole litany of Labour Party members\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000525\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002223a25dfae5cb4fc1a64ed5fc8089d25e\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, that\u2019s good. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225a23855ce3694c189ccf738d264395b7\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014who did that as well? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000527\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022275c91f8-c6b8-42fd-b3ab-d8fc000dd41f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c1e6c0d9da284ebcbda8b6610c3973a6\u0022\u003EHon Erica Stanford\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker\u2014[Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000528\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b35da70d32ad41dfb1c5ef762826fa50\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, no\u2014hang on. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000529\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022275c91f8-c6b8-42fd-b3ab-d8fc000dd41f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a739e4f9d38b4272a441e176a2953524\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. The Cabinet Manual does go on to say that there are certain ways that you should treat those emails to make sure that they are caught up in the Official Information Act. I would acknowledge that on a number of occasions\u2014not just this one, but on other occasions\u2014those emails have been released under the Official Information Act, on a number of occasions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000530\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221ebd1031-ea10-4c3d-bb56-2cd99528ae91\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022140fb4a6226a45db957d80de70b30707\u0022\u003EHon Willow-Jean Prime\u003C/span\u003E: Can she assure the House that every single email that is related to her ministerial portfolios that has ever been sent to or from her personal email account has been captured for the official record, as required by paragraph 2.87 of the Cabinet Manual? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000531\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022275c91f8-c6b8-42fd-b3ab-d8fc000dd41f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223631a7eb858c4580bb9de1c316bfd477\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: I have complied with the Official Information Act. I have also made sure that everything is available to be captured and have forwarded everything that I\u2019ve needed to to my parliamentary email address. I will acknowledge, though, in a very similar case to Kelvin Davis, I receive a lot of unsolicited emails like, for example, things from people in India asking for immigration advice, which I never respond to. I almost regard those as being akin to spam, and so there are those ones. But, similarly, other Ministers have had probably very similar issues. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002231919331abc24dc1b2c6cf93811dea6d\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 7\u2014Education\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002244967dc4-6cc7-4567-b8ef-cc3a9b354544\u0022 data-id=\u002258da5f21ce50405bb1ecf2d87159bbc4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002244967dc4-6cc7-4567-b8ef-cc3a9b354544\u0022\u003E7. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002258da5f21ce50405bb1ecf2d87159bbc4\u0022\u003EGRANT McCALLUM (National\u2014Northland)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022275c91f8-c6b8-42fd-b3ab-d8fc000dd41f\u0022 data-id=\u0022e5ae83093f8d44d2a0fd2ffd07c7ec3d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022275c91f8-c6b8-42fd-b3ab-d8fc000dd41f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e5ae83093f8d44d2a0fd2ffd07c7ec3d\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education):\u003C/span\u003E Mr Speaker\u2014I don\u2019t need notes! I\u2019ve made three really exciting recent announcements, the first of which was an announcement around supporting our wonderful teaching workforce: investing, in a pre-Budget announcement, $53\u00A0million to stop teachers having to pay their registration fees, which will affect around 115,000 teachers over the next three years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000535\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002244967dc4-6cc7-4567-b8ef-cc3a9b354544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ef877def36204ac0956cbf3013f77839\u0022\u003EGrant McCallum\u003C/span\u003E: What feedback has she received from teachers on this announcement?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000536\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022275c91f8-c6b8-42fd-b3ab-d8fc000dd41f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f01ffe6e82a4b9a86d210afc362ac56\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: Within hours of announcing this initiative, I received positive emails from principals and teachers. One teacher, from Northland, said, \u201CNg\u0101 mihi. Thank you. The teachers\u2019 council registration fees caused me significant financial stress. This is the single most useful thing that has occurred in many years to reduce teacher stress. It\u2019s much more than financial relief, but also a welcome indication that, as a profession, we are being heard, and a wonderful gesture of good faith. I am grateful to have my mahi as a teacher acknowledged in this manner, and I turn to acknowledge your mahi in making this happen.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000537\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002244967dc4-6cc7-4567-b8ef-cc3a9b354544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002267dbac48d69548bcb6e6f5aa0ad93cb0\u0022\u003EGrant McCallum\u003C/span\u003E: What did she announce to help parents understand their child\u2019s learning?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000538\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022275c91f8-c6b8-42fd-b3ab-d8fc000dd41f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228a18160c39ef49f49aac1f7119df9351\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: Every parent wants to see their child thrive at school so they can be confident, capable, and ready to take on the world. Last week, I announced our brand new Parent Portal. The portal provides a clear, easy-to-understand, and year-by-year guide to what children will be learning in English and maths, aligning with the new curriculum, so that our parents can be partners in their children\u2019s education. Until now, parents haven\u2019t always had consistent access to this information, and I am delighted that this new tool will support both schools and parents to strengthen their relationship between home and school.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000539\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225dfb9a4407134b948617ab959cd0cb72\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Minister tell us as to whether or not she got Willow-Jean Prime\u2019s one email of the day on these issues?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022275c91f8-c6b8-42fd-b3ab-d8fc000dd41f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229fad8e304b9b46fcabfe1f781e2f3b99\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e8649f6f7d654a11b4efbbfc93401c3d\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s\u2014[Interruption] Sorry, just a minute. Just a moment. That\u2019s not a reasonable question for the House, nor is it something that the Minister, in all reality, can easily disclose, if it were to be the case. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000542\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002244967dc4-6cc7-4567-b8ef-cc3a9b354544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022898ef91ab2a44dc3bd19c8d22c05796b\u0022\u003EGrant McCallum\u003C/span\u003E: What other announcements has she made to support our students?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022275c91f8-c6b8-42fd-b3ab-d8fc000dd41f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226ed198278aad44819f7c8ae9db2d27dc\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: Last week, I was really delighted to announce at Tawa College, with the Minister of Finance, that we are embedding financial education into the refreshed social sciences curriculum. It is crucial that our kids are taught how to budget, how to save, and how to invest, and understand things like loans and insurance. I know that our parents have long called for financial education to be a priority, and we have answered those calls. We are equipping every Kiwi student with real-life money skills, ensuring they can make informed financial decisions and have the best opportunity to succeed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00229abbd2547ee34eb0af3b46aa7db784e0\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 8\u2014Social Development and Employment\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022 data-id=\u002213cdbd20e5044d2d83658a44dfb9a288\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000545\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003E8. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002213cdbd20e5044d2d83658a44dfb9a288\u0022\u003EHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement, \u201Cour priority is building a strong economy to reduce the cost of living, support more people into work and lift incomes for women to help them and their families out of hardship\u201D; if so, how does the Equal Pay Amendment Bill contribute to lifting women\u2019s incomes?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022 data-id=\u0022147a4c1a9fab4137b783ebf14bf1bbb1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000546\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022147a4c1a9fab4137b783ebf14bf1bbb1\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment):\u003C/span\u003E Yes. The Equal Pay Act provides a process to raise and resolve claims of sex-based discrimination. The changes being made are to ensure the process is robust, workable, and sustainable. The Government is committed to maintaining a process to raise and resolve pay equity claims. Where a genuine claim is identified and addressed, this will lift the incomes of women covered by the claim.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000547\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022185d5f65d8cb4cc4af7eaa9c7d846fa8\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. The question specifically asked around the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, which was passed yesterday during this period of urgency. The answer by the Minister was talking about the Equal Pay Act, which was not what the question was about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000548\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022674fc2023a324ff6bec83beaca136d29\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I suppose it doesn\u2019t become an Act until it\u2019s\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000549\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022467c3b8751384115ac229e61b7537de1\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s an amendment Act, though, sir.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000550\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e133e9de291644aca6bc1c5d44c9c5cc\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, would the Minister like to correct that term?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002278384787f9044b09b0fc786b706a11f1\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: It is the Equal Pay Amendment Act that will be given Royal assent very shortly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022afa8fad611e14b3d9a2396cbe2e1f638\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s good\u2014that will save a lot of corrections.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000553\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f2c255cd39f7428e8d3443f773acad14\u0022\u003EHon Ginny Andersen\u003C/span\u003E: What action is she taking to raise the incomes of M\u0101ori and Pasifika women, who are once again overrepresented in the latest unemployment figures and who will also be hit the hardest under the Equal Pay Amendment Bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000554\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a6130fed46c94f489e8dfbafa89a69de\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I disagree with the second part of that question. Where there is a genuine claim under the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, which is soon to be given Royal assent, of course they will be able to lodge a claim. What I said in this House in the debate a couple of days ago, which the member seems to not understand\u2014which is a bit staggering really\u2014is that there are two different issues. One is pay equity; one is low wages. Unfortunately, the member is conflating the two.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000555\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002226e467f60a2343b09625de9fce086583\u0022\u003EHon Ginny Andersen\u003C/span\u003E: What!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d4aefec2df9f47d098d14eb3681b2d47\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: Not all issues of low pay are to do with pay equity. Hello!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000557\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002233550ec20a3246dba983735131119311\u0022\u003EHon Ginny Andersen\u003C/span\u003E: Does she stand by her statement, \u201CIf we want an equitable future where poverty is eradicated, we must strengthen our commitment to empowering women and girls and to ensure no one is left behind.\u201D, and, if so, how does scrapping 33 pay equity claims ensure that no one is left behind?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002286d270088caa45e2ab9a6c0f991611f0\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: Of course I agree with my statement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000559\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002216f34a29bfad4ee58b9f67606a1a2320\u0022\u003EHon Ginny Andersen\u003C/span\u003E: What is she doing to support the 6,000 additional women on jobseeker, and how does cutting their pay help incentivise women into work?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b462655a9ce14055922839e43253ed24\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the member is talking about those on the jobseeker benefit, so they receive a benefit. I\u2019m not sure that they receive pay at the moment. I do want them to receive pay, which is why I\u2019m focused on getting them off welfare and into work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c21f4beb-20c4-4b12-bc6f-fdc931e2dc96\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e9af2ba5e853458286c99554cdf0ed84\u0022\u003EHon Ginny Andersen\u003C/span\u003E: How can she hold her head up and commit to lifting women\u2019s pay when her Government has passed retrospective legislation, under urgency, that wrecks 33 equity deals and will result in billions in wages not going to workers, of whom almost all are underpaid women?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002248f94a5b907e4de7865f984aa6e70466\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: I would say to the House that that member needs to be very, very careful with her words. There is no deal; it is a claim. It is a claim that\u2019s being considered and a claim that can be resubmitted for consideration. If the claim is valid and has merit, then those women will receive a pay equity settlement and will get a lift in their income.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000563\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a449e8834cd34e2781b0a300e36f8e8e\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Just a reminder to people on my right that questions are heard in silence and answers aren\u2019t given halfway through the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000564\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228a0129f1892a4dbb9c7916f4fd9fae7a\u0022\u003EHon Nicola Willis\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. It has long been the expectation in this House that statements made in questions should be able to be verified and authenticated as correct. I would like to point out\u2014and I would encourage you to look over the Hansard at some point in the next few days\u2014that Opposition members have fallen into a habit of making statements which are factually untrue in their questions and supplementary questions. It\u2019s either sloppy because they don\u2019t know what they\u2019re talking about, or it\u2019s wilfully misleading. [Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002204436d05c8424c359219fa22b2d12b2b\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Listen\u2014there was point of order being taken, and you may not like it, but you should listen to it in silence. That is also a longstanding convention of the House. I will follow that course of action, but let me just make it very clear that question time is a time for Ministers to answer questions that are put in front of them. Yes, they should be answerable, and I\u2019ll certainly look at them on that basis.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ee87d306ccd84c04830fd07a849493cd\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Just for the public\u2019s interest, is it a true thing to say that the Government has cancelled 33 deals, or is it the truth that the deals were never there in the first place and that this House has been dramatically misled?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000567\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b7303a8bb77f4e2fa36eec923d0ef45c\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: Absolutely.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000568\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222084a6194e5e46ee9d86417e5280202f\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, sir. Leaving to one side my longstanding concerns around abuse of questions in this House, we\u2019ve had a point of order from a Minister essentially accusing us of lying. That is directly after interjecting during the question, calling us misleading, and now a question from the Acting Prime Minister doing the same. Now, I accept that you are going to review it, but, at the very least, we would expect that any assertion that any member of this House is being dishonest should be pushed back against by you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000569\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223cc1bf92796d418ca585c87b7f55fbe3\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, let me just review the afternoon. A few minutes ago, you were requiring the Minister for Social Development and Employment to correctly name a bill. What Mr Peters just asked a Minister is: is it true that there were no deals done? If the pedantic exercise is to be followed right through, there were no deals done, obviously, because these were cases before the court. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s unreasonable for that question to be asked in the context of getting everything, all the time, 100\u00A0percent accurate on all matters.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ee9b2a04fa6b4948af216d03428551f6\u0022\u003ERicardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order, I take your feedback just now, but isn\u2019t there a difference between, for example, saying that something is just factually incorrect and then accusing someone of being misleading? A point of order saying the name of an Act is incorrect is quite different to accusing another political party of having misled the House. I do think a distinction should be made, because we have had people recently going to the Privileges Committee, for example, for using language that would have been accusing someone of lying or misleading. I\u2019m just seeking clarification as to whether, now, we are basically treating factually correcting someone equivalent to accusing someone of misleading the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000571\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022682db5c7e36a4c4da04fa7b868317d96\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, you\u2019re predetermining an answer that might have come from a Minister. To ask a question about whether it was correct to say that deals had been done or deals have been stopped or whatever, I don\u2019t think, is the huge transgression of the question time process that might be suggested by some.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000572\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fb487524fd7d449f865a93b82f6c61b0\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, sir. It might be easier if this just goes to be reviewed. The point of order that I made actually wasn\u2019t about the accuracy of the question; it was the fact that there was an accusation of dishonesty against other members of this House, which followed on from a point of order which did the same and an interjection which did the same. That is my concern. There is a longstanding convention in this House\u2014in fact, a rule\u2014that you cannot infer dishonesty on other members, and it happened three times in a row. Now, in order to prevent this dragging on, maybe it\u2019s easier if you just commit to reviewing it and coming back, but we\u2019re deeply concerned that on three instances by way of interjection, point of order, and question, that was allowed to occur.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000573\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ab2c5c9a6a0349b989bfd2829d6cdb7b\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, and there were most certainly interjections, particularly yesterday, from my left making exactly those sorts of accusations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000574\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002298a0246f0a0a48a4b57aa222c1341401\u0022\u003EHon Nicola Willis\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker! \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000575\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e2d10a54ac0849428f8fb694dc80791c\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Are you speaking to the point of order or a new point?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f12da0af-dc73-4870-8f77-1d50a75eb44c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224d3ef720d11142ab947dc99c01c840f6\u0022\u003EHon Nicola Willis\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I am. Out of an abundance of caution, let me make it clear that I\u2019m aware of the Standing Orders, and the intent of my statements was not to imply dishonesty so much as to make clear that the effect of the statements being made by the member was to mislead, whether intentionally or unintentionally.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000577\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225b825e71676e4ade8cb3ef002ed5297d\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, let me make it very clear that there will always be, in any debate, statements made by people that they find to be their particular truth. Some people would say that is misleading, but it is not deliberately misleading\u2014quite a different thing. The Standing Orders deal with deliberately misleading, which is a much higher test.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000578\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00228489b00f335d4c0b87f02124676e5c0b\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 9\u2014Tourism and Hospitality\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b978dee7-18cf-424c-8004-b165bda971ff\u0022 data-id=\u00221c9597e6f09247c2a950912cef241ae1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b978dee7-18cf-424c-8004-b165bda971ff\u0022\u003E9. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221c9597e6f09247c2a950912cef241ae1\u0022\u003ESAM UFFINDELL (National\u2014Tauranga)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality: What recent announcements has she made to boost New Zealand as an international travel destination?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022 data-id=\u00223671b37c44754f748370ab9c2a2d8cf1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223671b37c44754f748370ab9c2a2d8cf1\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Tourism and Hospitality):\u003C/span\u003E Yesterday, I was pleased to announce that visitor visa applicants will no longer need to have their document translation certified in order to come to New Zealand. Visitors applying to visit New Zealand in languages other than English face additional barriers in terms of time and expense around certification. This change will encourage more international visitors across multiple markets. Tourism is a crucial part of our Government\u2019s focus on economic growth, and these changes are part of our plan to bring international visitor numbers back to pre-COVID levels.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b978dee7-18cf-424c-8004-b165bda971ff\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e49221ef658d409bac713334f6a45005\u0022\u003ESam Uffindell\u003C/span\u003E: What does this announcement mean for international visitors?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220a8e78b8d072418f9e07d9ddfb0d1b88\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: This announcement brings New Zealand\u2019s English translation requirements into line with Australia. It means that, while translations will still be required, applicants will only need to advise who translated it and the qualification or experience of the translator. In this process, it removes additional translation fees for all visitor visa applicants who need to provide translated documents, including those from China and India. These changes come into effect from 26\u00A0May.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000583\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b978dee7-18cf-424c-8004-b165bda971ff\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227c634086aa8d49368edb6b5b10ff849b\u0022\u003ESam Uffindell\u003C/span\u003E: How will this announcement support economic growth?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000584\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220507e9f1d7244906b22862485bc3fa61\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: This announcement reinforces our Government\u2019s commitment to make travel to New Zealand as seamless and easy as possible. The translation requirements were an unnecessary barrier for visitors, and this change shows that we\u2019re serious about New Zealand being open for business. Encouraging more visitors means more people staying in our hotels, eating in our cafes, spending in our shops, and visiting our attractions\u2014creating jobs and driving economic growth. When tourism grows, so does our economy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b978dee7-18cf-424c-8004-b165bda971ff\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f367986eabc435b95c0b40ad605ae81\u0022\u003ESam Uffindell\u003C/span\u003E: What feedback has she seen on this announcement?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000586\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222a78306d9b184c3ba31eb442659af4bd\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: The feedback\u2019s been fantastic. The New Zealand Airports Association said, \u201CThe Minister\u2019s announcement today will measurably improve New Zealand\u2019s competitiveness as a tourism destination. We strongly support practical steps like this that make it easier for people to choose to apply \u2026 here.\u201D Andrew Wilson, who\u2019s the chief executive of RotoruaNZ, said it was \u201Canother really positive\u201D move, and \u201CWe\u2019re pretty happy to see anything that removes a bit of friction, particularly for \u2026 Chinese and Indian visitors.\u201D There will be more to come; 2025 is our chance to reinforce the value of tourism to a humming, vibrant country, where we welcome anyone, from anywhere, at any time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000587\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b2beda017a4d45508507a86834a569ee\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 10\u2014Environment\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022 data-id=\u00226da8c672000d4a1d8b641ec649863cfd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003E10. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226da8c672000d4a1d8b641ec649863cfd\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister for the Environment: Does she consider that she has been a strong advocate for environmental protection in the Government\u2019s decisions?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d2995873-613f-4202-a773-5ea2d57cc953\u0022 data-id=\u0022cda83ed6815c4e4a99d62a3f92b8978f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000589\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d2995873-613f-4202-a773-5ea2d57cc953\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cda83ed6815c4e4a99d62a3f92b8978f\u0022\u003EHon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment):\u003C/span\u003E Yes, I do. For example, particularly the recent decision by the Government to consult on a regulated product stewardship scheme for agricultural plastics, including plastic bale wrap, silage sheets, and plastic agrichemical containers. This side of the House knows that our farmers, our rural communities, and our catchment groups are at the front line of environmental protection, and I am proud to give them another tool to be able to continue the good work that they do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f8b45763c2794ca4ba7a8d9dd0183f7c\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: Does she consider she demonstrated strong advocacy for improving the air we breathe when she delayed better standards for air quality that would have brought us into line with World Health Organization standards, given poor air quality contributes to over 3,000 premature deaths per year?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d2995873-613f-4202-a773-5ea2d57cc953\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022587f9025a11c4fb9b4e5ba28757fd702\u0022\u003EHon PENNY SIMMONDS\u003C/span\u003E: There are a number of things, and they have come out in our environment report recently, where it shows that we\u2019ve made significant progress. There are other areas where we do need to make further progress, and, obviously, the member has alluded to one of those. I think, particularly from reports such as our environment report, that it has been very much a message of hope that we are putting interventions in place. Things are happening\u2014reduced methane emissions, reduced waste to landfill. Certainly, there is much more to do, as the member has expressed, but we are well on the way, and there is hope in the changes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000592\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cd31998f8220410bb4ddc7e851921752\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: Did she demonstrate more than hope for freshwater protections in the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill, which, for the first time in Aotearoa\u2019s history, makes it legal to further pollute our most degraded waterways?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000593\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d2995873-613f-4202-a773-5ea2d57cc953\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f2830db4ab1340daa7523e9493d053a3\u0022\u003EHon PENNY SIMMONDS\u003C/span\u003E: The Resource Management Act will ensure that we can do several things\u2014first of all, unlocking that development capacity that we need for housing and for business growth. It will enable the delivery of high-quality infrastructure that, again, we need, particularly around things like enabling the doubling of renewable energy. At the same time, it will safeguard the environment, it will safeguard human health, and it will ensure adaptation to the effects of natural hazards. We are ensuring there is a balance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022460a1fd755c845f7b6465f7547731d59\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: How did her strong advocacy for environmental protections translate into the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill, that now unprecedentedly legalises the killing of wildlife in a law that is designed\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dcb28844ef5f4ab889d42aa17fc1a2f6\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Just hang on. You can start that question again, and the House will be silent while the question is asked.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fdccf207fcf84164b727d96ff505cff9\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: How did her strong advocacy for environmental protections translate into the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill, that now unprecedentedly legalises the killing of wildlife in a law that is designed to protect wildlife?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000597\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022860ed621052c4f3aa069ec74b2b04339\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. The Standing Orders are absolutely clear\u2014Standing Order 390. That question is not rooted in fact.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225a6d94d9795f479080ed273eea1665f7\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the question started with a question word, which was \u201Chow\u201D. I\u2019d assume that the answer from the Minister will completely refute any supposition that\u2019s in the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000599\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e94d3be4ac6d429d9cff749f3d177dd1\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: It may have started with an interrogative, but it is based on a faulty assumption about the legislation which has been referred to. Whatever answer this person might be responding to is based on something that\u2019s false.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000600\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228b1d34bcf71e4410b2e1cb0a3d542346\u0022\u003ERicardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000601\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228091443860794a6e9e12a0aa67db83ba\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well\u2014you want to add to that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222da85b15394f4d35ade164f0f509ea5f\u0022\u003ERicardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, I think the Minister can speak for herself, and if she wants to refute the answer to the question, she can do so.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e5d0a0cf8d6143708f807442a388b1d3\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s good. I\u2019m pleased you think that. I\u2019m not going to get into a particular discussion with the member. You\u2019ve raised a point of order; effectively, he has made a new point, but I would also say that most questions are asked from a point of view of not knowing what the answer is. Therefore, there is always some degree of questionability inside the question itself. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d2995873-613f-4202-a773-5ea2d57cc953\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220315cdbd74a24a4aa9508e8981b0b311\u0022\u003EHon PENNY SIMMONDS\u003C/span\u003E: I refute the premise of that question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000605\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002262a9b0e1c3684bbaa9b9de8c8b848e83\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: Does she agree that environmental protection means safeguarding the environment from unnecessary harm and pollution, or does she consider weakening regulation to allow for more pollution, overriding existing protections, and authorising the killing of wildlife to equal protection?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d2995873-613f-4202-a773-5ea2d57cc953\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022401b8798cfcf44428618ae83c073cba2\u0022\u003EHon PENNY SIMMONDS\u003C/span\u003E: This Government is doing an incredible amount to ensure that we have balance\u2014balance which enables development, balance which protects our environment. It is absolutely imperative that we can provide more solar farms and more wind farms so that we have more renewable energy. It is absolutely imperative that we provide for more housing. But, equally, it is imperative that there is, within that enabling legislation, environmental protections. We believe, as a Government, that both can be achieved on balance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000607\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002246269786-ecb4-40e2-972a-e287c495bdec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e62dc7c6d67f443cadc1ff1edc3f4d2b\u0022\u003ELan Pham\u003C/span\u003E: Does she think that being the first Minister for the Environment outside of Cabinet since 1972 has meant that her advocacy for the environment on behalf of all New Zealanders has gone unheard?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000608\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dcc5616f4d8747bf930926278b22aaae\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s a question that the Minister might want to respond to, but, in the end, the ranking of Cabinet is the responsibility of the Prime Minister, not the Minister themselves.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d2995873-613f-4202-a773-5ea2d57cc953\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228d178b23a61e4882bd518a4eff0ca9d5\u0022\u003EHon PENNY SIMMONDS\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m interested, as a question, that she is implying that I have not got influence and am not standing up for the environment. I can assure the member that I have been involved in discussions around resource management replacement, around things around our farm plans, around fresh water, and around national direction. The member might do well to reflect\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002216923cb512c749c18ffb92286de4f73b\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: OK. Good. I think we\u2019ve got it. There\u2019s too much noise to carry on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cd59510bb29b468d9fc8aa8c17712c19\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: In the context of her strong advocacy for environmental protection, has she found any green unicorns?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000612\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022595161f2efa0484d9e3b5f01d682b6f9\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Good, that\u2019s\u2014when we\u2019re all quiet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000613\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002267b8fb7140b949989b52f81afd9f7970\u0022\u003EHon David Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: Has the Minister\u2019s strong advocacy for the environment left her well prepared to answer more frequent questions from the Green Party about the environment, should they ever eventuate?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000614\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c57f6f600d2044f28b7d3d92e50e4e23\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Today has not been a good day for full compliance with the Standing Orders. That may mean that there\u2019s got to be a tighter look at things next week. I certainly will make the reviews that have been requested from both sides of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000615\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ea47b14626e6478cb8d461ce15e1134a\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 11\u2014Arts, Culture and Heritage\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002294b52412-f97b-4bbd-8009-5dc49520f7f4\u0022 data-id=\u002206afd92ec73a435388636ae0893cecbc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002294b52412-f97b-4bbd-8009-5dc49520f7f4\u0022\u003E11. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002206afd92ec73a435388636ae0893cecbc\u0022\u003ERYAN HAMILTON (National\u2014Hamilton East)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: What updates can he provide on New Zealand Music Month?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022 data-id=\u0022277a441af7dd41499109cf569c26f78d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000617\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022277a441af7dd41499109cf569c26f78d\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage):\u003C/span\u003E This year, we are celebrating 25 years of New Zealand Music Month, highlighting our incredible artists and music community throughout the country. This month\u2019s all about supporting the local music scene, streaming local, seeing local, and buying local. To celebrate and support the success of our homegrown sounds, there are more than 500 entries in the gig guide for the month coming up, and I encourage all Kiwis to make the most of the great opportunity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000618\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002294b52412-f97b-4bbd-8009-5dc49520f7f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229fa28125a8204cdaac9ee1ba34256688\u0022\u003ERyan Hamilton\u003C/span\u003E: How is the success of Kiwi musicians being celebrated this music month?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000619\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221317671c5337451ebbaf689f1b098e11\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, last night, alongside others in Parliament, I attended the launch of the Smokefree Rockquest, hosted by yourself, Mr Speaker, featuring performances by alumni Georgio Lines and Troy Kingi and last year\u2019s winners, Top Shelf and Emerson, and an excellent school band, Sweater Weather. Rockquest is an excellent initiative, and I wish all this year\u2019s participants all the very best.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000620\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002294b52412-f97b-4bbd-8009-5dc49520f7f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222ef237c278c442df881336ff264aea2d\u0022\u003ERyan Hamilton\u003C/span\u003E: What insight can he provide on the success of New Zealand musicians?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000621\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f55200e685b7415dae08c43504a72665\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I\u2019m pleased to report to the House that New Zealand artists are conquering the world. In the past 30 days alone, Kiwi artists with more than 3 million global streams on Spotify include Balu Brigada, BAYNK, Benee, Jawsh 685, Lorde, Princess Chelsea, and Savage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000622\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002206dbf313307742abae176c7109bc5c1e\u0022\u003EHon David Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister have a particular favourite contemporary New Zealand recording artist; if so, who?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000623\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002279938ef9646342d7b483f83572a24d61\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m very fond of Devilskin.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000624\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225cc3303057684c9096be2fd52f04f24f\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Greg Fleming\u2014Ryan Fleming\u2014Ryan Hamilton! I\u2019ve caught Goldstein syndrome! Ryan Hamilton.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002294b52412-f97b-4bbd-8009-5dc49520f7f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c28056b3434049af9c18d042eff76faf\u0022\u003ERyan Hamilton\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What contribution does the music industry make to the broader New Zealand economy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a0b1167d4ba543bb91ac15896dd156d4\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, music brings joy to our lives and brings people and communities together, but it\u2019s also big business. A report produced by PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated that, in 2023, the music industry contributed $901 million to national GDP. The same report estimated that the industry contributes employment of approximately 5,600 people. With the talent that we have here, there\u2019s a great opportunity to grow the sector even further.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000627\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223c113a277bcd46c08ac2ef72bed0cd37\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Does he agree that The Warratahs\u2019 \u201CCruising on the Inter-Islander\u201D is the best New Zealand track and far superior to \u201CNobody Takes Me Seriously\u201D, like Split Enz over there?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000628\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224f1c66b2808744dca51037bfb609ac5c\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, indeed. Another line that springs to mind in relation to the Opposition is \u201CDown the drain like molten toothpaste\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000629\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002202902c86c9914d9b8971601da0434903\u0022\u003EHon Chris Penk\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Minister looking forward to getting out of this Crowded House?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a866908278a6409fbb31a53d0d7091e8\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I can\u2019t believe\u2014it\u2019s not even the end of the year! Before I call the member we\u2019ll just try\u2014[Interruption] Are we quiet?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000631\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00223872a65d427f477e8a693ba7305b99fc\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 12\u2014Workplace Relations and Safety\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022 data-id=\u00222e91f2e80c5346df892b6f73f8a8369b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000632\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003E12. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222e91f2e80c5346df892b6f73f8a8369b\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she stand by her statement that \u201Cwomen should be paid for their work\u201D; if so, does she consider that the Equal Pay Amendment Bill will make it harder for hundreds of thousands of women to be paid fairly for their work?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022 data-id=\u0022e8dfd0c09bd4464da8d85a63077c0ec9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000633\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e8dfd0c09bd4464da8d85a63077c0ec9\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):\u003C/span\u003E Yes, I stand by my statement, and, no, I don\u2019t consider that. This Government is committed to maintaining a pay equity regime, and all settled pay equity claims are being upheld. The changes we\u2019re making to the pay equity system will ensure women are paid fairly by focusing the system on genuine cases of sex-based undervaluation. I would also note that pay equity bargaining is not the only route for workers to negotiate increases in wages, and pay equity should not be conflated with general collective bargaining. Collective bargaining processes will continue to allow workers and employers to negotiate increases in income and consider market-based factors like inflation. That is the correct avenue, whereas pay equity processes should be based on cases of sex-based undervaluation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000634\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bcae8dcce5ae4c82a1c149e7c52c7cf1\u0022\u003EHon Jan Tinetti\u003C/span\u003E: Why did she raise the threshold of \u201Cpredominantly performed by female employees\u201D from 60 percent to 70 percent?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000635\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bb5db2b61566480e8468a0a1a961d9c7\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN\u003C/span\u003E: We believe, as a Government, that the threshold for entering a pay equity claim has been too low because there have been cases that have been brought where it is very difficult to determine whether or not what has been identified is sex-based undervaluation or other things and other labour market conditions, like inflation. This is why it\u2019s important for us to ensure that when we are settling pay equity claims, we can hand-on-heart say it is because of sex-based undervaluation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000636\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c0fe3d2fb1d841b6b95c08b6dcc98516\u0022\u003EHon Jan Tinetti\u003C/span\u003E: How many of the 33 pay equity claims her Government cancelled will now not meet the new minimum threshold of 70 percent?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000637\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b15f8ba017f54fb5972c3e0f7405b775\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN\u003C/span\u003E: It is not for me to determine whether or not different people will meet the thresholds. That\u2019s not under my control. It is for unions and individuals to bring claims, and I cannot say whether or not unions and individuals will bring claims or will re-scope claims or not bring them at all into the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000638\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226fd1c3c4db2949a8880aec6b9461c22f\u0022\u003EHon Jan Tinetti\u003C/span\u003E: Can she confirm the claim made by secondary school teachers, representing around 30,000 teachers of whom 63 percent are women, might no longer qualify due to the threshold changes she passed under urgency yesterday?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000639\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002256e9f4d3348447d3b5735a9318160678\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN\u003C/span\u003E: Like I said before, it is not for me to determine whether or not people will be successful, whether they can enter bargaining, and whether or not they can bring that claim. It is for the union or the members to bring a claim to their employer and for that employer to determine whether or not they believe that claim should be brought. If they disagree, they go to dispute; that is not my role as a Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000640\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229eef65cd-ce82-441c-af1b-954ea0782a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022599813281a984fe79cb19354c5092e90\u0022\u003EHon Jan Tinetti\u003C/span\u003E: Did she move the threshold to 70 percent to shut out secondary school teachers, to avoid the cost of paying them equally, and, therefore, in the words of David Seymour, \u201Csave the Budget\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000641\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002266f06e7e-afa8-457f-a105-048b86a13282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cb1d3d9f6fc544eb811ded997caeba33\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN\u003C/span\u003E: I did not change these thresholds for any individual case. I did it because it\u2019s the right thing to do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022c3c3e5081f8f4e54ae0649a8776a80a3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000642\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c3c3e5081f8f4e54ae0649a8776a80a3\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That brings oral questions to the end. Those members who need to leave the House for other appointments, please do so quietly without conversations on the way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000643\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00225ad919298fe1443a9c543970c1801d21\u0022\u003ESocial Security Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000644\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00227febac863b4c4050ab5ea36c16147157\u0022\u003ESecond Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000645\u0022\u003EDebate resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222170b5bd-171f-4d9f-bfa6-cab72178f108\u0022 data-id=\u0022f495457a44e842febbd544415d32b3bd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000646\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222170b5bd-171f-4d9f-bfa6-cab72178f108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f495457a44e842febbd544415d32b3bd\u0022\u003EJOSEPH MOONEY (National\u2014Southland):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the Social Security Amendment Bill. I rise as the member of Parliament for Southland and also as the chairperson of the select committee that has heard submissions on this bill. I want to take the opportunity at the outset to thank the members of that committee for the hard work on hearing many submissions and considering the evidence and considering the material brought before us and reporting back to the House. I wish to also take the opportunity to commend the work of the committee clerks and advisers and to thank all the submitters who did submit to the committee. I also should take the opportunity just to acknowledge the 98 percent of beneficiaries in New Zealand who take personal responsibility and are compliant with the obligations that are asked of them. I also want to acknowledge and thank the taxpayers of New Zealand, who support those who find themselves in difficult circumstances and need to rely on the Government for a period of time for a benefit and, therefore, from the hard work of the taxpayers of this country, who support that. That is a part of the social contract that New Zealand has had for a very long time, and I think something we can be proud of is that we have a system in place to help those who fall on hard times for a variety of reasons and to assist them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222170b5bd-171f-4d9f-bfa6-cab72178f108\u0022\u003EThis is a relatively simple bill. It has, however, unfortunately, been misunderstood by many, including members of the Opposition, and I want to take the opportunity in this speech just to clarify a few things. Evidence indicates that employment and suitable work generally leads to improved incomes and is associated with better health and wellbeing for individuals and their families, while unemployment is associated with a range of negative outcomes. I\u2019m speaking here from the report that the committee had before it. I do really question whether some members have read that report or understood that report, but I\u2019m going to go through a number of elements of it so that others can understand this and, hopefully, have that information available to them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000648\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222170b5bd-171f-4d9f-bfa6-cab72178f108\u0022\u003EThere is a cost to Government of benefit receipt. Currently, at the time of the report, the cost of paying benefits to working-aged people was forecast to be $9.341 billion in the 2024-25 financial year. That\u2019s just a bit over $9 billion of paying benefits to working-aged people. The Government has introduced a target to have 50,000 fewer people on the jobseeker support benefit, reducing from 210,000 people that are on that benefit as of March\u00A02025 to 140,000 people by December\u00A02029.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000649\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222170b5bd-171f-4d9f-bfa6-cab72178f108\u0022\u003EThe current regime of work-related sanctions has been in place since 2010\u20142010. We have heard, frankly, some quite outrageous comments from the Opposition saying this is a mean Government that is placing sanctions on beneficiaries. The regime of work-related sanctions has been in place since 2010. It was there for the entire six years of the last Government, who did nothing to change that. This Government is putting in place non-financial sanctions, an alternative to financial sanctions, that can be applied rather than taking money from beneficiaries. As opposed to taking away something from beneficiaries, it\u2019s adding an option so that they don\u2019t have a financial sanction, which is currently the only option in place and was the only option in place during the six years of the last Government. That\u2019s a really important point that hasn\u2019t been understood by many, including members of the Opposition.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000650\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220e944fe9b0524d81ab187654c95d5241\u0022\u003EHon Carmel Sepuloni\u003C/span\u003E: Come on, Joseph! You\u2019re the one who doesn\u2019t understand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000651\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222170b5bd-171f-4d9f-bfa6-cab72178f108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226b9989d7a41f41e7828e93f0493f82e1\u0022\u003EJOSEPH MOONEY\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m going to go through this report because I don\u2019t think the member speaking on the other side of the House has read it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000652\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222170b5bd-171f-4d9f-bfa6-cab72178f108\u0022\u003EThe traffic light system is designed to provide more transparency and clarity to beneficiaries about whether they are complying with their obligations. If benefit recipients continue to meet the obligations, they will not be sanctioned. Just bear in mind that 98 percent of beneficiaries are compliant with their sanctions; there are 2 percent who are not. We want to make sure that they understand what their obligations are and that they will comply with them. They\u2019re relatively simple. The intention is for the non-financial sanctions, which this bill puts in place, to be less punitive than the financial sanctions, which have been in place since 2010\u2014less punitive. Members of the Opposition would be well reminded to communicate that clearly rather than to try to claim it\u2019s something that it\u2019s not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222170b5bd-171f-4d9f-bfa6-cab72178f108\u0022\u003EThe application of non-financial sanctions at the red level of the traffic light system will expand the tools available to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to provide an alternative to what are currently called grade 1 sanctions, which are financial sanctions. The introduction of these traffic light colours is a communication tool so that benefit recipients can get a clear indication of their current compliance with the obligations and associated system changes. This will also help enable welfare system settings that reinforce expectations to work where appropriate and will lift economic outcomes of people and their families through exit into work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000654\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222170b5bd-171f-4d9f-bfa6-cab72178f108\u0022\u003EThere is a place and time for people, for various reasons, to be on a benefit\u2014for reasons of health, reasons of family circumstances, and reasons of loss of employment\u2014but there are so many opportunities from being in employment; there\u2019s so much to be gained from that. There\u2019s so much mana to be developed from that where there are opportunities available to people, and on this side of the House, we want that opportunity to be available to people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000655\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222170b5bd-171f-4d9f-bfa6-cab72178f108\u0022\u003EIncome support does provide people with protection against life shock, such as job loss. However, to ensure that they return as quickly to work as possible, they have obligations to take steps to prepare for and search for work, and they need to understand what those obligations are. There are also opportunities to improve the understanding of benefit recipients to look for\u2014their obligations\u2014to work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000656\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222170b5bd-171f-4d9f-bfa6-cab72178f108\u0022\u003EAutomated decision-making: I just want to make it clear that automated decision-making will not be used to assign sanctions. That addresses a point made by the Green Party. Work seminars, which are also another option, will provide MSD with the ability to talk to people more personally and directly and provide them with consistent messaging about their obligations. In terms of medical certificates, this raises another point: we note medical reviews are not tied to the 26th week reapplication process for jobseeker support. A jobseeker will not be required to seek another medical certificate for this process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000657\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222170b5bd-171f-4d9f-bfa6-cab72178f108\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s a lot more I could go into in this report, but the key point here is that this is actually assisting beneficiaries. This is assisting them to get back into employment. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022 data-id=\u002202af2812ba6c416db4b557f10edd52af\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000658\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002202af2812ba6c416db4b557f10edd52af\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you. I want to take issue with the suggestion that anybody in this House is thinking it\u2019s a good thing to be unemployed. Absolutely not. In the Labour Party\u2019s time in office, what you saw was a record level of employment, and I was incredibly proud of that. That\u2019s what moves people out of poverty, out of unemployment, and into employment, and you\u2019ll never get an argument from this side of the House that that is not a good thing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000659\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EWe are the party for workers. We know the value of a decent job. What we also know is that, under this Government, there is a rort going on. This kind of legislation is all smoke and mirrors. We\u2019re supposed to look over here at what is being said about these people who just can\u2019t get themselves a job while the Government calculates how to take away jobs to reduce inflation. I can substantiate the point, as I\u2019ve been in the House as that happened, and I\u2019ve seen the result.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000660\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003ELast year, we had a bill before the House that meant that the Reserve Bank Governor no longer looks at maximising sustainable employment when balancing the needs of the economy. It was taken away, and he was given a single mandate. That was taken away on purpose. For those people who are watching this and don\u2019t understand this, the point of it is that if you raise unemployment up, then wages drop, and inflation comes down. Real people pay a real price when that happens. They can\u2019t feed their kids. They\u2019re unemployed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000661\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EI want to also dispel another myth here. I have just heard a speaker talk about taxpayers and thank them. Well, taxpayers and beneficiaries are not different things. People who have paid tax all their lives end up suddenly unemployed under this Government. That is an all too common occurrence. The people in Kinleith who lost their jobs\u2014and the Government was not prepared to step in and do anything for them\u2014are now beneficiaries. We are never that far away from it in this country. We simply don\u2019t have the savings. Remember back during COVID when many of us wondered what was going to happen the next day? How were we going to cope if our job disappeared? That was something that was really close to us. What\u2019s really important in this country is that we have had a proud tradition of a safety net that is the unemployment benefit. We have had a safety net. Not every country has it, and I\u2019ve been incredibly proud that the Labour Party has been associated with it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003ELet\u2019s also bust the myth that there haven\u2019t been sanctions before. Of course there have been sanctions before. In every system like this, there are going to be boundaries. There have always been sanctions. If people have not met their obligations, there have always been sanctions. In 2018, the Act that we are amending today had sanctions in it. It had a hierarchy of sanctions. You could have your benefit taken away. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000663\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EThere have also always been good relationships between the Ministry of Social Development and our budget services, who have sent people off to get help with managing what is a very meagre amount of money and with making ends meet. Our budget services are to be applauded for the work they\u2019ve done, particularly since they tell me that the Government has cut their funding. Since we\u2019re creating a sanction, under this particular regime, where we\u2019re supposed to be sending people off for money management, who\u2019s going to do it, people? You\u2019ve cut the money for budget services. All my community is suffering as a result. You cut the money for budget services at a time when you made people unemployed\u2014deliberately. It\u2019s a rort, people; it\u2019s a rort. You deliberately made them unemployed because the idea was to bring down inflation. There are many ways to bring down inflation. This way is morally unacceptable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000664\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EWe have watched this happen under this Government\u2019s watch, and then what do we get? We get time in urgency spent passing a piece of legislation that actually paints a picture of a beneficiary as a slacker. That\u2019s what it\u2019s about\u2014demonising a group of people, many of whom are our relatives or our friends. They are unemployed at the moment because of this Government tanking the economy. That\u2019s what happened under the watch of this Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000665\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EI was door-knocking the other day in Point Chev, and I came across a guy who\u2019d come up from Wellington because, as he put it, the place is dead. There\u2019s no work here. He was in Point Chev, going off and finding other work because this place is dead for a lot of people. They cannot find a job. If you\u2019re in Kinleith, it\u2019s much worse than being in Wellington, I can tell you, because where do you go for a job? What this Government is doing is getting on its preachy, preachy high ground. It\u2019s preaching.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000666\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002289809535-e289-43e8-ad08-668cf3046ffb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a1c11bde225e4a7b9c0607545bb78039\u0022\u003ECameron Brewer\u003C/span\u003E: There\u2019s a vacancy in Mount Albert.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000667\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223e244f9ca1584126b45088231260de15\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE\u003C/span\u003E: I don\u2019t think that that is a very relevant comment, and it sounds a little bit like this is hitting a nerve. I suspect that at doors in many parts of Auckland right now, the member who said that is actually hearing exactly the same thing. They\u2019re hearing that it\u2019s really hard to pay the bills. There isn\u2019t any work out there. The economy\u2019s being tanked. All of those things are true, and this piece of legislation suffers from being a complete rort. It says, \u201CLook over here. We\u2019ll tinker around. We\u2019ll put a few more sanctions in. We\u2019ll blame these people here.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000668\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003ENow, don\u2019t get me wrong; there is always a place for making sure that when we are giving out taxpayers\u2019 money, we have proper boundaries in place. Let\u2019s face it: we did have proper boundaries in place. We have had a regime in place for a very, very long time that serves the needs of the community, and it gets people into work. What\u2019s the best thing we can do about getting people into work? Prioritise it. Prioritise decent work, people. That\u2019s what we need to do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000669\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EWe need to make sure that New Zealanders have pathways through to decent jobs, not to hand-to-mouth existences\u2014decent work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000670\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229c61013505ef42d4827cd38e6fcf5841\u0022\u003EHon James Meager\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s an indecent job?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000671\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224ac2495227124b13a2c2e93359f83110\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE\u003C/span\u003E: Indecent jobs are ones that pay so little\u2014so little\u2014that people end up mentally ill, they end up with addiction issues, and they end up in stressed relationships where they are mean to their kids or stressed with their kids. Those are the things that happen when you don\u2019t have decent work in an economy, and it\u2019s got to be our number one priority. It\u2019s not this current Government\u2019s.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000672\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003ENow, yesterday, when the tax cuts couldn\u2019t be paid for and when the Budget fell short, who was first on the chopping block? Women. Women and low-paid workers. Low-paid workers are easy pickings for this Government. They are not the people who are, necessarily, writing to the Minister. Well, they weren\u2019t yesterday; I suspect they are today. I suspect there will be a whole lot of workers out there at the moment thinking, \u201CThis Government doesn\u2019t have our interests in mind. It doesn\u2019t have a clue.\u201D It\u2019s busy focusing on blaming people who it catapulted into unemployment for its own means. It\u2019s focusing on blaming them rather than assisting them in any way. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000673\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve heard a lot of rubbish language this week. I\u2019ve heard that what they are doing in pay equity is simply trying to make things better and expedite the system, but the opposite is going on. It\u2019s utterly frustrating to hear such a twisting of what the focus of a piece of legislation is. On this one, I think the same thing; I think this is about making sure that New Zealanders are distracted, that they\u2019re blaming people, that they\u2019re feeling resentful of people, and that they\u2019re mythologised. I think that\u2019s what\u2019s going on here. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000674\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EThe Government doesn\u2019t want ordinary New Zealanders to see that people don\u2019t have work\u2014they did last year. That is the truth. We have the highest unemployment we\u2019ve had for four years under this Government\u2019s watch, so when sanctimony about people who apparently have to be sanctioned even further than they are comes forth in a piece of legislation like this, I ask the New Zealand public: what is the reason the Government\u2019s doing that? It\u2019s so that you look over here and you blame your friend and your neighbour and you blame your kids or whatever, rather than blaming this Government for putting us deliberately in this situation because it did not prioritise the right thing. Labour will do that when it gets elected.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229188988b-e79b-4381-969a-982d0ebdb3ca\u0022 data-id=\u0022b4c8afcf23ff407297c683c5ed56713d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000675\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229188988b-e79b-4381-969a-982d0ebdb3ca\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b4c8afcf23ff407297c683c5ed56713d\u0022\u003EPAULO GARCIA (National\u2014New Lynn):\u003C/span\u003E The Social Security Amendment Bill is really aimed at better helping, supporting, and enabling people to get back on their feet and back to work and to be able to regain that confidence in work and be able to uplift their lives themselves and to support themselves. With all that has been said and expressed, I commend this bill to the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022 data-id=\u00226500371d74e648b09a3481f4951256c2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226500371d74e648b09a3481f4951256c2\u0022\u003EHon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Speaker. I\u2019ve been listening to contributions from members of that side of the House for much of today on this bill, and it\u2019s quite disheartening to constantly hear beneficiaries being characterised in the way that they have been, as people who don\u2019t want to go to work, who need to be forced off a benefit to get into work, and who need to be sanctioned and have punitive measures put on them, making it harder for them to survive. I would genuinely just say to members opposite to try and understand the context of people who live very different lives to your own.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000677\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EA recent Social Cohesion in New Zealand report\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dbb5331e90e9437cb50aa57a4574b56c\u0022\u003EHon Members\u003C/span\u003E: Oh!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000679\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bba26cffaf0a49ba960e5cfbcc398674\u0022\u003EHon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN\u003C/span\u003E: It bodes well for our society if people on both sides do that. Recently, there was a Social Cohesion in New Zealand report that compared various indicators across New Zealand and Australia. One of those figures was stark: 25 percent of New Zealanders skip a meal because they can\u2019t afford it\u2014one in four of us\u2014compared to 13 percent across the Ditch. Yet what is this Government doing? They\u2019ve gutted pay equity, taking money away from women workers to balance their Budget. They have diluted a law that aims to protect wildlife, and, now, this: deflecting attention by punching down on beneficiaries.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000680\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003ENinety-seven percent of submitters to the select committee opposed this bill, with good reason. This is the second reading, and so I\u2019m going to bring their voices into this debate and into my contribution. There was one that stood out for me from a 50-year-old former lawyer who had to retire due to disabilities. The disability arose from an event that happened with a gas system\u2014no fault of this person. This person says, and I quote, \u201CIt is extremely difficult to get a supported living payment. There are some 52 pages to the application form that was necessary for me to obtain significant support, over a space of five weeks just to fill in that form.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EOngoing requirements are also onerous, and disabilities don\u2019t go away. The requirements are onerous for someone without disabilities, and for someone who is unwell or has disabilities, that adds significantly to the burden.\u201D It goes on to say that the process is already \u201Cdehumanising and humiliating\u201D. Most people\u2014in fact, I would dare to say that the vast majority of people\u2014who are in receipt of a benefit would prefer to be working. For the most part, there is not an issue of motivation. There is an issue of availability of jobs or capability.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000682\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EI point also to an excellent submission by the Disabled Persons Assembly New Zealand. One part of that that talks about that availability of jobs to disabled people: \u201CThe system does not recognise barriers to employment or accessibility for disabled people.\u201D It goes on to say, \u201CMany people highlighted the barriers to employment that disabled people face, and the emotional pressure continually being expected to apply for jobs that they cannot get.\u201D There is, in there, an excellent quote from someone who cares for a teenager who has a rare syndrome and autism about just how difficult it is to get into the job market when you\u2019re in that position. Many submissions talked about the money management system where 50 percent of a person\u2019s benefit is loaded on to a Ministry of Social Development payment card that can only be used to buy certain items. Many disabled people pay 50\u00A0percent of what they get on rent. The system that members opposite are lauding will now put people in the position where they cannot pay their rent\u2014reflect on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000683\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EFinally, a disabled beneficiary and PhD student who submitted to the select committee said, and I quote, \u201CI\u2019m a disabled beneficiary and PhD student. It is clear that this bill is not actually about better outcomes for those on benefits. It\u2019s about instituting punitive and bureaucratic measures designed to save the Government money, at the expense of those this Government is choosing to leave in financial hardship.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000684\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022872744a3-2256-4cdd-a4cc-939836dc2b11\u0022\u003EThis is a bill that just makes things so much harder for those who are already struggling. I even got a message from someone who is in a similar position. She says, \u201CI\u2019m not skipping meals per se, but I\u2019m not eating meals either, when the kids aren\u2019t here. Like, I\u2019m eating a tub of yoghurt or all the beans from the can rather than making a meal. Living off the benefit I get weekly is not possible in any way, shape, or form. My life isn\u2019t terrible because I have my house settlement to live off, but it would be if I didn\u2019t have that. Life is hard enough. I can\u2019t imagine trying to claw my way out of the hole I was in if I didn\u2019t have it. I\u2019d be miserable.\u201D How do you build yourself up and back when you\u2019re in desperation daily? The desperation is being made worse by this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022587eeeae-8af5-4e11-ac7f-a7690f9c7c3a\u0022 data-id=\u0022e32d583e41194fd78559202a8a899937\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000685\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022587eeeae-8af5-4e11-ac7f-a7690f9c7c3a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e32d583e41194fd78559202a8a899937\u0022\u003EDr CARLOS CHEUNG (National\u2014Mt Roskill):\u003C/span\u003E I am confused. The other side keep telling me that they are fighting for the workers, but to me, it sounds like they actually want people to have long-term reliance on benefits. They don\u2019t understand that this legislation will not affect those who are actively looking for jobs and it will not affect those who don\u2019t have the ability to look for jobs. We believe that the beneficiaries who are able to work should be taking reasonable steps to re-enter the workforce and that consequences should exist for those who don\u2019t. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022 data-id=\u00220f2b13e6fe8049049f907574051d3531\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000686\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220f2b13e6fe8049049f907574051d3531\u0022\u003EHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E The same assertions are made from that side of the House\u2014whenever we have a debate on social security and on the welfare system\u2014that this side of the House wants to encourage long-term welfare dependency and that we want to encourage people to languish on benefits. It\u2019s simply not the case, and I have to say that it\u2019s simply not the case for any political party in this House. We all want New Zealanders who can work to be able to work. Some of us are just a little bit more in touch with the realities for New Zealanders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000687\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EI think that side of the House forget that, actually, the economy is doing poorly under their watch. People are losing jobs en masse under their watch. In fact, unemployment is at 5.1 percent now. In Auckland, it\u2019s 6.4 percent unemployment. For Pacific, it\u2019s 10.8 percent unemployment; for M\u0101ori, it\u2019s up around the 10 percent mark as well. These are the same people who lose jobs during bad economic times, which all too often seem to fall under national-led Governments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000688\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EWhat we have here is a piece of legislation that is, again, an attempt by the Government to make it look like they\u2019ve got the whip out and they\u2019re coming down hard on those that have lost jobs and are on benefits. In actual fact, since they\u2019ve been in Government, even though they set a target of reducing the number of jobseeker beneficiaries by 50,000, we\u2019ve got over 30,000 more people on benefit under their watch. Then they come along with these measures that they say will help push people into employment, when all of the evidence in front of us, including when we look at the departmental report, tells us that many of the measures reflected in this bill have no evidence to support the argument that they will actually do anything that works. It\u2019s disappointing, and, actually, quite frankly, it\u2019s farcical. This is supposed to reduce the number of people on benefit, but it seems like the only strategy for reducing the number of people on benefit is to sanction them off benefit or to make being on benefits so difficult that they simply cannot stay on it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000689\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EThey were given the option of setting a target of increasing the number of exits into employment. Instead, they just chose this reduction target with no regard or concern for where people might go when they leave benefit. Frankly, they don\u2019t care. All they want is for their books to look better\u2014even though they look worse now than what they looked like when they took them over\u2014and they don\u2019t care whether or not these families have positive outcomes or not. They are very clear with their objective for the bill that it is to reduce the cost to the Government by reducing the number of people on benefit. Again, this is a reflection of the fact that all they care about is the money they need for their priorities and Budget, rather than caring for those New Zealanders who have sadly found themselves out of work and needing some assistance from the State in the form of welfare.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000690\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EI also want to reflect on what my colleague Priyanca Radhakrishnan referred to, and that is the numbers of people on benefit who have health conditions and disabilities. Now, many of them are not precluded from the measures in here, because they haven\u2019t precluded jobseekers who have health conditions and disabilities. Again, they have no sense of realism for these people\u2019s realities and how difficult it is to take up employment or, in fact, to get employed. They never seem to mention that, actually, there are a number of employers out there that are simply not willing to take a chance with people who are in the welfare system. That\u2019s not the fault of those people who are in the welfare system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000691\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EMany of you will know I once was the Minister for Social Development. We all receive the same advice. That hasn\u2019t really changed in terms of the research and evidence. The international research on sanctions is not good. It doesn\u2019t lead to better outcomes for those on welfare. It doesn\u2019t lead to more of them getting into employment. What it does do is it raises the stress levels of those people who already have very little bandwidth to deal with the stresses that have come their way, and it leads to more individuals and their families being in poverty. That is what this Government is wanting to happen and is pushing to happen when they put this particular bill through. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000692\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve seen, in this bill, that they have included things like non-financial sanctions of money management and community work experience. As we\u2019ve debated across the course of considering this bill, the Government has continued to push that this is actually some kind of charitable addition to the suite of sanctions that are available and that they are doing something good for beneficiaries by not actually giving them a financial sanction. Well, again, it shows how out of touch they are. If they were to take 50 percent of a beneficiary\u2019s benefit and then expect that that would be money-managed by putting it on a payment card, then they would be ignoring the fact that for so many of these beneficiaries, because of the fact that their benefit incomes are so low, they are already paying 50\u00A0percent or more for their accommodation. Then they say that they won\u2019t apply it to those people. Well, that means that a whole lot of people won\u2019t have it applied to them. All I can think, when I\u2019m looking at that, is they\u2019re just trying to look, to the general public, like they\u2019re coming down hard on these people, when the reality is it\u2019s not even a practical measure that can be implemented with these individuals or these families.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000693\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EThe community work non-financial sanction was criticised by the community work sector, by the charitable sector, and by the community and voluntary sector. The expectation that they would be able to on-board a volunteer as quickly as what would be expected by this measure, do all the vetting, make sure that they are safe in their own practice and safe for those that they would be serving, within a matter of days, and that those undertaking the community service would only serve a period of time of two weeks or something is absolutely unrealistic. All of these organisations came out and told the Government that that was the case. How they can possibly do the work that it takes to on-board a volunteer, get them ready, make them safe for themselves, make them safe for everyone else, and then give them a community service experience that is going to inform their future work prospects, as well as support that organisation is unrealistic, and the Government were told that. Again, it\u2019s just some attempt to try and look like they are coming down hard on beneficiaries. In many ways, it\u2019s a disguised version of working for the dole or something\u2014something that we know members on that side of the House like to talk about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000694\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EThis is not a piece of legislation that is going to support those who are already down and out to get into employment. It is, instead, a bill that is another attempt to blame beneficiaries for the current economic conditions and to deflect away from the fact that, actually, they are responsible for the fact that over 30,000 more people are on benefit and that that has occurred under their watch. Instead, they want to put the boot in and make out that it\u2019s these people\u2019s fault that they are unemployed. This is a sad continuation of the National Party\u2019s legacy of beneficiary bashing over the course of decades. It is predictable. It is so incredibly predictable. You have to wonder at what point in time that political party will reflect on some of the decisions that they have made since the outset of their party being formed and realise that, actually, there was no evidence behind any of those decisions. It did not help New Zealand become a better place. It did not turn the tide on the levels of poverty that we as a nation have faced over the course of decades, and it did not improve the lives of not just those beneficiaries but of the children in those beneficiaries\u2019 households.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000695\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EWe, of course, will not be supporting this bill, and I stand here saying\u2014I put on record, again\u2014that we, of course, will always support New Zealanders who are out of work to get into upskilling and training and employment. But we\u2019re not going to kick them while they\u2019re down to deflect from any of the mistakes that we might make. Certainly, that lot over there have made a lot of mistakes in their last 18 months. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f429fecb-a955-4d95-8105-e5144e651204\u0022 data-id=\u00220faf6b569e084a2e8c7fd017d06face7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000696\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f429fecb-a955-4d95-8105-e5144e651204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220faf6b569e084a2e8c7fd017d06face7\u0022\u003EDAN BIDOIS (National\u2014Northcote):\u003C/span\u003E From welfare to work\u2014that is our goal, and nothing contributes to the overall wellbeing more than work. This bill, in my view, encourages work. It\u2019s not\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000697\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b27d473d7ee1426c931bd3413f8b3740\u0022\u003ERicardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u003C/span\u003E: Have you read it? It does nothing to do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000698\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f429fecb-a955-4d95-8105-e5144e651204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002272539dc81a694b5bb2f64f032047e1b8\u0022\u003EDAN BIDOIS\u003C/span\u003E: I have read the bill. It\u2019s right here. It\u2019s actually pretty reasonable to expect those on a benefit to upskill, to continue to reapply for their benefits, and to make sure they\u2019re doing everything they can to get into work. It\u2019s a carrot-and-stick approach. This side of the House has much, much greater ambition for Kiwis than staying on a benefit, and that is why I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u002248da8bd5496546539213cb955f3b587c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000699\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002248da8bd5496546539213cb955f3b587c\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the amendments recommended by the Social Services and Community Committee by majority be agreed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022eca8290be37340eaa7133ebd17485bb5\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000700\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002228e1aef4c0af45ef88f669e02cfa08d8\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the Social Security Amendment Bill be now read a second time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000701\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 6.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000702\u0022\u003EBill read a second time.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022f9672e70fc1b4e689f2739f0d419c060\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000703\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f9672e70fc1b4e689f2739f0d419c060\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: This bill is set down for committee stage immediately.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000704\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00228ed66de7663e495799add70fdf847ec9\u0022\u003EIn Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000705\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00229d606893b9f6485d95b8de775278a0df\u0022\u003EPart 1  Amendments to Social Security Act 2018\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022 data-id=\u00228155eb424947482b9d4f3d737bcaeb64\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000706\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228155eb424947482b9d4f3d737bcaeb64\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the House is in committee on the Social Security Amendment Bill. Members, we come now to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 58\u2014\u201CAmendments to Social Security Act 2018\u201D\u2014and Schedules 1 and 2. The question is that Part 1 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022 data-id=\u00220af19ffbc251441a838b64a7ca311efd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000707\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220af19ffbc251441a838b64a7ca311efd\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to flag that this is a robust and long bill, so I\u2019ll try to go clause by clause as much as I can. I\u2019ll flag when I\u2019m speaking to amendments as well, just to make sure that it\u2019s in order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EI want to start with clause 5 of Part 1, which amends section 21, in relation to \u201Cwork gap\u201D. It\u2019s repealing section 21(3). I want to ask the Minister what the policy intent is. I ask this because that didn\u2019t actually get a lot of scrutiny in the select committee, nor was it something that the Minister publicly talked about. The bill, effectively, is doing away with a specific definition of \u201Cwork gap\u201D in a provision, and, if we look at the Social Security Act, for example, somebody is considered to have that if that person is \u201C(a) \u2026 receiving jobseeker support at the rate in [other clauses]; and (b) during a temporary period, [the person] engages in full-time employment; and (c) the income from that employment and [person\u2019s] other income (if any) when calculated over a 52-week period is less than the amount that would, under the appropriate income test, reduce the applicable rate of jobseeker support to zero.\u201D I guess our concern is that rather than just changing the 52 weeks to potentially 26\u00A0weeks, the Minister\u2019s just done away with that. We think this is problematic because it would, effectively, reduce the number of single parents who are eligible for jobseeker support. In some ways, it also disincentivises engaging in employment because of that narrowing definition of \u201Cwork gap\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000709\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EI wanted to start with that because it also ties in with an amendment that we have, which is under my name, to delete clause 5 in and of itself. The amendment means that, basically, we would ensure that single parents who temporarily engage in full-time employment where their income from that employment would not reduce the applicable rate of jobseeker support to zero can continue to be considered to have a work gap and remain eligible for support, notwithstanding any other eligibility criteria.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000710\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EA lot of the bill\u2014particularly if we think about, for example, the debates in the first and second readings\u2014has been in relation to the additional non-financial sanctions, which I will touch on later. This change to what is considered to be a work gap has not actually been given much mention by the Minister, and, I think, actually, the public should have it on the record as to why the Minister is narrowing this definition and taking away one of the specific provisions that helps define whether somebody has a work gap. I\u2019m really concerned about the negative impacts that this could have on people, and I wonder whether this very specific clause\u2019s intent is simply to narrow the scope of who then would be eligible for a benefit, which, in and of itself, will then reduce the amount eligible for a benefit, which then in turn may help the Government meet its target of having less people on the benefit. That doesn\u2019t necessarily mean more people in full-time employment or ongoing full-time employment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000711\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EI\u2019m keen to understand, particularly, what the policy intent is and the level of consultation she had on the work gap, because the Minister didn\u2019t talk about those changes in the select committee, nor in her public communications. I think that part deserves a bit more commentary from the Minister. I\u2019m also interested to see if she would be supportive of our amendment that would remove clause 5, because we think, despite our political and ideological differences, that clause 5 will actually disincentivise employment. I think this just feels like an odd thing to be putting forward in the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000712\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EI\u2019m really eager to start off the debate with clause 5, and I will then go on to other parts of this piece of legislation as we go. I also wanted, while I\u2019ve got one minute left, to flag to the Chair that I recognise that, when we start getting into clause 10 onwards and we talk about the different non-financial sanctions, the language is relatively similar, but I want to float that I may be touching on some of those things that may sound repetitive but that the way that the language ends up applying to the specific benefit sanctions will be different. I just want to pre-emptively flag that in case I\u2019m referring to language that may sound similar where the policy intent is different.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022 data-id=\u0022532142b036ee47ec84692d6c37f54e64\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000713\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022532142b036ee47ec84692d6c37f54e64\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment):\u003C/span\u003E I just thought it would be useful if I provided some opening comments and context. This is a really simple bill. There are really only four changes that we\u2019re making in terms of non-financial sanctions. I think some of the impressions that may have been left by Opposition members in their comments in earlier readings may be misunderstood.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000714\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003ELet me first say that no one is sanctioned if they can\u2019t find a job. There are obligations in terms of people being available for work, looking for work, attending meetings with their case manager, and attending sessions at the Ministry of Social Development. This is all about rights and responsibilities and ensuring that those who are on jobseeker benefits, for example, are taking the steps they need to. Unlike the current settings, which had been unchanged for the six years of the Labour-Greens Government, we are adding sanctions that are non-financial.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000715\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EAt the moment, the only ability is to either reduce a benefit in half or end it completely. These four new non-financial sanctions mean the entire amount of the benefit is retained. There are just a couple of changes. The clause that the member refers to is also related to a 26-week reapplication. We want to ensure that people continue to be eligible for the benefit type they are on. Again, that\u2019s a very simple change that we\u2019ve made. I do want to make it clear that this is not a complex piece of legislation. It\u2019s been through a full select committee process, and I\u2019m confident that we can get through it quite easily.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022 data-id=\u0022c17414e20a2d4d0281379e4404550331\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000716\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c17414e20a2d4d0281379e4404550331\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Just following on the comments from the Minister for Social Development and Employment, if she says that clause 5 was in relation to the 26-week changes, why did she not just simply change the language in section 21(3) of the Social Security Act 2018\u2014the bit that said 52 weeks to 26 weeks\u2014as opposed to just repealing it altogether? That to me doesn\u2019t make a lot of sense, so I will just seek clarification once more: why is she repealing section\u00A021(3) of the Social Security Act and narrowing the definition of \u201Cwork gap\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000717\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EI will move, now, to clause 8A so that I can broaden the scope of the debate a bit. Another thing that she didn\u2019t communicate in her public communications and that wasn\u2019t tested thoroughly, because of the lack of proactive debate in public by the Minister, was clause 8A and the changes to section\u00A0181 of the Social Security Act in relation to the application of health and safety legislation. I wanted to understand, basically, the consequences of applying health and safety legislation in a broader sense. I wanted to understand whether, from her perspective, clause 8A was specifically needed as a result of the community work experience. I know that, in clause 8A(2), there is a slight mention of beneficiary activity in the community arranged by the Ministry of Social Development.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000718\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EMore broadly, the broadening of how the health and safety legislation applies to some of this\u2014I\u2019m curious to also know what consultation she did around the enforcement of that. There are a lot of volunteer organisations that work in the community\u2014maybe quite small organisations\u2014and they themselves may not have, for example, an understanding of health and safety legislation. I\u2019m keen to understand how she sees the enforcement of any potential breaches of health and safety legislation as it applies, in clause 8A(2), to, for example, activities in the communities. Otherwise, this feels like it\u2019ll just sound nice, but there will be very little ability to be able to enforce it. What feedback, since this has been debated and introduced, has she received at all in terms of the ability for clause 8A in Part 1 to actually apply in a meaningful way?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000719\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EPart of the reason why I also wanted to talk about clause 8A(2)(b)(ii) is that it\u2019s an activity that is voluntary. It could be a volunteer organisation. This is quite different from being in a workplace where, for example, you may have people who may be more in tune with health and safety legislation. A lot of our volunteer organisations are struggling to even have enough, for example, governance training to understand the very basic responsibilities under the Incorporated Society Act or the laws that dictate our charities. They would have even less ability to actually understand how health and safety legislation applies to them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000720\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EWith the broadening of the application of health and safety legislation, how does she expect that the volunteer organisations that, I\u2019m assuming, will likely be part of the community with experienced staff\u2014we\u2019ll debate that later\u2014are equipped with the knowledge of how, when they\u2019re engaging with someone on the benefit, to understand the responsibilities that they may have under the new, now broadened application of health and safety legislation under clause 8A.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022 data-id=\u0022b5fd8e5925b3478caf71c0ab6d1b12c2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b5fd8e5925b3478caf71c0ab6d1b12c2\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment):\u003C/span\u003E Actually, the member Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March was on the Social Services and Community Committee where this change was recommended by the Parliamentary Counsel Office. It\u2019s a very minor change that just ensures that, in terms of the report job search that this refers to, the health and safety legislation applies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022 data-id=\u002216d140d3a63b467f959d39016cffb461\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000722\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002216d140d3a63b467f959d39016cffb461\u0022\u003EHon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I just support what the Green member Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March was saying there, also. It\u2019s an incredibly frustrating experience for jobseekers, at the moment, being forced off the benefit and then forced to reapply. I want to come to clause 10, in Part 1, inserting new section 183A. Just listening to what the Minister for Social Development and Employment was saying\u2014in particular, on jobseeker profiles\u2014I just need to hear from the Minister, particularly with the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), what assessment the Minister has considered in boosting capacity at MSD to process the jobseeker profiles and whether are there enough staff to process these profiles so not to delay their benefit payments. I\u2019m particularly interested in this area, given that our staff at MSD are not trained social workers. They do not, with respect, have the skills to deal with some of the experiences that people are going through and with some of the problems that are being raised out in the community. I\u2019m worried, particularly, about the emphasis and the extra burden put on MSD, given the current climate, also, in terms of funding, with the Government cutting back on funding.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003EI\u2019m also speaking to an amendment I put up on clause 10, inserting new section 183A. Is there sufficient capacity to process profiles within 10 working days, and can they guarantee the protection of clients\u2019 personal data? These are some of the areas that we want the Minister to look at, and I\u2019ve put an amendment up to record that. Also, to the Minister, how will jobseekers be informed about their profiles and keeping their data safe? I think this is a huge concern amongst the community. What sort of security can people have at that level? How will the bill also assure accurate assessment of jobseeker profiles, and will there be provisions put in place to prevent AI-generated jobseeker profiles from being used? This has been a push, now, that has been put forward. If we\u2019re going to be relying on that, how secure and how comfortable are our people in the community, and what role does automated decision-making play, to the Minister, in jobseeker reapplication processes? I ask her to consider that also, given there\u2019s a real emphasis in terms of automation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000724\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s a real worry at the moment\u2014obviously, we\u2019re speaking to these questions\u2014in terms of how wh\u0101nau are feeling at ground level with this more punitive approach from this Government. How will they feel in these areas? These are questions that I would like the Minister to consider. In terms of guaranteeing the protection of clients\u2019 personal data, can she give us some assurances that will happen? Will she consider putting that forward as a further amendment in terms of some guarantee with regards to people in our community? We do have communities who are very much on edge at the moment. It would help if the Minister could give some assurances that their lives are not going to change dramatically, given the past history in terms of National Governments and given the Labour Governments\u2019 approach particularly in terms of being more embracing. We\u2019ll get into some of the more community-type k\u014Drero later on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000725\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003EI would ask the Minister to consider some of these questions in terms of assurances for our people at ground level. What level of comfort can they take now going to MSD, who are working under a budget that we would consider is now underfunded? They don\u2019t have the resources, they don\u2019t have the expertise, and they don\u2019t have the skills at MSD to deal with some of these issues. I haven\u2019t even got on to the M\u0101ori situation or the disabled situation. There are a lot of concerned groups in the community at the moment. I put those questions forward for the Minister to answer and to consider, and I look forward to her response.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022 data-id=\u0022bee246ec408c4d748ac8fb41b78f045b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000726\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bee246ec408c4d748ac8fb41b78f045b\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment):\u003C/span\u003E Yes, I\u2019d like to keep to the issues that are outlined in the bill, and the one that the member the Hon Willie Jackson raises is the jobseeker profile. This is more about the fact that we do want to have more meaningful employment conversations with those who apply for the jobseeker benefit. The front-line staff do incredible work. I don\u2019t have the lack of confidence that the member does in the ability of the Ministry of Social Development staff to actually have an applicant have a jobseeker profile with their work experience. Their qualifications will actually make it so much easier for Work and Income to support them into employment. That\u2019s exactly what it\u2019s about. It\u2019s really simple, and we\u2019re just asking that that jobseeker profile is completed at the commencement of a benefit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022 data-id=\u0022234beed5520c40afa4f42f1f38968cf5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000727\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022234beed5520c40afa4f42f1f38968cf5\u0022\u003EHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I really want to look at clause\u00A012, inserting new section 233A, which is where there is the detail around \u201CCancellation of main benefit for continuing failure to comply\u201D. I want to ask the Minister for Social Development and Employment if she was presented with any new evidence that showed that the measures in this particular section would be effective in any way with regards to not only compliance but also to supporting those who are on benefit to go into employment. Ultimately, it\u2019s important to refer back to that, because the objective of this bill is supposed to be to support New Zealanders into employment. The evidence that I\u2019ve previously seen is certainly clear about the fact that sanctions are not a tool that should be considered effective for the purpose of supporting people into employment, so I\u2019d like the Minister to let us know if she\u2019s been presented with any new credible evidence that would support the new section to stand as it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000728\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EBecause of the concerns that I have with the proposed new section and with the way in which the sanctions will be applied, I also want to ask the Minister whether or not the operational instruction has changed. In the past, it was always the case that a sanction should be applied as a last resort as opposed to something that is willy-nilly dealt out to clients on benefit, given the very serious implications for the individual receiving the benefit, particularly if that beneficiary has children or minors in their care.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000729\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EBecause of the concern that I have with this section and the implications for people who would already be deemed vulnerable, my colleague Minister\u2014Minister! Ha, ha! Sorry, the Hon Willie Jackson.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000730\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a3632ef781884b638aae55d0545a1034\u0022\u003EHon Willie Jackson\u003C/span\u003E: Wanna be, one day\u2014again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000731\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bd22bd58868a421da27750e290ff7ea9\u0022\u003EHon CARMEL SEPULONI\u003C/span\u003E: He hopes to be a Minister again soon. The Hon Willie Jackson has suggested, after new section 233A(3), the insertion of subclause (4): \u201CMSD must not cancel a person\u2019s (P) main benefit\u2014(a) unless adequate support systems are in place to support client compliance; or (b) without considering an evaluation on the impact of sanctions on the client and their family; or (c) there is a risk of the client being homeless as a result of any cancellation; or (d) if any assessment concludes that the sanction is overly punitive.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000732\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003ENow, on top of wanting to know, from the Minister, if she has received any new advice that states that sanctions will support New Zealanders or beneficiaries into work, I do want to know whether there was any advice about whether this particular section could lead to increased homelessness of those that are on benefit. They are already receiving very low levels of income through the welfare system. Many of them are paying upwards of 50 percent for the accommodation that they\u2019re living in. If they are to lose half or part of the benefit or the full benefit, then common sense has to prevail: their ability to retain and maintain accommodation would be compromised. I\u2019m concerned about this because, of course, we\u2019ve seen this with the barriers to emergency housing being put in place and the blockage to New Zealanders who require it, and with the increase in homelessness being seen across the country. Our social service providers are very clear that that homelessness increase has come about as a direct result of the policy change to accessing emergency housing, so I want to know whether this section is going to result in increased homelessness and whether or not the Minister has received any advice from her officials that suggests that may be the case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000733\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EIf I go back to the first question, around whether or not operational practices have changed, in the past, sanctions were applied as a last resort. The increased emphasis on sanctions makes me wonder whether or not that operational instruction, or operational way of implementing the policy, has changed. If the Minister could respond to those questions, that would be great.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022 data-id=\u00221e9fa1f8a36b4a1e9b694e4c7d0f5a1e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000734\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221e9fa1f8a36b4a1e9b694e4c7d0f5a1e\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment):\u003C/span\u003E Yes, the previous Government had a directive that sanctions should be used sparingly. That\u2019s not the view of this Government. The view of this Government is that there is the balancing of rights and responsibilities between those who are receiving benefits and the taxpayers who are funding it. With the traffic light system, 98\u00A0percent are at green, which is fantastic news. They know what their obligations are. They know what the steps are that will improve their chances of finding a job. I\u2019ll repeat that there is no sanction if you can\u2019t find a job. It\u2019s just about taking the steps necessary to improve your chances. The 13-week cancellation, I would reiterate, is for if they fail to re-comply. It would be a very rare occurrence where someone continues to ignore their responsibilities with all the assistance that\u2019s available through the Ministry of Social Development at the moment. There\u2019s incredible support that\u2019s provided by front-line staff. At the end of the day, if people don\u2019t engage and don\u2019t comply with their obligations, there has to be a consequence, and our Government believes in consequences.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022 data-id=\u0022541b6cdb4ded4125b001e421ce6aa560\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000735\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022541b6cdb4ded4125b001e421ce6aa560\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. This is our first call on clause\u00A010\u2014at least on the Green Party side. This is the bit that\u2019s adding new sections 183A to 183D into Part 4 of the Act after the subpart 2 heading. This is the jobseeker profile bit. I wanted to jump on to 183A(2), and I will also touch on 183A(4), and then I\u2019ll move on to new section 183B. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000736\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EIn the select committee, a lot of the questions we asked were about how this would work in practice. We heard from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) that a lot of stuff was still being developed around how this would be applied. For example, in new section 183A(2) of the Social Security Act that has been proposed, it reads \u201CMSD must require \u2026 [a person] to have a jobseeker profile completed to MSD\u2019s satisfaction.\u201D Since the select committee process, is the Minister aware of any guidelines that have been developed to ensure that people on the benefit, particularly those who are expected to complete a jobseeker profile, have a clear understanding of what MSD\u2019s expectations are when it comes to the level of thoroughness that needs to be put into this profile? I guess the language in the legislation is very broad. It just says, \u201Cto MSD\u2019s satisfaction,\u201D which means there\u2019s a high level of discretion attached. Often some of these more specific bits get added somewhere on the website. I guess I\u2019m curious to know whether these guidelines have already been developed or whether they\u2019re still under way, as we understood they were at the time we were considering this bill in the select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000737\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003ENew section 183A(4), for example, proposed for the Social Security Act, talks about how the \u201CForm and revocation of requirement\u201D communicated to a beneficiary may be oral or written. I\u2019m curious to know whether there have been guidelines already developed as to when either of these will be applied. When will MSD choose to communicate things orally or in writing? I\u2019m also interested to know, in clause 10 but basically in new section 183A(4), about the changes to the Social Security Act. That\u2019s on page\u00A012, just for the Chair in case she\u2019s trying to follow my references. It talks about how this \u201CForm and revocation of requirement\u201D may be revoked orally or in writing and only if MSD considers a requirement \u201Cnot reasonable in the circumstances of \u2026 [the person], \u2026 [the person\u2019s] spouse or partner, or of both.\u201D Has MSD already developed a list, since the select committee process, of these \u201Cnot reasonable circumstances\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000738\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003ENow, we\u2019re moving on to new section 183B, which talks about what happens if a person does not have a jobseeker profile completed. Basically, I\u2019m concerned about how this may result in delays to a benefit being granted. This brings me to my amendment\u2014that is No. 266\u2014which would basically, in clause 10, add new sections 183B and 183C in the Social Security Act and require MSD to assess a claim for a benefit despite the beneficiary failing to complete a jobseeker profile if the person is in serious hardship and if not granting a benefit could present a serious risk to their wellbeing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000739\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EThe reason for that is that I think it isn\u2019t clear enough in the Act. For example, when I was a welfare advocate, I would work with people who were homeless and who were not receiving a benefit. Sometimes, people would take them on to Work and Income, for example, for them to receive a benefit for the first time. Delays in this would have massive consequences to the person. A lot of the people that were working and who may have been chronically without a home may have literacy issues, for example\u2014some of which are not easily communicated. There\u2019s a lot of shame attached to those. Not everybody may be so open to, I guess, sharing the barriers that they may experience in filling out some of these things.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000740\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EBut, for example, if MSD assesses that somebody\u2019s already in serious hardship and if delays on granting a benefit or the requirement to complete a jobseeker profile exacerbate that, I think the jobseeker profile doesn\u2019t seem to be of much use. At the end of the day, if what we are asking for is for people to be in a good position to enter employment eventually, I would say that going from zero to having a baseline income is actually a really good step to supporting people into employment. I\u2019m curious to know if the Minister would be open to making that provision clear so that if somebody is in hardship, the jobseeker profile does not become a genuinely unnecessary barrier to receiving income support.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000741\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EThat also takes me to another amendment of mine that touches on this very same clause. I want to speak to it over the next five minutes. It is around the inclusion of people on sole parent support. Now, currently, people on sole parent support, depending on the age of their youngest child, have different types of work obligations and requirements, but, for example, in the provisions that are being added in clause 10\u2014new section 183A(1)(b)\u2014sole parent support is explicitly mentioned. I just wanted to test whether jobseeker profiles will be required for people on sole parent support who have children under three. If that is the case, I would invite the Minister to perhaps change that and to not require people on sole parent support with very young children to fill out this jobseeker profile. As has been debated many, many times, we recognise that those first 1,000 days of the child\u2019s life are really important. We want to support parents to be able to focus as much as they can on this, recognising that caregiving is work. I\u2019m curious to know whether the Minister would be seeing people, under new section 183A(1)(b)(ii), to still be required to fill out a jobseeker profile if they have a child under the age of three and whether she is open to my amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000742\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EWith the remaining three minutes that I have, I want to move on to new section\u00A0183B(3) and the parts where it talks about the lapsing of benefit applications in relation to a jobseeker profile. We\u2019ve got a provision here that means that somebody could apply for a benefit, but if MSD is not satisfied, I think that can end up lapsing. I do wonder whether, since the select committee, she\u2019s talked to MSD around, for example, what the time frames are in which she expects MSD to be able to evaluate a jobseeker profile and to then make sure that MSD can make a decent enough assessment that it has been completed to MSD\u2019s satisfaction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000743\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EThe reason why I\u2019m raising this\u2014and this will likely come up in other clauses of this bill\u2014is because we have recently heard from MSD about how the front line is \u201Coversubscribed\u201D. The reason why I\u2019m concerned about this is that we\u2019ve got all these provisions, particularly new sections 183A and 183B, that require MSD to be satisfied. I\u2019m assuming that requires people on the front line to be making decisions and assessments and to be reading those jobseeker profiles, which in and of itself adds new tasks to the front line. If we\u2019re hearing from MSD that the front line is \u201Coversubscribed\u201D\u2014as has been reported in the media by Radio New Zealand recently\u2014I\u2019m curious to know whether\u2014since the select committee process, as I\u2019ve said\u2014she understands, for example, the staff capacity and how much time on average she expects front-line case workers to take to assess this, and whether any additional training has been already developed since the select committee process to ensure that those front-line case officers can assess those benefit applications and jobseeker profiles in a timely matter so as to not put people in situations of hardship.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000744\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EWhat I would hate to see is for somebody, for example, to make an application for a benefit, fill out a jobseeker profile, and then for there to be delays of days, weeks, or an indeterminate amount of time and for that delay not to be appropriately communicated to the person on the benefit. The Minister talks a lot about responsibilities, but I would hope that MSD also sees a responsibility to assess these jobseeker profiles quickly. Again, I want reassurance, from the Minister, particularly about whether MSD has developed any more operational guidance or documents around how this is going to be put into practice and about the time frames that she expects these jobseeker profiles to be evaluated and assessed so that people don\u2019t face unnecessary and cruel delays that could actually put them into homelessness, as my colleague to my right, Carmel Sepuloni, expressed in relation to other provisions that exist in this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022 data-id=\u0022810ba74e3ea34331b3146efb5658ad90\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000745\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022810ba74e3ea34331b3146efb5658ad90\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I have answered both what the jobseeker profile is and why, and I don\u2019t intend to repeat myself.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022 data-id=\u002265013c091bd14264a4288ac4fe8107ff\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000746\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002265013c091bd14264a4288ac4fe8107ff\u0022\u003EHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I wanted to ask some questions about clause 15, new section 236B. This is the one with regards to community work experience, which is being introduced here for the first time as a non-financial sanction. I wanted to ask some questions of the Minister for Social Development and Employment to get clarity on this particular clause and this sanction. It\u2019s really important we have this discussion, given the number of concerns that were raised by the community and voluntary sector and their belief that this particular community work experience is, in actual fact, unworkable for a number of reasons. I would like the Minister, on top of responding to these questions, to perhaps give a bit of a general overview on how they may have made it more workable, because we certainly haven\u2019t had that feedback from the community and voluntary sector.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000747\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EI\u2019m wanting to know, from the Minister, what the expectation is in terms of the length of time that people may undertake community work experience as a non-financial sanction and to ask the Minister whether or not there was a change of heart and consideration given to hardship support being provided to those who were undertaking the community work experience, whether or not those who might find themselves homeless over the course of undertaking the community work experience will be able to access emergency accommodation if they have no other options, and whether or not they will be punished with financial sanctions. If, whilst undertaking the community work experience, they encounter life challenges, which many do, and perhaps become homeless over the course of that time and find it difficult, if not impossible, to show up, what will be the repercussions for them, and will they then face financial challenges on top of whatever life challenges have affected their ability to complete the community work experience?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000748\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s really important that we have these discussions because we\u2019re talking about a group of New Zealanders who will encounter a level of challenge and barrier in their lives that most people in this Chamber would fail to comprehend. Because this sanction is being imposed on beneficiaries and, in many ways, it\u2019s like a type of non-paid work that they will have to travel to, perhaps on the daily, I\u2019m wondering whether or not the Minister gave consideration and whether or not\u2014because I can\u2019t see it\u2014this clause provides for support for travel and transport across the period of time that they are undertaking community work experience or what some people are calling \u201Cforced voluntary service\u201D; and, if so, what does that look like? I mean, clearly, many of them will be struggling with the day-to-day cost of living, let alone the additional cost that they will be faced with as a result of having to find transport to and from that community work experience. If they aren\u2019t able to access hardship support during this course of time, then that is going to cause a major issue for them as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000749\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EI wanted to know from the Minister whether or not they have an expectation, or the ministry has an expectation, that vetting will be undertaken for the organisation and for the person undertaking the community service to ensure that both parties are safe in the work experience that will be undertaken and whether or not there had been a conversation about that. In the event that the client is sick, what are the expectations of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD)? The community or voluntary sector organisation is not really an employer in this situation. They are taking someone on through a scheme that\u2019s been imposed by the Ministry of Social Development, and, therefore, what are the reporting requirements of the organisation so that MSD can hold to account the client who is faced with this non-financial sanction and also for the organisation that has taken them on?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000750\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EThen, finally, I have seen some of the international research on these types of measures, and it\u2019s not positive. In fact, the outcomes are pretty minimal or poor. I want to know whether or not the Minister\u2019s received any recent updates to show anything different.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022 data-id=\u00222db2db6a02af4d0089dbf68e015e2ef8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000751\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222db2db6a02af4d0089dbf68e015e2ef8\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just reiterate that there are four non-financial sanctions, where no non-financial sanctions were available prior to this bill. One of the things that is really important is the front-line Ministry of Social Development staff that are working with those who have not complied with their obligations. They are in the best place to decide if one of these non-financial sanctions is preferable and which one. Of course, just as some community organisations won\u2019t be suitable for placements, others will be. This is all about making sure that there are sensible non-financial sanctions that, actually, as a result of individual support for that person and a sanction that is suitable for them and their circumstances, improve their ability to find work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022 data-id=\u0022b24e939c30cd4b408423a91b0cc836ae\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000752\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b24e939c30cd4b408423a91b0cc836ae\u0022\u003EHon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. Just following up also in terms of jobseekers\u2014I\u2019m still looking at new section 183A, inserted by clause 10\u2014I\u2019m wanting to know from the Minister for Social Development and Employment how the bill would accommodate people with disabilities and learning difficulties trying to complete jobseeker profiles. There are some real complexities that I would expect the Minister would be very supportive of\u2014or sympathetic to, I should say. How will the bill accommodate these special needs in terms of disabilities?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000753\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003EI would also like to know from the Minister, because this is such a private thing for some of our people in the community, what measures are in place to prevent the misuse of jobseeker profiles? There is a real fear in our community, particularly our M\u0101ori communities, that their data, their information, will be misused. I would like to know from the Minister whether there is a strategy in place with regard to that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000754\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003EOf course, talking about our community, M\u0101ori are disproportionately represented in benefit numbers. Are there any specific strategies around M\u0101ori clients to support them in completing their profiles and compliance, and to ensure they clearly understand what\u2019s happening? What has the level of consultation been with M\u0101ori organisations and M\u0101ori community groups on this? It\u2019s incredibly important, and there\u2019s huge worry at the moment out there about what\u2019s going to happen next, particularly in the sanctions area, as we keep talking about sanctions. We have a clear line on this that we have to be more embracing and there has to be more aroha shown. That\u2019s certainly what the previous Minister was showing, which changed much of the culture that was permeating at the time. I\u2019m very proud of what happened before.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000755\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003EI would like these questions answered, but I also want to come to new section 183A, in Part 1, inserted by clause 10. As I said, in terms of filling out the jobseeker profiles, for some of our people at the community level, it\u2019s very hard. It may be OK for us in terms of filling out a jobseeker profile, but for people who live in poverty and who have complex social and mental health needs, they\u2019re not accustomed to that constant compliance of filling out forms. I want to know from the Minister\u2014just under Part 1, new section 183B, inserted by clause 10\u2014whether the Minister has considered the impact on wh\u0101nau and kids whose parents are sanctioned if a profile is not completed. We keep hearing that there\u2019s not going to be any change, but the problem is there is a flow-on effect in terms of wh\u0101nau. There are tamariki affected, and there are mokopuna affected. Has she considered the impact on wh\u0101nau? What extra supports is she considering to help clients complete a profile and to accommodate the complex needs of some people?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000756\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003EEverybody thinks everyone\u2019s got cellphones. That\u2019s not the case. There\u2019s a lot of people without cellphones. Some people are gang-affiliated, but those people have still got rights. After you get through the whole patch carry-on, how do you traverse a system that you don\u2019t associate with? I suppose that\u2019s the problem in terms of gangs. I wonder if the Minister has considered some of these areas, such as clients with complex mental needs, etc., etc.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000757\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003EComing back to my original question, how has she assisted her Ministry of Social Development staff in going down this track? They are not trained social workers, they are not trained at community level, and many of them do not have the proper background in terms of tikanga, in terms of iwi needs, and in terms of community needs. I think there\u2019s a lot for the Minister to consider here. I look forward to her response.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fe342415-6351-4072-a17e-19dab2ef184d\u0022 data-id=\u00221b78c2b3eeb9413a88f4077c90738205\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000758\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fe342415-6351-4072-a17e-19dab2ef184d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221b78c2b3eeb9413a88f4077c90738205\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to take my first call on the Social Security Amendment Bill. I just wanted to add some supplementary questions to the excellent questions that were raised by the Hon Carmel Sepuloni regarding clause\u00A08A(2)(b)(ii). I really want to home down on \u201Can activity in the community arranged by MSD [staff].\u201D, because there is a community work expectation as one of the non-financial sanctions that\u2019s been imposed but I\u2019m concerned that there\u2019s no definition of it anywhere. I think that\u2019s potentially quite concerning, given that, in overseas jurisdictions, we\u2019ve seen these sorts of programmes potentially open to abuse and potentially open to exploitation. What meets the threshold for community work? I do think that is quite important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000759\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fe342415-6351-4072-a17e-19dab2ef184d\u0022\u003EWhat safeguards, if any, does the Minister intend to put in place to ensure that this sort of programme isn\u2019t being abused? There are two ways that I can see it being abused. I invite my colleagues to think of some other hypotheticals and examples of how it might be abused, but the first is that a legitimate NGO might offer work that should be paid work but, instead, offer it as voluntary work. The second is that a business might set up a fake NGO arm to channel workers into their work. Has that sort of thing been considered?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000760\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fe342415-6351-4072-a17e-19dab2ef184d\u0022\u003EIn particular, I\u2019d like to ask whether there has been advice that the Minister has requested, commissioned, or received around the impacts of this on the labour market. It could have the impact of supressing worker wages, and it could have the impact of actually cancelling jobs that might have been created or making jobs that are instead, basically, make-work jobs where the people in these positions are potentially being taken advantage of. That is a particularly important concern because we have seen in overseas jurisdictions\u2014particularly in the experience of Australia\u2014how there have been concerns that there are some employers who might take advantage of this situation. How might we distinguish between different kinds of legitimate community work and businesses that are looking to take advantage of that situation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000761\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fe342415-6351-4072-a17e-19dab2ef184d\u0022\u003EAnother impact that I\u2019d like to ask about is around whether there has been much consideration on the potential impact of this on the organisations themselves in terms of there being additional resourcing that will be made available to the community organisations. I can see there are a lot of people who are unemployed at the moment, and it\u2019s being exacerbated by this Government\u2019s slash-and-burn policies, but I won\u2019t go that deeply into that. There\u2019s a lot of unemployment at the moment. I can see a situation whereby the NGO sector, which is already dealing with quite a lot, has to suddenly accommodate a lot of people. Look, a lot of the people who are on the benefit in New Zealand\u2014let\u2019s not resort to stereotypes\u2014are skilled, a lot of them are innovative, a lot of them are resourceful, and a lot of them will offer a lot of value within the organisations that they work for. However, the organisations will need a little bit of resourcing and will need a little bit of support to make sure that the employees, the people they are welcoming into their organisations, can have the proper manaakitanga that they deserve. The other\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000762\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002261325c3a3e904442906972d0b4554516\u0022\u003ERicardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000763\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fe342415-6351-4072-a17e-19dab2ef184d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e5a47da0d30c4ca69c40342afc969788\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ\u003C/span\u003E: We don\u2019t have Lawrence here, so we\u2019re scrambling among ourselves! Where was my train of thought? Yeah, it\u2019s that concept that\u2019s particularly important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000764\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fe342415-6351-4072-a17e-19dab2ef184d\u0022\u003EThe other side of my questioning is around what the impact might be on wider volunteering itself. If volunteering in New Zealand becomes associated with being something you\u2019re forced to do by the oppressive hand of the Government\u2014the heavy hand of Government\u2014will that lead to a drop-off in volunteer numbers? I think the vibe will be considerably different if I show up to a meeting and there are people who clearly don\u2019t want to be there but are forced to be there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000765\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fe342415-6351-4072-a17e-19dab2ef184d\u0022\u003EI want to return to the threshold, as well, of the community work. Will political parties be able to use these community workers? Will we have people campaigning for different political parties who are forced to be there? I\u2019ll leave these questions for now. I\u2019m looking forward to an answer\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022 data-id=\u0022b3b8304801af412d9731084607d07b44\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000766\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b3b8304801af412d9731084607d07b44\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The member\u2019s time has expired. I just want to recap on something, because we\u2019ve had a change of Minister in the chair and we had some questions from the Hon Willie Jackson, just before we changed Ministers, about those people with special needs or those people unfamiliar with the system, people with capability who might need particular help in terms of completing profiles. The other question was around the misuse of profiles. I\u2019ll just put that on the table. I\u2019ll give the Minister a chance to think about that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000767\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223890fbb83b61446bb10d39b01a10ffdc\u0022\u003ERicardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u003C/span\u003E: And the ministerial capability to fill them out, to assess whether they\u2019re correctly assessed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000768\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222cbd329fbe5e44b7b4237851a355b9fc\u0022\u003EBARBARA KURIGER\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, so I just want to give the Minister the opportunity to\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000769\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002265abb3e226a448d0b042b70e8475ed46\u0022\u003EHon Willie Jackson\u003C/span\u003E: Shall I repeat the speech?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000770\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002275978ccddab647758d03f6cff02fccc7\u0022\u003EBARBARA KURIGER\u003C/span\u003E: No, I don\u2019t need you to repeat, unless I\u2019ve missed anything. I think we\u2019re quite happy with that. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022 data-id=\u002223da7a416f8d4cbf87b894869b883b5e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000771\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002223da7a416f8d4cbf87b894869b883b5e\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask some questions that are related to those ones and to extrapolate a little bit further. One of those is simply whether the Minister can share what sort of organisations are saying yes to this kind of community work option. Do we know what kind of organisations would do that? I would hesitate to say most organisations that are based on voluntary work would necessarily want to engage. What sort of work is being considered, and where is the benefit seen in that for both parties?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000772\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EI also want to know about new section 233A, inserted by clause\u00A012, on page\u00A014. That\u2019s about the cancellation of the main benefit. I took, from the previous Minister in the chair, that she was talking about how we didn\u2019t really have to worry about the settings around community work, because the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) workers would have quite a high degree of discretion and judgment about where they place people and how they place them and the kinds of capability they had to get to the job and whether they had enough money etc. to do that kind of work in that way. I take the point that we have a lot of really talented people in our MSD offices, who, actually, should often be given quite a lot of discretion, but this section, which is about cancellation of the main benefit, seems prescriptive. It says MSD \u201Cmust cancel\u201D a person\u2019s benefit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000773\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EI\u2019m hesitant to use this example because I don\u2019t want to suggest that people who are on benefits are dealing with drug issues; a very small group of them are. If you\u2019ve got somebody who\u2019s, for example, got an addiction issue, they may be going through a process of coping, or not coping, and learning. The point where they get to this point of a breakdown in meeting obligations might be one where the case manager looks at them and thinks, \u201CActually, right now, they\u2019re at a critical stage\u201D. This provision seems to dictate to the case manager that they have no discretion at all in the situation. What I wanted to know from the Minister is why there is a \u201Cmust\u201D in this. Why have we gone for discretion in some places\u2014\u201CDon\u2019t worry about it; we don\u2019t have anything to see here.\u201D\u2014and yet, in other areas, we\u2019ve tightened up and made things mandatory in this way? I take the point that one\u2019s about placing someone in work and one\u2019s about cutting off a benefit, but you\u2019re still dealing with a human being in front of you, and there are myriads of situations. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000774\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EWhen you have those kinds of discretions that you give people for, I think, very good reasons and where they actually get to make a judgment call and get to know a client and get to make those kinds of decisions, what kind of auditing is going to go on to balance that out? If they\u2019ve got those discretions, usually we would see a check and balance in that situation, and so I would like to know what is going on there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000775\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve got a question about the money management part of the situation. I think a lot of us would have experienced, in our communities, going into a shop with a big sign on it saying, \u201CWINZ quotes here\u201D. You go into the shop, and the things that are being sold aren\u2019t necessarily that great. They\u2019re sometimes of quite questionable quality, but they\u2019re often also more expensive than what I would pay for them if I had cash. I want to know, when the proposal is money management\u2014which, to my understanding, means you\u2019ll be telling people where to get things and how to use their money and controlling what purchases are made\u2014how we are avoiding the problem that we constantly have where, if we subsidise accommodation, it goes up in cost and, if we manage the money and we have a preferred provider, suddenly that is built in because the Government is paying etc., and the cost goes up. These costs are often eventually placed very much on the beneficiary, and we end up with people who are also\u2014[Time expired]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022 data-id=\u0022ff1d30014d284981a2fb68701fa44407\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000776\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ff1d30014d284981a2fb68701fa44407\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing):\u003C/span\u003E I think I can very quickly respond to the last question around the use of \u201Cmust\u201D and the lack of discretion. If the member draws her attention to clause 14 and the definition of \u201Cfailure\u201D, there\u2019s the new section that will provide that the department must impose a sanction if there is a failure to comply with obligations. Then, in the \u201Cfailure\u201D definition, you must comply, or you must have failed without a \u201Cgood and sufficient reason\u201D. There is discretion in there for the department to determine whether or not there is a good and sufficient reason. There is a bit of discretion, although the \u201Cmust\u201D has to be applied in the person.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002227600399-0a88-4371-a784-b5a7bc7afc37\u0022 data-id=\u00224b699001597a432e926675c1bb6ebab5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000777\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227600399-0a88-4371-a784-b5a7bc7afc37\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224b699001597a432e926675c1bb6ebab5\u0022\u003EMARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori\u2014Te Tai Tokerau):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Madam Chair. Kia ora t\u0101tou. Can I turn our attention to some questions that were asked, just prior, around clause\u00A012 and new section 233A. Looking at this new section, I\u2019m concerned, obviously, that people will have their main benefit cancelled. The impact of that is a big deal. It is a big deal for wh\u0101nau. What I\u2019m referencing, when I make those comments, is working in a family-harm team and working with people that were trying to get themselves, I guess, well and better. In a similar example to that of my colleague on my right, trying to get to all the appointments to comply, trying to get to the interview, trying to get to the court is tough\u2014God, the whole setting is tough!\u2014and trying to get to all of those, meeting those obligations, getting there on time, and ticking them off is often near impossible, particularly when they\u2019re under such stress.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000778\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227600399-0a88-4371-a784-b5a7bc7afc37\u0022\u003EI live next to a Ministry of Social Development (MSD) office, by the way\u2014well, I think it\u2019s an MSD office because there are security guards outside. It\u2019s a scary scenario for many families that are already in a really vulnerable place. It\u2019s like, \u201CGee, here I go again! Now, my benefit is going to be cut. I have to go and reapply. I know these people haven\u2019t already listened to me.\u201D All of these new rules and regulations are furthering tension and pressure on families that do, in the main, want to get well. I guess my question is: in Part 1 clause 12, what support and mechanisms might be in place for families who become subject to these orders and provisions in ensuring that they have the tools, the resources, and the understanding of what is needed to become eligible?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000779\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227600399-0a88-4371-a784-b5a7bc7afc37\u0022\u003EThis will likely need to be in a timely fashion, so there\u2019s a lot of pressure. These people, without income, cannot survive\u2014even some with income can\u2019t survive, by the way. These are administrative processes that cause a lot of pressure. I have concerns around that and around how this will actually be activated and how it will occur. As you waltz up to a door\u2014as I was saying, with the security guard\u2014you walk in, you\u2019re tagged, you\u2019re given a number, and then you\u2019re lined up like cows. Those are the recent memories that I have of working in such places. I\u2019m not saying that all the MSD people are horrible. In fact, most of them are probably not horrible, but the conditions and the pressure that they are required to work under are tough.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000780\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227600399-0a88-4371-a784-b5a7bc7afc37\u0022\u003EI\u2019m keen to know what the understandings are and what the support mechanisms are that the staff will have to engage with people that are already doing it tough and that are really ticked off because you\u2019ve just cancelled their main benefit and because of the sheer pressure and stress that they\u2019ll be carrying when they walk in the door. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022 data-id=\u00222c7fd4095a7445c2992195dc8f7d1f7e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000781\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222c7fd4095a7445c2992195dc8f7d1f7e\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. From my experience as a constituent MP in Ashburton, I can say that the support offered by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to their staff is incredibly valuable and rigorous. In an electorate where there was a horrific incident 10 years ago, the support offered to staff over that time and continuing is very robust, and so I can provide assurances that it is of a high standard. If for any reason it would be found to be wanting, then it would certainly be improved.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000782\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003EI will go to questions from Mr Jackson, who asked around the jobseeker profiles. I\u2019m informed that the profiles are a standard feature in MSD\u2019s current practice. MSD does support clients to complete the profiles, where that\u2019s required, so if there are any accessibility issues, they can help with that, and they can also provide extensions. The member asked about the potential misuse of those profiles and misuse of information. Of course, MSD, along with every Government agency, takes the security of people\u2019s personal and private information very seriously and takes misuse of that information very seriously as well. They will require information security and compliance with all privacy requirements in storing those profiles.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000783\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003ENow, there were some further questions\u2014I don\u2019t recall from whom\u2014about community groups being able to offer community work experience. MSD can\u2019t anticipate which community groups may be in a position to offer work experience until the clients are actually out there in the community, but they will reach out to wider local groups for those opportunities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000784\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b8df3404962b467e88675a8c0ab9e6a6\u0022\u003ERicardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u003C/span\u003E: You could have consulted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000785\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fe4b59ae821c45c1937175840d879314\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER\u003C/span\u003E: There was actually a mixed response during MSD\u2019s consultation, but there are providers out there who are willing to be open to helping clients with opportunities like this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022 data-id=\u00224d0c56e3b3154072acd61405b6b6f47c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000786\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224d0c56e3b3154072acd61405b6b6f47c\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I find it really concerning that members of the other side have started trying to take calls, likely for closure motions. Two of the four benefit sanctions introduced here did not receive adequate select committee scrutiny and were not flagged publicly by the Minister for submissions, which means that, actually, this is the first time we get to adequately scrutinise two of those.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000787\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EI want to take us to new sections 183C and 183D. These are found in clause 10. We haven\u2019t actually spoken about those. I have a few questions and an amendment that I want to touch on on those. This is in relation to what happens if a person, spouse, or partner does not have the jobseeker profile completed. I particularly wanted to take us to new section 183C(3) in relation to the language, which says that \u201C(a) any benefit referred to in section 183A(1) that \u2026 is granted, at half of the rate of that benefit payable to a beneficiary\u2014(i) who is in a relationship;\u201D. This is, basically, trying to articulate what happens if one half of a couple does not fill the jobseeker profile. What I wanted to ask is whether that half-rate would be deemed to be at the couple rate or at the single rate?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000788\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EI say this because a couple rate is less than two single rates combined, which is a really archaic way of thinking. It immediately assumes that being in a relationship is cheaper than being single. I\u2019m assuming mathematically that that doesn\u2019t make sense. It\u2019s just a really weird thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000789\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002262828428-6565-42b4-bd4d-fa3b12531f88\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f230b64099b84b5aa38eaec7315ac50b\u0022\u003ESimon Court\u003C/span\u003E: It is. You share bills.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000790\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002221c2a8245120488bbe04e56e188e19d8\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH\u003C/span\u003E: Not necessarily, because people who are considered to be in a relationship\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000791\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002262828428-6565-42b4-bd4d-fa3b12531f88\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222ef1e0bb024b4836a744571024cba93f\u0022\u003ESimon Court\u003C/span\u003E: You share cars.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000792\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224b1f6a3d706c49d2abdcef0905e089fc\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH\u003C/span\u003E: No, Mr Simon Court. Being in a relationship could be dating. We\u2019ve had news stories about people going on Tinder dates being deemed to be in a relationship in the nature of marriage, which is why this is actually quite concerning. I wanted to ask, from a technical point of view, whether new section 183C(3) is going to be half a couple rate or, basically, a single rate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000793\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EOn new section 183D, the \u201CPeriod allowed for completion\u201D, if we go to subsection (2), there\u2019s that 20-working-day period that\u2019s allowed for completion when it comes to the jobseeker profile. I particularly wanted to ask whether the Minister had sought any advice from Whaikaha or, for example, any of the disability organisations as to whether that 20-day work period adequately accounted for disabled people. I say this because the jobseeker benefit is often the first benefit that a disabled person will enter. Then, they will likely try to apply for the supported living payment if they do have long-term disabilities. Since a person\u2019s first point of contact with the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) as a disabled person is on the jobseeker benefit and they only have a 20-working-day period, I wanted to understand what work the Minister did to adequately consult with disability organisations to understand whether that was suitable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000794\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EThis takes me to an amendment that I have under my name. This is Amendment Paper 281, which would go to clause 10. Basically, it deletes new section 183 and related clauses so that a person cannot be refused the benefit for the failure of their partner to complete the jobseeker profile. The reason for this amendment is that I\u2019m really concerned about how family violence is not adequately incorporated here. In some ways, financial coercion could be used by one half of the couple to, basically, say, \u201CI\u2019m going to refuse to fill out this jobseeker profile and then, basically, strip away income from you.\u201D In my view, it seems really counterintuitive that this could be used as a form of financial coercion in the way that the new section, as it is, is written. I would say that, actually, if the Government didn\u2019t want to add new tools of financial control and coercion, my amendment to it would be a good way to\u2014even if the Government wanted to retain the intent of the jobseeker profile\u2014make sure that no perceived partner\u2014I say \u201Cperceived\u201D because it\u2019s MSD who determines them, not necessarily the beneficiary\u2014can actually then say, \u201CI\u2019m not going to fill the jobseeker profile\u201D as a form of control, which, basically, becomes a tool of violence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000795\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EThe individualisation of income support is something that has been campaigned on by advocates for a very, very long time. I myself, before becoming an MP, actually helped launch a campaign around this. It\u2019s been well documented, actually, and the Child Poverty Action Group has talked about how this marrying of benefit entitlements and mixing of them has resulted in family violence becoming more prevalent. I wanted to touch on that. I still want to talk about clause 11, which I haven\u2019t had a chance to do. I wanted to particularly go into the new section 233A on the \u201CCancellation of main benefit for continuing failure to comply\u201D. I wanted to talk about subsection (3) that is found in this new section, because this subsection is subject to sections 236D(3)(d) and 245 to 248.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022 data-id=\u002203fb716c68d4474bab1b9acee0288aaf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002203fb716c68d4474bab1b9acee0288aaf\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. We\u2019re jumping around a little bit, and I thought we\u2019d moved on from clause 12, but I\u2019ll address Mariameno Kapa-Kingi\u2019s questions from clause 12 around the support in place for clients to meet their obligations and to recomply. I\u2019m advised that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) can do things like arranging recompliance activities at the earliest opportunity. Where a client makes contact, they can explain to clients exactly what they need to do to recomply and to get back on track with their obligations. That\u2019s the initial support that\u2019s in place for those clients. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000797\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003EThere was a range of questions around community work experience, and I\u2019ll try and fly through the answers quite quickly. I think these were in Mr Hernandez\u2019s section. They were questions about whether community organisations will be vetted. Yes, they will. Is there support for travel entitlements\u2014i.e., to attend the placement? No, there is no direct support for that. Access to hardship: clients will not be able to access the special needs housing grants\u2014oh, yes, including emergency housing, yes, and special needs grants\u2014while on non-financial sanctions. What kinds of organisations would be suitable? The MSD undertook consultation with a small number of community organisations, and some signalled that they actually could support clients. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000798\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003EMr Men\u00E9ndez March raised a point around his Amendment Paper. We, unfortunately, will not be supporting that Amendment Paper. He raised points about challenging the notion that it\u2019s cheaper to live as a couple than it is to live separately. I can think of things like sharing fixed costs like the power costs that you could share, and the fixed-line daily rates would be more affordable if you were living in a shared relationship. I can think of things around telephone costs or internet costs, which would be much better shared in a relationship, and, of course, there\u2019ll be situations on the border where the definition of \u201Crelationship\u201D is blurred. I think, in general, it\u2019s commonly accepted that it is much more affordable to live in a partnership and in one household, which is, of course, why many people, when they go out in the world, look to get boarders or they look to flat in order to share or split some of those core household costs. That\u2019s why the rate for a single person is not exactly half the rate for a couple. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022 data-id=\u0022a6407136cc774ef3a7308f8f026e547a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000799\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a6407136cc774ef3a7308f8f026e547a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m going to call the Hon Willie Jackson, but before I do, I\u2019m just going to say that if the Minister is going to be standing up answering questions, I\u2019d prefer people not to be shouting back at him as he\u2019s answering. The odd interjection is fine, but if you want to ask the question and listen to the answer, please listen to the answer. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022 data-id=\u00226289b9907ec6402fa5d6b3ca9079e615\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000800\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226289b9907ec6402fa5d6b3ca9079e615\u0022\u003EHon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the Minister in the chair, the Hon James Meager, for his previous answers. I still haven\u2019t got the answers to what I was asking before in terms of new section 183B(1), inserted by clause 10, pertaining to M\u0101ori relationships. Knowing now that in the chair we have one of the M\u0101ori experts in the National Party, I\u2019m sure he\u2019d be able to traverse this very well, given his background and expertise. I asked it earlier, and I haven\u2019t had that response. The impact in terms of wh\u0101nau and kids\u2014I\u2019d like to know where the Minister stands on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000801\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003EI also talked about the gang question and what extra support\u2014I know it\u2019s a tough area, but it\u2019s an area that has to be dealt with, because they come with complex needs. They\u2019ve got these new laws around patches, which we understand and we work by, too, at my marae, so there\u2019s not a problem with that. What extra p\u016Btea or funding has been put in to support this area?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000802\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003EThe key area in this, for me and for us, is the by M\u0101ori, for M\u0101ori area, which has been a real component in terms of this Government. I want to remind the Minister that it\u2019s actually been a strategy from previous National Party Governments. I want to know from him, in terms of jobseeker profiles, what sorts of M\u0101ori approaches are being put in place to facilitate the completion of profiles and compliance. I know that, on my marae, we have an approach that\u2019s not just an individual approach; it\u2019s an approach that embraces the wh\u0101nau, the wider community, and trained professionals who\u2019ve worked with the wh\u0101nau. What has the Minister got in place, and what are his comments on this? Is a by M\u0101ori, for M\u0101ori approach still going to be the strategy in terms of where this kaupapa goes? We\u2019ve been assured by the Minister that there are not going to be huge changes. Given Minister Meager\u2019s expertise in terms of tikanga M\u0101ori, I\u2019m sure he\u2019ll want to comment on this and give us his view. Has the Minister considered the unintended consequences with regards to this?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000803\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003EFurther to the question I asked earlier about the level of consultation, I\u2019d like to know that if the Minister\u2019s able to find out. Has there been a level of consultation in terms of M\u0101ori NGOs, and is there a strategy around that? Has there been a level of consultation in terms of the Iwi Leaders Forum? Minister Meager, perhaps, may have been involved in some of that k\u014Drero. What is the stakeholder feedback to these measures? As I say, we\u2019d like to really find out if there has been a real strategy, given the high benefit numbers\u2014too high; too high in terms of M\u0101ori. Our people still deserve a certain amount of respect on this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000804\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003EGiven that, I want to draw your attention to one of my amendments to new section\u00A0183A, inserted by clause 10, which adds, \u201CConsider the specific needs of M\u0101ori.\u201D Would you consider implementing that going forward? Is there going to be a radical change in terms of the relationship with M\u0101ori? Is by M\u0101ori, for M\u0101ori something that this Government is still\u2014I remember previous National Governments led by Bill English were quite embracing of that kaupapa; they were absolutely embracing of this kaupapa. Is that something that is on the table still, in terms of this Government? Given all the bad publicity, we\u2019ve been assured that that type of kaupapa is still in place. I ask the Minister: where does the Government stand on this consultation process? Will he consider the amendments in terms of considering specific needs for M\u0101ori, and is there a specific strategy going forward that embraces the community?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000805\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003EAlso, I want to know, from the Minister, how he distinguishes between iwi and NGOs. This is quite a major question, given Mariameno\u2019s got some fundamentalist mates who just want to be consulted. We want some of our groups at ground level to be consulted. Is the Minister going down that track in terms of broad consultation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022 data-id=\u0022857dd36894a8428788c9e15433436d25\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000806\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022857dd36894a8428788c9e15433436d25\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing):\u003C/span\u003E I thank the member the Hon Willie Jackson for his kind comments and his elaboration on my many years of experience of being a M\u0101ori. I\u2019ve been a M\u0101ori all my life, despite the protests of some people in this Chamber.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000807\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003EI want to respond to one of his questions about whether there is going to be a specific approach taken to clients. I would have faith that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) would take whatever approach suits an individual client\u2019s needs best, whether that be bringing in expert advocates like himself to support people through the process, whether that be including wh\u0101nau in that process, or whether that be determining what the individual themselves actually wants help with to go through that process. I think it\u2019s whatever works best for that person and that family and how well MSD can help them best move through the jobseeker process and back into work that would be the approach that we should take\u2014whether that\u2019s through a particular kaupapa M\u0101ori approach or whether that\u2019s a Pasifika approach or a particular ethnic or age or any kind of demographic approach. Take whatever one works best, based on the individual\u2019s needs and assessment. We won\u2019t be supporting the member\u2019s amendment, by the way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000808\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll address Mr Men\u00E9ndez March\u2019s questions around consultation with disability groups, which were, in particular, in regards to whether a 20-day working period was enough time to complete a jobseeker profile. Along with the assistance that I outlined before, the 20-day working period aligns with how long a person has to complete their whole benefit application. MSD, in that situation, can allow a client more time if they have a good reason for needing it. In those particular circumstances, a disabled person could take longer if their condition means that they need it in order to complete the requirement. I would anticipate that MSD are quite forthcoming with that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000809\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll just address some of the reasons why we\u2019re not going to support Mr Men\u00E9ndez March\u2019s amendment in Amendment Paper 281. It\u2019s our view that the bill already provides protections for clients when their partner does not complete jobseeker profiles. Clients and their partners can have an extension, all the requirements can be revoked, and MSD has discretion in this matter and would certainly use it in situations involving family violence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022 data-id=\u002266ceeda9bcc74b239def8c79952ead8f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000810\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002266ceeda9bcc74b239def8c79952ead8f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: We indicated at the start of this that we were going clause by clause, and it\u2019s been going very well. People have been looking at the clauses. It\u2019s now my judgment that probably everything before clause\u00A015 amending section\u00A0236A on page\u00A016 has probably been well-traversed and well-answered, so I\u2019d prefer if questions came from beyond there. The Hon Kieran McAnulty\u2014is this a point of order or a call?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000811\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022155c5dc250a24a678a5094e632fed523\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, no, I\u2019m seeking a call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000812\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002225747575d494430091e489e268215479\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: OK\u2014the Hon Kieran McAnulty.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022 data-id=\u0022061eb69934854808913e422e88afab18\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000813\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022061eb69934854808913e422e88afab18\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Musterer\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E Point of order. Thank you very much for your reflections. I did want to touch on, particularly, parts of clause 14. For example, I just want to, because no one has mentioned anything\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223e851bb9e824420489222a40b5bd09d6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve just taken a call from the Hon Kieran McAnulty.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000815\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002231aaedb2a78645bc8a850110419b8ef0\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH\u003C/span\u003E: I know, but I wanted to just test the comments\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000816\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002280e03cd2768c4dcc8a32c3364a2fd477\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, is this a question? I know it\u2019s a point of order\u2014is this a question that hasn\u2019t been\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000817\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b6212b2489244ff6b6ca149e4626788e\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s a point of order. I\u2019m seeking your clarification.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000818\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002228df6513c4cc422aab3fc1335cf08344\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: No, but the point of order\u2014is it about a question that hasn\u2019t been answered?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000819\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d7507d0e455c44f7b3da17a61e358ef2\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH\u003C/span\u003E: No, I\u2019m seeking your clarification and your comments around the clauses that have been covered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022 data-id=\u0022ebb37c0ca9da44e38c20e6d2d4961908\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000820\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ebb37c0ca9da44e38c20e6d2d4961908\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, well, we\u2019ve had plenty of opportunities to take them. We can\u2019t spend all day at the beginning of the parts, so it\u2019s my discretion that we\u2019ve covered that part off pretty well. I\u2019m going to take a call from the Hon Kieran McAnulty.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000821\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222220291ef5bd4a5f9d67904be7c84431\u0022\u003ERicardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u003C/span\u003E: Can you point out where clause 14 has been adequately\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000822\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ad837c96c3ec41739d3f172aef28bc57\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: No, I\u2019ve made a ruling, thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022 data-id=\u0022abf798862e674081b30f6f341369b0de\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000823\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022abf798862e674081b30f6f341369b0de\u0022\u003EHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. You\u2019ll be pleased to know that my contribution is about new section\u00A0236B, inserted by clause 15. I specifically want to talk about the community work experience. It goes down under subsection (4)(a)(i) and outlines the type of community work experience that might be suitable. Obviously, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has the discretion to decide.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000824\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003EI actually hadn\u2019t intended to take a call, but I was reading through the bill, and this thing caught my eye. It caught my eye because many years ago for a period of time under the Key Government, I was a case manager at Work and Income.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000825\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002262478ee90a75411190a2bec6730ae005\u0022\u003EHelen White\u003C/span\u003E: I did not know that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000826\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d0eb572c4c7a4f4e9c0c6e6c47bf9c8e\u0022\u003EHon KIERAN McANULTY\u003C/span\u003E: Yep. Yeah, no, I\u2019m a pretty private guy. The regular frustration for us when we were trying to help people into work during that time\u2014and it was a difficult period of time\u2014was that many of the rules that came out in that period were really made for the cities and weren\u2019t made for regional and rural New Zealand. Of course, if you become unemployed in rural New Zealand, it is exceptionally difficult to comply with any requirements. It\u2019s even harder to comply with sanctions just by virtue of the fact that you live so far away from the place where you\u2019re supposed to engage with your case manager.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000827\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003ENow, obviously, technology has improved since then, but the point remains the same: if you are on a significantly restricted income due to being unemployed and you are required to report at significant cost and time just to get there, or you\u2019re required to search for jobs in some areas where there are no jobs, that is a massive barrier. It wasn\u2019t considered then, and reading through this, I\u2019m concerned that it\u2019s not considered now. More specifically, I want to look at the two descriptions that may comply with community work experience\u2014the first being with a community or voluntary sector organisation that MSD is satisfied is reasonably suitable, and the other one that MSD is satisfied is reasonably suitable. This part hasn\u2019t been addressed by previous speakers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000828\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003EMy concern is that some communities\u2014and, actually, the Minister in the chair will recognise this from his electorate itself\u2014are so isolated and so small that the opportunity to engage with the community or voluntary group is actually really limited. In some rural communities, the only volunteer organisation would be the rural fire brigade, and there is no way in hell that they\u2014through their rules that are based on health and safety\u2014would allow anyone that is required to comply with these to volunteer for them. It\u2019s quite a long and protracted process to get involved in the fire brigade, with good reason. The point I\u2019m trying to make is that, in these isolated rural communities, the opportunity to comply with this is actually quite restricted. It\u2019s not unreasonable or unfeasible that there could be someone in these current, difficult economic times that finds themselves without work and needs assistance through Work and Income and is required through the process to then do community work experience but can\u2019t find anywhere that would take them on. I want to know what would happen in that instance. It\u2019s a genuine question. I think it deserves to be traversed in the committee stage today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000829\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003EThe other thing that I want to clarify is whether the Minister can rule out that an organisation that isn\u2019t a community or voluntary sector organisation would be considered to comply with this. In other words, could a business fit the bill? If a business does fit the bill and it could be deemed reasonably suitable by MSD given the lack of suitable community and voluntary organisations in a specified area, can he rule out the prospect that someone who\u2019s required to do community work will end up doing so for a private employer for no pay? Now, that might seem ridiculous, and, if it is, it\u2019s easily clarified, but if there isn\u2019t a restriction on that, then that\u2019s quite a serious thing that would deserve further exploration. That\u2019s just a couple of questions for the Minister there, and we might follow up after.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022 data-id=\u00220f2da72f504347aeb2d3f148e4268dd1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000830\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220f2da72f504347aeb2d3f148e4268dd1\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I am trying to answer these questions in real time so we can get some good back and forth and some quick progress. I\u2019ll point the member back to retread a couple of pages back to clause 14 and the definition around \u201Cfailure\u201D. That failure does not include having a good and sufficient reason, so you must have failed without a good and sufficient reason. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003EIn the circumstance that the member outlines around the rural and regional community, he makes a very valid point. I\u2019ll push back a little bit. I think, actually, our rural communities are relatively strong when it comes to the accessibility to voluntary groups. I can think of an incorporated society\u2019s constitution that I rewrote for the Lagmhor Westerfield War Memorial Hall Committee, and in and around the community of Lagmhor and Westerfield, where my brother farms, I can think of three or four community organisations that centre themselves around a school of about 30. So, yep, in some communities, it will be limited; in others, there are very strong community organisations. In the rural sector and regional sector, the only things that we have sometimes are our strong community organisations, our parent-teacher associations, our kindergarten groups, our Playcentre groups, our hall societies, the local school pool organising committees\u2014all those things that form the backbone of our rural communities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000832\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003EI\u2019m advised that the bill, in fact, will give case managers more scope to apply consequences that are appropriate for the client than what existed before. If anything, along with removing that binary choice between financial or nothing, this provides, actually, more of a medium way to put some obligations on clients but also to give them the opportunity to meet those obligations and continue to work their pathway back into work, and that includes considering things like where they live and what\u2019s available locally.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000833\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003EI think the only other question there for the Minister was around whether businesses could fit the bill. I\u2019ll get some advice on that. My instinct would be that, if it was replacing something that would ordinarily be paid work, it would be similar to how you can have interns but not interns that would ordinarily replace paid work. Members around the Chamber have had experience with that in the past, and we\u2019ve all seen instances of interns coming into Parliament and doing jobs that ordinarily wouldn\u2019t be paid for. Sometimes they push the boundaries a little bit, and we\u2019ve seen that in the past too, so I\u2019ll get some advice on that one from the ministry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000834\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022956df11805e54581b6fc105402926910\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March. I do note that I have confirmed and I did hear the advice that was given before regarding clause 15.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022 data-id=\u0022a2e5949ee80b4e0e990da8fd8abdf794\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000835\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a2e5949ee80b4e0e990da8fd8abdf794\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Sure. I\u2019ll take it. I wanted to ask why dependent children were added to the definition of \u201Cfailure\u201D. That is in clause 14. It hasn\u2019t been touched upon. It\u2019s new language that\u2019s been added. Why would you be including that \u201Cfailure\u201D means \u201Cby the person, or in relation to the person\u2019s dependent children\u201D when that was not there? What is the policy intent to that? That is massively unclear and has never been articulated by the Minister at any point in this debate. That\u2019s a significant addition in terms of language. Unless it\u2019s intended to fill some sort of gap that had been identified, I\u2019m keen to get clarity as to why, for section 235 of the Social Security Act, this is being proposed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000836\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EBefore I move to clause 15 on money management\u2014that also hasn\u2019t been touched upon\u2014I wanted to clarify for the Minister in the chair, who seems to not understand, the definition of \u201Crelationship\u201D under the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). You actually don\u2019t have to live together for MSD to treat you as being in a relationship of the nature of marriage. Actually, you could be flatting in different places and still be considered to be in a relationship of the nature of marriage. In fact, there have been well-documented cases of MSD constantly misattributing a relationship of the nature of marriage for people, which is why I was asking those questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000837\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EIf we move to new section 236A on money management, I want to talk about the proposed new subsection\u00A0(1) under new section 236A, where the money management\u2014which, again, is the first time we\u2019ve raised it\u2014would apply if somebody is under active case management. Now, I ask this because this kind of section, even though the Minister has talked about how it\u2019ll apply to a small percentage of people on the benefit, will still apply to thousands, and it requires somebody to be under active case management. I wanted to know, since the select committee process, whether the Minister understood, or had any updated figures around, how many people are under active case management. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000838\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EActually, what is MSD\u2019s capacity to, potentially, for example, increase the amount of people that are under active case management? Actually, for a lot of these non-financial sanctions that are being added, there\u2019s an ongoing requirement for people to be under active case management. Now, I think that, in and of itself, raises concerns in relation to the oversubscription of the MSD front line. If there\u2019s going to be, in primary legislation, a requirement that somebody\u2019s under active case management\u2014the Government has indicated that they\u2019ll want to increase the amount of sanctions; the Minister who was here before the one in the chair literally talked about how this Government believes in sanctions being applied more often. I have concerns about whether this is actually able to even be executed. That\u2019s on new section 236A.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000839\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EI also wanted to then move on to new section 236A(1)(b) in relation to the \u201Cfirst failure\u201D, particularly in relation to the language that is being added around discussions with MSD and an appointment with MSD in relation to a person\u2019s failure to comply. I wanted to ask whether, so far, MSD had already designed any operational guidance around whether these forms of communications will be by phone, face to face, or by email, and how that would be incorporated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000840\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EI also wanted to then move on to new subsection (4), which is in relation to how money management will be applied in \u201Cthe prescribed proportion of an instalment of [a person\u2019s] main benefit that is an instalment payable to [a person]\u201D, where this touches on the regulations under section\u00A0418(1)(ia). I wanted to ask whether the Minister would be open to one of our amendments in relation to this, because, at the moment, with the way that this is worded and as the Minister touched upon earlier, people won\u2019t be able to access hardship assistance. We have an amendment that allows people to access hardship assistance while they\u2019re under non-financial sanctions. \u201CNon-financial\u201D isn\u2019t defined in the bill in and of itself, but if we are told that people can\u2019t access financial assistance while they\u2019re under a non-financial sanction, that to me has financial implications, and I just don\u2019t see how that is logical. I wanted to understand whether, after seeing advice from MSD, which wasn\u2019t presented to him or to us prior to this bill being introduced, that shows that jobseeker beneficiaries on average are paying more than 50\u00A0percent of their income on rent, he thinks new subsection (4) in new section 236A is adequate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000841\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EI also wanted to ask about new subsection (6), which talks about how money management is imposed on a person, and there are conversations around the minimum amount of time, but there\u2019s nothing around the maximum amount of time that is being prescribed. We do have an amendment as well that I haven\u2019t spoken about that would then add\u2014[Time expired]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022 data-id=\u00220d196944c34e44948d8868a4fea54759\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000842\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220d196944c34e44948d8868a4fea54759\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing):\u003C/span\u003E I\u2019m just wary that we\u2019re running through too many five-minute slots without getting to questions that previous members have asked, so I wanted to circle back to Kieran McAnulty\u2019s question. It was an important one around whether the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) consider organisations such as businesses for community work experience when they aren\u2019t actually community or volunteer organisations. The definition of \u201Corganisations\u201D in the bill is broad, but MSD has been quite clear that those opportunities cannot displace paid work, and MSD would not approve community work experience if it is not a community organisation in a volunteer-type role. There may be some grey areas around some businesses that run charitable operations or have charitable aspects to their business, but it cannot replace paid work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000843\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003EThere was a question from Mr Men\u00E9ndez March around dependent children: why were they included in the bill? It refers to social\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000844\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226ced14acb4d041aaa449969d700f4a64\u0022\u003ERicardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u003C/span\u003E: No\u2014on the \u201Cfailure\u201D definition.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000845\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002201b1b92144404ea488a00c4e3ee43df1\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER\u003C/span\u003E: Yes\u2014the \u201Cfailure\u201D definition back in clause\u2014whatever it was\u2014that we\u2019ve gone back to, but hopefully we move forward. It refers to the social obligations which require clients to meet certain requirements in respect of their dependent children, and those obligations are part of the traffic light system. Dependent children, themselves, do not have obligations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000846\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227ce251a848f64cc58070d4ea65a45cea\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Can I just indicate to you, members, that the endeavour, in the committee of the whole House stage, is to try and get interactions going\u2014questions and answers. I know it takes a committed Minister and a committed questioner to do that, but let\u2019s endeavour to do that, and, in that case, I\u2019ll make sure that I give the questioners and the Minister the time to do that. That way, we can get through it. There\u2019s a lot to get through in here. To those who are calling for closure motions, can I suggest you actually have a look at the bill and see how big Part 1 is. Not to curb your enthusiasm, but there is quite a lot in here. It is within your rights, but I would suggest you pick up the bill and have a look at it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022 data-id=\u00226c9e71278dd8418d999cd3410ac524da\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000847\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226c9e71278dd8418d999cd3410ac524da\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I am trying to pack in as many questions as I can to actually respect the process. I genuinely want to honour the process that we have.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000848\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d7055bf943914b2a9705ba8721583723\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Can I just\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000849\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228e4eefd19e764d29996dfa4f53f6507a\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m just going to continue\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000850\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002214a21ea82331430497833714897746d7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m endeavouring to keep up as well\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000851\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022de38d03ed0f94f37be978b062192579a\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH\u003C/span\u003E: I can slow the process down.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000852\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226dbeca0f16c64653ad00852008177881\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: If you could just, perhaps, make it a little bit easier, particularly when we\u2019re using a lot of sections and numbers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000853\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002210f3d2fb1ebe43f58f31dffa47f83806\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, absolutely. There are no worries from our end. I wanted to understand whether the Minister in the chair thinks there\u2019s any merit to having not just a prescribed minimum amount of time that people can be subjected to some of these non-financial sanctions but actually having a prescribed maximum amount of time. I say this because of the financial implications that people can end up being subjected to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000854\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EThe other reason that I wanted to talk about money management and continue that line of questioning was because the Government has yet to produce a list of essential items and what is considered to be essential. I have another amendment under my name that would seek to give greater clarity. Why I\u2019m putting this amendment forward is because, at the front lines, for example, there\u2019s very little clarity for people on the benefit and, I would say, even for front-line case managers, as to what is considered, for example, essential under what can be purchased with the green card. The green card is something\u2014colloquially known as a green card\u2014that people use when they get given a hardship grant. This green card will now be used more often because it\u2019s the one that\u2019s going to be used when people are subjected to compulsory money management.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000855\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EFor example, colloquially, people assume that that can only be mostly used, at least in the grocery store, for things like food, but, for example, toiletries can be included in that. I would say that there\u2019s an opportunity to add a non-exhaustive list of essential items, or what could be considered essential, to give greater clarity and guidance. I think that could be something that the Minister could consider.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EOne of the questions where I left off before the Minister stood up is whether he had given any other thought about the use of discretion in the application of compulsory money management, following the evidence we received at the select committee stage in relation to the percent that people pay on rent. I find that this shows that compulsory money management, in and of itself, is unlikely to be workable for the average beneficiary. The departmental report\u2014and even the select committee report that we had\u2014very clearly showed that it\u2019s just over 50 percent for a person on the benefit, and it is not just that, right? While you\u2019re under compulsory money management, you may not be able to then access hardship assistance. You will be able to access your accommodation supplement, but the reduction on your ability to use half of your benefit to pay for your rent will leave the person under compulsory money management without the means to survive.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000857\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EI also wanted to understand\u2014because people can\u2019t access emergency housing grants, should somebody lose their home while they\u2019re subjected to compulsory money management\u2014whether the Minister believes that the access to the grants that allow people to access emergency housing should be relaxed. The worst-case scenario we could see is somebody being subjected to compulsory money management, losing their home, and not even being able to access emergency housing while they\u2019re under compulsory money management. That seems like a financial impact to what is supposed to be a non-financial sanction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000858\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EJust lastly, on compulsory money management, I wanted to see if the Minister had an update. At the select committee, we were yet to get, for example, the most up-to-date list of the retailers that people could then use for compulsory money management. Specifically, are these going to be absolutely the same as, for example, the ones that you can use the card for when you receive a hardship grant, or will there be a slightly different list there to better accommodate things?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000859\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EI also want to note that bills cannot be paid with the card that is used for compulsory money management, and that is another problem, because it\u2019s not just that the 50 percent that goes into people\u2019s rent will mean that they can\u2019t put a roof over their head but it\u2019s also that they can\u2019t use the rest of that amount to cover the bills. We are looking not only at people not being able to put a roof over their head but also at people not being able to pay their bills. I\u2019m curious to see how the Minister sees the provisions of the compulsory money management sanctions in relation to the potential hardship that people can experience under this benefit sanction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022 data-id=\u0022040ee12d696c43569fc60c8440ba5736\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000860\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022040ee12d696c43569fc60c8440ba5736\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. The officials are doing a much better job at keeping up with the flurry of questions than I am. I\u2019ll do my best to try and get through as many of Mr Men\u00E9ndez March\u2019s questions as possible. He started off, a couple of contributions ago, asking whether or not we have confidence in there being capacity to execute the policy. Yes, we have confidence. He then went on to ask whether or not subsection\u00A0(4) was adequate under new section 236B, inserted by clause 15. Yes, we believe it is adequate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000861\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003EThen we had a long discussion around money management and active case management. In response to some of the questions, part of the reason that money management is targeted at clients already in case management is that the Ministry of Social Development is already working with these people and they are well equipped to determine the most appropriate sanction for them, because they are the ones that are most familiar with their clients\u2019 individual circumstances. All non-financial sanctions are available to clients who are in case management.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000862\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003EIn terms of the question around \u201CWe have a minimum time; will we set a maximum time?\u201D, we have decided not to set a maximum time in the bill. We would be hoping that our clients would be under these sanctions for as little time as possible because we want people back on their feet. We want people to be independent and living strong, independent, and healthy lives.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000863\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003EThere were some questions, again, around active money management. I\u2019m advised that a list of suppliers will be available to clients when the policy is implemented. Mr Men\u00E9ndez March has proposed a range of Amendment Papers that would change and cap the amount of money on payment cards. This would actually reduce future flexibility in the system, and we don\u2019t support those changes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000864\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003EThere is an additional Amendment Paper there from Mr Men\u00E9ndez March around providing clients access to the temporary additional support. That\u2019s already the case under the bill. However, it is a longstanding policy that clients under sanctions cannot access hardship assistance. Access to hardship is a matter outside of the scope of the bill, and those settings exist in secondary legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022 data-id=\u002240f6671436594bf380f58e7cf8ea48af\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000865\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002240f6671436594bf380f58e7cf8ea48af\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I wanted to move to one of the benefit sanctions that was introduced at the select committee stage, with no ability for the public to actually feed into those during a submission process. This is the report job search, which is in new section 236E, which is being added under clause 15B\u2014well, new section 236E to the Social Security Act, under clause 15B of the Social Security Amendment Bill. This is called the report job search. I wanted to ask the Minister\u2014because, again, this was approved by Cabinet but wasn\u2019t even mentioned in the press release by the Minister when she announced the bill. We were only alerted to this when amendments at the select committee stage came through, which means that the Minister knew that she intended to introduce this and didn\u2019t let the public know; therefore, the public wasn\u2019t able to submit. Mm-hmm! That\u2019s correct. We\u2019re now debating this, basically, for the first time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000866\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EThis job search, those job supervisions, which is one of the non-financial sanctions that is being added, requires that beneficiaries subjected to the sanction apply for a number of jobs each week and report back to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) as a result of this. For example, if we look at subsection (4) under the new proposed section 236E of the Social Security Act, it reads: \u201CIf report job search is imposed on [the person],\u2014(a) [the person] must within the prescribed period \u2026 undertake at least the prescribed minimum number of job-search activities per week\u201D. Again, there\u2019s a minimum amount prescribed here; there\u2019s no maximum amount. What\u2019s stopping a vindictive case manager, for example, from potentially setting a really cruel and punitive number of prescribed\u2014or a future Minister from directing MSD to add a really unreasonable amount of minimum job search activities that must be undertaken?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000867\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EIn relation to this, the bill talks about how these must be reported, and this clause talks about how these must be reported back to MSD, but the Minister hasn\u2019t given us clarity about, for example, what tools are being developed\u2014for example, MyMSD. Have these already been finalised? What are the fiscal implications around potentially having to design a new portal for people to actually report these job search activities? While I totally understand that the Minister has just talked about how he is confident about MSD\u2019s capacity, we do have recent statements about the front line being oversubscribed. Particularly in subsection (4)(c)(i), (ii), and (iii), these provisions read that a person \u201Cmust provide MSD with supporting evidence of all job-search activities that [the person] has reported under this section,\u2014(i) only to the extent that the evidence is of a kind that it is reasonable \u2026 (ii) in the way that MSD decides \u2026 and (iii) promptly after MSD requires the evidence, and in any case within five days after the prescribed period.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000868\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EThis actually adds quite a bit of work to MSD, because it\u2019s not just assessing the work that the beneficiary has undertaken to then report that they\u2019ve done these job search activities. In order for the beneficiary to be deemed to have then complied with the requirements of this new non-financial sanction, MSD must be satisfied, which means the casework must then have to evaluate these three\u2014at least three, as Minister Louise Upston has indicated she\u2019s requiring right now\u2014job search activities. That\u2019s quite a bit of additional workload. It\u2019s not just looking at three applications for each person who\u2019s subjected to the sanction; it\u2019s actually determining that they meet the standards that MSD will be asking for. Will this be, for example, just sending your CV or having a cover letter that, actually, is not just \u201CHello, I want a job\u201D? The fact that MSD will then have to determine whether these meet some specific requirements does add quite a bit of workload.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000869\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EI also wanted to understand, for this new section 236E in relation to the report job search, whether any additional funding will be given to people for whom English isn\u2019t their first language, because I can see that, for example, for someone for whom English isn\u2019t their first language or who may have limited English skills, this may be an obligation that may be hard to comply with. When I was on the front lines, I would work with a lot of migrant Pasifika families for whom English wasn\u2019t their first language. Complying with these obligations can be really difficult. I understand that MSD has phone lines where people can access interpreters, but there are delays around this, so I\u2019m just asking whether the Minister has sought clarification from MSD about the support available for people with limited English skills to be able to comply with the requirements set out in new section 236E, particularly in subsection\u00A0(4)(c)(i), (ii), and (iii).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022 data-id=\u00225b0f0fdcd87344d5985210495a8eb2b8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000870\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225b0f0fdcd87344d5985210495a8eb2b8\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing):\u003C/span\u003E We are really rollicking along now. Let\u2019s go to the remaining questions on active money management. There was a question around how money management interacts with hardship people may experience. In terms of paying bills, clients will still get 50 percent of their main benefit as well as any supplementary assistance in the hand. Clients can use these funds to pay bills that can\u2019t be covered with the payment card, but the payment card can be used for some essential costs, such as food. We all know all of this, of course. The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) then assesses whether money management is the most appropriate sanction to impose, and this will include working out whether a person could pay their housing costs from their in-hand amount. But, fundamentally underlying this, a non-financial sanction must always be a better option than a financial sanction, which can only reduce payments by 50\u00A0percent. That\u2019s that binary choice. Again, on that, although cards cannot be used for bills, clients\u2019 expenses will be considered when deciding whether to set active money management. If a client\u2019s expenses\u2014that includes rent and bills\u2014exceed 50 percent, it would be considered as a factor in deciding whether to apply it in the first place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000871\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003ENow, Mr Men\u00E9ndez March made some comments around information being in or out of a press release. Now, with all due respect to the very competent communications advisers around the building, press releases are not the be all and end all of Government policy. You do have to look further into various policy documents. The bill itself\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000872\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002255ad7195a6f345d99b74b422d012dbdf\u0022\u003ERicardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u003C/span\u003E: There\u2019s no way they could have submitted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000873\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002246893284f25c45c89ffc5e34eba6e385\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll get to the rest of the question\u2014and then the question around how this is the first time we\u2019re considering the change made by the Social Services and Community Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000874\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223d256823551143de85345e70676b6df4\u0022\u003ERicardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u003C/span\u003E: In the House, yeah.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000875\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f070f17bd13a47f7a5651dd4994d470d\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, of course, that\u2019s the process that this Parliament goes through in terms of considering a bill. A bill goes through to select committee. The select committee hears submissions. Submitters sometimes make really good points. Those points are incorporated into select committee reports, which recommend changes to the House. The House considers those changes at second reading, and they vote on them, and they incorporate them into the bill. Then the bill moves forward to the committee of the whole House stage where we get a chance to debate them. That is the process that the select committee goes through, and I\u2019m very encouraged that we have a legislative process that is one of the strongest in the world, actually. Of course, it sets out a very detailed and well-trod pathway for legislators in this House to consider the content of bills, to hear submissions, to make changes, and then to debate them, whether or not they\u2019ll be supported in the House. Of course, the House has accepted the amendments to the bill at second reading, and, now, we\u2019re talking about the detail clause by clause.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000876\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003EFinally, just on whether or not MSD are capable of implementing these changes, well, MSD are a highly professional, competent organisation. They are a large, established organisation who have been doing this for many, many years. They will implement the appropriate training for their staff to be able to roll out these kinds of new policies. I\u2019m very, very confident that our excellent men and women at the Ministry of Social Development can do this now and a long way into the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f7fc7ac3-5ce1-43ca-8cd6-dbb0941bf3ae\u0022 data-id=\u002298d1abd2784244bbb00740efcfdfc189\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000877\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f7fc7ac3-5ce1-43ca-8cd6-dbb0941bf3ae\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002298d1abd2784244bbb00740efcfdfc189\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I only have, unlike my colleague Mr Men\u00E9ndez March, one point. It\u2019s actually around what happens if the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) fails to impose a sanction. In my constituency role, I\u2019ve dealt with a number of people whose benefits have been paid mistakenly. One was an accommodation benefit, which was paid about $20 too much for six months. Now, it was money they weren\u2019t entitled to, and MSD came and sought to recover it as a debt, and that was really onerous. I understand that, and we resolved that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000878\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f7fc7ac3-5ce1-43ca-8cd6-dbb0941bf3ae\u0022\u003EOne of the challenges here\u2014and I\u2019m looking at clause 15, and section 236 of the Act itself\u2014is \u201CIf this section applies to P [a person], MSD must, for the first failure of P, reduce the rate of P\u2019s main benefit by half until P recomplies.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000879\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f7fc7ac3-5ce1-43ca-8cd6-dbb0941bf3ae\u0022\u003ENow, given that, as the Minister just said, MSD is a large organisation and it deals with a lot of clients, there\u2019s going to be a lot of these things going on, and these are actual trigger points. It does not say MSD \u201Cmay\u201D impose this sanction; it says they \u201Cmust\u201D. If the trigger occurs and they don\u2019t impose the sanction, does that lead us to a conclusion that the beneficiary \u201CP\u201D is being overpaid? Now, the sanctions are, on some occasions, half but, on other occasions, the entire benefit. That could be $700 or $800 a week. Now, if the MSD system fails to pick up or a person fails to action the reduction that is mandated by this legislation, is it the case that the beneficiary is receiving, wrongly, $800 a week and MSD will then be obliged to go and recover that $800? Are we, if this occurs, throwing the beneficiary into a pit of debt? Of course, they won\u2019t be concerned; they\u2019ll think, \u201CWell, MSD\u2019s not too worried about me. I\u2019ll keep my benefit. All is well and good.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000880\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f7fc7ac3-5ce1-43ca-8cd6-dbb0941bf3ae\u0022\u003EMSD is stuck on the horns of a dilemma, because they\u2019re obliged to impose the sanction\u2014they haven\u2019t\u2014and they\u2019ll be obliged to recover it. Is that what\u2019s happened? Now, I know that, in the depths of the Act, there is a provision that says, where MSD makes a mistake\u2014I can\u2019t remember the exact details, but there is some ability to give an indulgence, but if my memory serves me right, this wouldn\u2019t fit within it. It\u2019s actually quite an important problem, because there will certainly be cases where, for whatever reason, sanctions that meet the \u201Cmust\u201D test aren\u2019t imposed. I\u2019d be curious to know what the response to that would be, once you get some advice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022 data-id=\u0022cf92e4b76d7f40d59e6197ec5b853cce\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000881\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cf92e4b76d7f40d59e6197ec5b853cce\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. We\u2019re getting a number of questions generally around the suitability of sanctions, so I\u2019ll reiterate that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) determine the most appropriate sanctions for clients, and if a particular non-financial sanction is not appropriate, MSD have a range of other options they can consider. Hopefully, that puts to bed questions around whether or not some sanctions or others are suitable. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000882\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003EOn Mr Men\u00E9ndez March\u2019s questions around the tools being developed to support the report job search, people will be able to complete the requirements via their MSD profiles, and staff are being trained to support people to meet these requirements. On the question along the lines of assistance for English, or otherwise, literacy skills, as with any client engagement, MSD have been doing this for years. They\u2019re mindful of different clients\u2019 circumstances in engaging with them, and they can provide assistance with literacy or English skills. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000883\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003EThere was a question around what we do if MSD acts unreasonably in setting a minimum time period. Well, those decisions are administrative decisions which are all reviewable for reasons of reasonableness. Those remedies exist under this change, as they have existed under administrative decisions across Government for years and years. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000884\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003EThen to Dr Webb\u2019s question, which is kind of a circular one: what happens if MSD don\u2019t impose sanctions and what\u2019s the impact on a client? Well, sanctions don\u2019t apply until sanctions are applied, so it\u2019s kind of a circular argument, but there\u2019s not going to be a disbenefit to the individual until the sanctions are actually applied. You can\u2019t fail to follow a sanction until the sanction is in place. It\u2019s kind of a tautology that tracks itself. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000885\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003EOn the general question of what happens if MSD don\u2019t follow the requirements under the Act, well, again, that\u2019s just similar to any agency that has requirements under a piece of legislation. The failure to follow those obligations are the same ones that have been in place for years and years and years. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022 data-id=\u0022d0d12507e00d4c6daecf9813d2f31f65\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000886\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d0d12507e00d4c6daecf9813d2f31f65\u0022\u003EHon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I think I can help the Minister with his problems around sanctions. I think we all know that the research tells us that sanctions don\u2019t work. In fact, we\u2019ve been told very clearly that it can just compound problems for the wh\u0101nau.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000887\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222170b5bd-171f-4d9f-bfa6-cab72178f108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ce520895d23d4da286f4a0f83077e098\u0022\u003EJoseph Mooney\u003C/span\u003E: Why did you keep it for six years as the Labour Government?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000888\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a6681796720a46158bcffab408930414\u0022\u003EHon WILLIE JACKSON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, we made a lot of changes, I thought, in that time. The culture of the Ministry of Social Development was changed dramatically by the previous Minister, and we brought a more aroha and manaaki - type approach. I was very proud of what the previous Minister did. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003EI can help the Minister in terms of new section 236A, inserted by clause 15. He will see that I\u2019ve got a tabled amendment up which is designed so that families are not left with nothing. That\u2019s the problem with the sanction; they\u2019re too punitive. I know it fits in with Joseph Mooney\u2019s and many of the National Party members\u2019 general views about always pushing down on beneficiaries, but it\u2019s not the right type of policy for us to see our community thriving. That\u2019s why I put up an amendment. I\u2019m sure that the Minister, given some of his answers, will probably agree. This is under clause\u00A015, in new section 236A. He\u2019ll see my amendment in terms of reducing the rate of a person\u2019s main benefit to an extent that it threatens the wellbeing of children or people for whom that person is responsible or it diminishes the financial position to an extent that recovery will be difficult to achieve. I think that that will cover the problem in terms of the punitive side. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000890\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003EHe will also see, in terms of my amendment, that the principles of the Treaty are there. Again, given his background and his experience in te ao M\u0101ori, I\u2019m interested in his view. Does he see this as a breach of Treaty principles that the National Party holds so dear\u2014as they told us during the Treaty principles debate\u2014or where does he see it? I\u2019d like him just to elaborate in terms of his M\u0101ori answers. He gave me some answers before, but does he consider that there is a partnership in place, and where does that extend to in terms of M\u0101ori going forward? In terms of wh\u0101nau going forward and in terms of the strategies around by M\u0101ori, for M\u0101ori, where does that extend? What is the Minister\u2019s position? I\u2019d like a response in terms of that sanction because I think it\u2019s far too punitive at the moment. I think that my amendment will help the Minister immensely and the House, who all have wh\u0101nau at the forefront of their priorities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000891\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f317ee7d-f040-44ec-8f2f-ad0a9f206d75\u0022\u003EWe\u2019re talking about subsection (3), \u201CEffect: general\u201D, in Part 1, clause 15, new section 236A, \u201CSanction for first failure: money management\u201D. That sanction, as per my new paragraph (c), is put in place so as to not impact the wellbeing of our children, so that their financial position isn\u2019t made worse by the sanction preventing recovery and making it difficult to achieve. I think it\u2019s a pretty clear message and question for the Minister. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022 data-id=\u00222e3d9dbf70984916af829993a9865dcc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000892\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222e3d9dbf70984916af829993a9865dcc\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. This one is an easy one: we won\u2019t be supporting the member\u2019s amendment, because the bill already does exactly what he wants it to do. It introduces non-financial sanctions so that there is a stepping stone rather than it being an all or nothing situation, and so we can put obligations on people who are trying to get back on their feet and do not unfairly financially penalise them. In terms of his question around Treaty partnership, I just refer the member to the inspirational speech given by the Hon David Parker last night and his views on that particular question; I thought they were quite enlightening.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022 data-id=\u00220cd7471c69ed476dba3709b0481ee5d8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220cd7471c69ed476dba3709b0481ee5d8\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to ask you about\u2014on page 39, new section 270A, inserted by clause 33\u2014the cancellation of the youth payment and incentives for continued failure to comply. At subclause (2), it says that \u201CMSD must\u201D\u2014\u201Cmust\u201D; again, it\u2019s the use of the word \u201Cmust\u201D\u2014\u201Calso cancel the following benefits if P is receiving them:\u201D. Along with those two incentive payments, or youth payments, there\u2019s a cancellation of the accommodation supplement, temporary additional support, and any disability allowance. I\u2019d like to understand the rationale for this. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000894\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EMy understanding is that this is dealing with fairly young people, by the nature of the wording, and if they\u2019ve entered into a lease for accommodation which has attracted an accommodation supplement, they\u2019re then in a situation where they have a lease that they\u2019re contractually obliged to be in, but there will no longer be money to make that possible. I\u2019m concerned about this sort of spiralling issue for somebody who might already be in difficulty then having that compounded by the cancellation of an accommodation supplement and really having the rug pulled from under their feet. I\u2019m not quite sure what they\u2019re supposed to do, at that point, about that and why we\u2019re seeing that this is going be a good thing or is in proportion. I understand that there is a need for other penalties, but that seems quite dramatic, and I wondered whether the Minister has had advice on that particular section and what the rationale was. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000895\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EI note that there\u2019s a very similar treatment of young parents in that situation. They, again, lose their accommodation supplement, temporary support, and disability allowance. In that case, there\u2019ll obviously be an impact on children in that situation, given that it\u2019s a young parent. I would like to know if there was any advice on that and to get the Minister to talk about why that\u2019s justified.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000896\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225ec01d23-b55e-45b9-a668-d3bf14212126\u0022\u003EThen, finally, I\u2019d like to know about the credit card payments. This is an interesting thing. My understanding is there\u2019s credit loaded on a card, in money management. It\u2019s to be used in certain ways. It says, in that paragraph\u2014this is page 46, new section 340B, inserted by clause\u00A050, subclause\u00A0(2)\u2014that \u201CMSD may, after receiving an oral or a written application to do so\u201D, actually pay the person out if they come to the end of the money management period and there\u2019s money on the card. They can be given that money. It\u2019s an interesting concept. I\u2019d like to know whether the idea is to incentivise saving on that card so it can be cashed up at the end. I really am open to what the point of this is, but it\u2019s an interesting one because the amounts are pretty low anyway. I presume we\u2019re not talking about a great deal of quantum that would even accumulate on a card, but I\u2019d like to know what kind of quantum might be possibly at stake here. Thank you. I\u2019m looking forward to the answers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022 data-id=\u0022117d191ec9dc4b37aee48007e96a8ca1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000897\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022117d191ec9dc4b37aee48007e96a8ca1\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing):\u003C/span\u003E I\u2019ll approach the first half of those questions, and the officials can provide some specific advice on the second half. In terms of the failure to comply with the sanction, the legislation is very clear that there\u2019s a 13-week window in which the client has, or individual has, to comply with the particular obligation. That\u2019s three months. Then the failure must be without good cause or good reason, so not only does it have to take a three-month period of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) continually trying to engage and work with that individual, particularly if they\u2019re a young person, but then there also has to be a failure without good reason or good cause. You\u2019re talking about a situation where there is repeated unreasonable failure to work with MSD and to comply with their obligations and to hold up their end of the bargain.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000898\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003EWe understand there are all sorts of exacerbating circumstances and there are difficult situations that could cause MSD to believe that there are good reasons for failure to comply, but at some point, there must be a balancing test between what the obligations are on individuals receiving support from the community and what the obligations are on all of us to provide that support. That\u2019s the reason why the penalty is in place if there is a failure to comply, and I\u2019ll get some advice on the second part of the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022 data-id=\u00228923288042e04e98941b28fc45f50dae\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000899\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228923288042e04e98941b28fc45f50dae\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Following on my line of questioning on the report job search, in my last call, I talked about subclause (4) of new section\u00A0236E, inserted by clause 15B, but I want to move on to subclause (5), which talks about the duration. One of the concerns that I have in how subclause (5) is worded is that the way in which I can see the report job search working is that it\u2019s applied for a duration of time in which the person\u2019s required to apply for a specific number of jobs and to report back to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), but they can\u2019t access additional assistance. The key concern that I have is what happens if, during the duration of the sanction, somebody actually reports that they\u2019ve applied for a job, they get an interview, and, for example, that interview requires them to travel, to get a uniform, or to require additional assistance. There are grants that very much specifically exist. The transition to work grant, for example, exists. Are people eligible for the transition to work grant if they\u2019re subjected to the report job search non-financial sanction?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000900\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EThe transition to work grant hasn\u2019t been updated in quite some time, but it\u2019s actually really critical to, for example, supporting people should they be required to have, for example, specific types of footwear for a job. If they have to present wearing boots for health and safety reasons, that allows them to actually get the job that they need.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000901\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EThe concern that I have is that we have a so-called non-financial sanction that requires them to apply for a specific number of jobs, but then they can\u2019t actually access the assistance that allows them to then follow through with the application, the interview, and then getting the job. The Government is doing the very opposite to what they told us they want to do. I wonder if the Government would consider suspending the report job search sanction should, for example, somebody get to the interview stage of this process so that they can then apply for the additional assistance that means that they can then acquire other types of grants that allow them to then enter into employment, which I would have assumed was part of the Government\u2019s goal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000902\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EThat actually takes me to two amendments under my name that I haven\u2019t spoken to. Similar to what I said around lifting the report job search should the person meet the required intent, I also wonder whether, in the compulsory money management section, maybe we could have language in new section 236A(6)(b), inserted by clause 15, to replace \u201Ceven if\u201D with \u201Cor until\u201D. That\u2019s with the intent that the money management is lifted if they have met the requirements that the person was deemed to have failed to comply with and that then triggered that sanction. For example, we have these non-financial sanctions that have a duration of time, but some of those are overly prescriptive\u2014for example, four weeks. If somebody already meets the requirement, then they can just continue having no access to the hardship grants and other types of assistance. I wonder, for the purposes of ensuring that no one ends up being further disadvantaged by this so-called non-financial sanction, whether the Minister in the chair would consider that amendment that I have, which actually ties in really well with what I am asking in relation to the report job search.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000903\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EThe other question I had is around whether MSD was collecting any information about the ratio that exists\u2014particularly in the report job search sanction\u2014between jobs and the number of people on the benefit. In times when unemployment is high\u2014and if we have a number of people being subject to the sanction\u2014the reality is that there\u2019s not a job for every single person on the benefit. That\u2019s a fact; there just simply isn\u2019t. That has been the case, actually, since capitalism\u2019s been around. I wanted to ask the Minister whether he thinks that the job search sanction is also relatively unworkable, because there\u2019s no way that the Minister will be able to make things in a way that everyone who\u2019s either subjected to the sanction\u2014or to the obligations that exist that, if failed, could trigger the sanction\u2014will ever get a job. You always have a group of people on the benefit who will never actually be able to attain a job, because unemployment is baked into the system, which puts into question the whole purpose of these sanctions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000904\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219ed20db-5d6c-4464-9327-6cdd072bb4fe\u0022\u003EMost importantly, I want to go back to my question around the transition to work grant in relation to people that are subjected to the report job-search sanction. I\u2019m yet to talk about the upskilling one\u2014the other one that wasn\u2019t flagged by the Minister before coming into the Social Services and Community Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022 data-id=\u0022abb73e71e29d43b5b21c4773e0e537ef\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000905\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022abb73e71e29d43b5b21c4773e0e537ef\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to make a comment. I\u2019d be wary of stating what counts as full employment pre-capitalism, because some of the definitions of what someone was doing for employment under feudal systems and other kinds of distasteful forced labour systems\u2014I\u2019m not sure we really want to get into whether or not full employment 300 and 400 and 500 years ago was a good thing to aspire to. But, anyway.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000906\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003EWe will go on to the general response, I guess, to Mr Men\u00E9ndez March\u2019s questions, and it\u2019s something we\u2019ve covered before. What happens if there\u2019s not enough employment in a particular area to meet the job search requirements? What happens if we live in a rural area where the community work or the voluntary groups aren\u2019t available? That\u2019s all covered under the \u201Cfailure to comply without good cause or good reason\u201D section. If we consider all of those individual circumstances, those are all captured under that \u201Cfailure\u201D definition. I think a lot of these questions around particular circumstances have well and truly been answered and captured under that section.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000907\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef094bb1-be4f-48b8-bb53-52ce955a1c2d\u0022\u003EI will touch very quickly on the second part of Helen White\u2019s contribution. The question was around whether the provision to be paid out money on a payment card after money management will incentivise savings. I\u2019m advised that we actually expect clients to be using the money on the card to meet their essential costs. This provision is useful, though, where a client has completed the sanction and may need to access the money. For example, if someone moves off the benefit or into employment, they might prefer for the Ministry of Social Development to pay them what is left, rather than continuing to use the credit until it runs out. That\u2019s the reason why there\u2019s provision to be paid out money on a payment card.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022 data-id=\u0022753e126600d8442288cea0d316f6fbfa\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000908\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022753e126600d8442288cea0d316f6fbfa\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa):\u003C/span\u003E My colleagues are celebrating for me because, after an hour and 10 minutes of seeking a call, the youth spokesperson for the Labour Party is able to ask the youth Minister, now in the chair, answering for the social development Minister, about youth benefits. I hope to ask the Minister some questions about the effect of the non-financial sections on young people. I\u2019m talking here about 16- to 19-year-olds who are eligible for the youth payments and the youth jobseeker benefits, but I\u2019m also speaking about people who are older than 19 but younger than 24 and who are an important group to target in getting into work quickly. The research shows that being in work and getting into the workforce is really important for the development of young people, but it\u2019s also really important to support them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000909\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022\u003EI\u2019m asking here about new section 233A, inserted by clause 12, through to new section\u00A0243AA, inserted by clause 19, and the impact of the non-financial sanctions. I want to put four different questions to the Minister. Firstly, is he concerned about the increased reapplication frequency punishing instability for young people? Does he think that young people\u2014especially those new to the workforce, without strong family support, and often facing unstable housing and fluctuating health conditions and patchy access to technology and transport\u2014are all well placed to respond to an increase in sanctions, whether they are financial or not\u2014but particularly around the non-financial sanctions\u2014and whether young people can in fact comply with those? When we\u2019re talking here about some of the most vulnerable people in our community\u201416- to 19-year-olds with nobody backing them, no stable housing at all, and no adults in their corner\u2014are these the people who we should be sanctioning in the way that new sections 233A to 243AAA envision?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022\u003EThe next question is about the burden of the administration\u2014say, on a minimum income\u2014that would be put on to young people who might not be able to access either the system through the front of the house, because they don\u2019t have access to ordinary transport. Driver licensing is a real problem in New Zealand for young people, and so getting there in rural areas is harder, and access to public transport, now that public transport is more expensive for young people, is a real issue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000911\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022\u003EIt also points to this idea that missed appointments, lost paperwork, and systems errors are going to have an impact on everyone in the system but particularly on young people who do not have those skills after years of experience in a system. If you are 16 and have had limited educational opportunities and limited work opportunities, you\u2019re exactly the kind of person who, if you then have to comply with further rules in a bureaucratic system, is going to muck it up. Are these sanctions at all appropriate for the young people to whom they will apply, and how is the Minister considering the impact of this on the dignity of young people who are within the system already?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000912\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b464a62e-d900-452a-b842-e3cf4ccc6149\u0022\u003EMy next question is about extending the sanction periods on the records of young people. As I read the application of the sections, it looks to me that recording obligation failures for young people will now increase to double the period\u2014so a full two years for young people. Effectively, that would mean that somebody who was 17 who found that they were unable to comply might have a failure notice on their record for a long time, and they would be required\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022334bc302da144bd9849e6472fb1c8fdb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000913\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022334bc302da144bd9849e6472fb1c8fdb\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m sorry, I know the member has waited patiently for this moment, but the Government has indicated that it does not wish to proceed any further with urgency. I will therefore leave the Chair to report progress.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000914\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003EProgress to be reported.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003EHouse resumed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u002256b82cf015bd4ea690a9df5c4df51d56\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000916\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002256b82cf015bd4ea690a9df5c4df51d56\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Social Security Amendment Bill and reports that it has made progress on the bill. I move, That the report be adopted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000917\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000918\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003EReport adopted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022 data-id=\u00223f3824badb6a4c8fb09d60265267abba\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000919\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223f3824badb6a4c8fb09d60265267abba\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The House stands adjourned until 2\u00A0p.m. on Tuesday, 13\u00A0May.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000920\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003EThe House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20250506bec5f17166df483688718a18cccae932000921\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cbr\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n  \u003C/body\u003E\n\u003C/html\u003E"