"\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=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00224172b48b7cb24063bdc5a801000b9d97\u0022\u003EWEDNESDAY, 5 NOVEMBER 2025\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ca32c02a94574c278debfde65a357499\u0022\u003EWEDNESDAY, 5 NOVEMBER 2025\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000002\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=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e68fd018a3134dc89ddc4f79370b7d59\u0022\u003EKarakia/Prayers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00221e61489b293e4af5b52be3af35bb72bd\u0022\u003EKarakia/Prayers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022 data-id=\u0022e2b71689dcf648c9b21d15b48dc9ea83\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e2b71689dcf648c9b21d15b48dc9ea83\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\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, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002207501c8130714c3195676c7555ff9b4a\u0022\u003EPetitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00227f0f377657d141c49c7ea39c499c6d1a\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=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022 data-id=\u0022ddb885e9abd54239b01726804fdba89f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ddb885e9abd54239b01726804fdba89f\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. 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=\u00227f94da5e25da4d43b5d68f883b18b1aa\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227f94da5e25da4d43b5d68f883b18b1aa\u0022\u003ECLERK\u003C/span\u003E: 2024-25 annual reports for Creative New Zealand and the Retirement Commission.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022 data-id=\u0022eedec466e6c44b62a246367e374f62f5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022eedec466e6c44b62a246367e374f62f5\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve received a report of the Registrar of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests entitled Registrar\u2019s Inquiry into Carl Bates MP\u2019s compliance with the requirements Appendix B of the Standing Orders. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022\u0022 data-id=\u0022259749108e6648198a611377be0d8183\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022259749108e6648198a611377be0d8183\u0022\u003ECLERK\u003C/span\u003E: Report of the Justice Committee on the Petition of Christine McCarthy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022 data-id=\u0022b8ccb990f7c74cae91032598227e0802\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b8ccb990f7c74cae91032598227e0802\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No bills have been introduced.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00220d833145d1ac44359e9f79fd91f30f7c\u0022\u003EOral Questions\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002208f130d8fa884cdd8467f72a6eae6980\u0022\u003EQuestions to Ministers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002240e893df444c440faa5da76275fd7faf\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 1\u2014Finance\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb2929110b9e4de593f6e50397159f32\u0022 data-id=\u0022d09a6ce22daf4293aabea62804cc4aa0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb2929110b9e4de593f6e50397159f32\u0022\u003E1. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d09a6ce22daf4293aabea62804cc4aa0\u0022\u003ENANCY LU (National)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224478b7cb554b4997b2dcf567b6816349\u0022 data-id=\u002208a4ffe6342b48e69019b34d2f91c383\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224478b7cb554b4997b2dcf567b6816349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002208a4ffe6342b48e69019b34d2f91c383\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance):\u003C/span\u003E Today, Stats New Zealand released its September quarter labour market data. The data was in line with market expectations, with the unemployment rate sitting at 5.3 percent. The data shows the effects of an economic downturn which was caused by a period of sky-high inflation, followed by very high interest rates, as the Reserve Bank steeply increased the official cash rate in response to out-of-control inflation. Unemployment tends to be one of the last indicators to turn in an economic recovery. Economic forecasters are expecting it to fall next year as the economy strengthens. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb2929110b9e4de593f6e50397159f32\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226ac7a4ec738e4883970c265539504db9\u0022\u003ENancy Lu\u003C/span\u003E: How does the data compare with forecasts? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224478b7cb554b4997b2dcf567b6816349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226a37ca2d259b481ca813ac396103ea73\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: The unemployment rate is broadly in line with forecasts, including the Reserve Bank\u2019s August Monetary Policy Statement. Interestingly, it is also in line with Treasury\u2019s pre-election forecast from 2023, in which Treasury forecast that at this point, 165,000 people would be unemployed. In fact, the number today is 160,000. That means that what we have just experienced in the September quarter was what was forecast by the Treasury to happen under the previous\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002284f8db4346204b51af872b70e7282e38\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c06f15ccb52e4cc5bc5c479881e9c93a\u0022\u003EHon Carmel Sepuloni\u003C/span\u003E: Explaining is losing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224478b7cb554b4997b2dcf567b6816349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222851ce7e6ef8486aaa24b2ddbafd1650\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014Government\u2019s watch before it left office. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022146d696c30694f94b705b9c03d05afc4\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, and so is calling out like that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224478b7cb554b4997b2dcf567b6816349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f5991baade1d47188bde23700001184e\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Well said, Mr Speaker. Of course, this Government is not satisfied with that. We are working hard to drive growth in the economy, which will, in turn, drive more people into employment. Forecasters expect the economy to return to growth in coming quarters, which is good news for job creation and for every Kiwi looking for work. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb2929110b9e4de593f6e50397159f32\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002227f78dcdcc6c4619ae3a4cba6cf99151\u0022\u003ENancy Lu\u003C/span\u003E: Why has unemployment risen over the past few quarters? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224478b7cb554b4997b2dcf567b6816349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a11e166e5bdf45ed8efcab5bdd82860e\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: The economy is where it is now because in 2023, New Zealand had, by independent measures, the most overheated, inflationary economy in the advanced world. Inflation was far above the target band, fuelled by reckless Government spending. The Reserve Bank had to raise the official cash rate to 5.5 percent\u2014the highest rate since 2008\u2014and that, of course, is why the economy went into a long, painful downturn. It is now recovering. Members on the other side of the House\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002284f8db4346204b51af872b70e7282e38\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e807acd825104923910f96b308f40713\u0022\u003EHon Carmel Sepuloni\u003C/span\u003E: Still blaming everyone else. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224478b7cb554b4997b2dcf567b6816349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e79ff638219b45ae95753bb065efd5cb\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014might want to look at the actions of the previous Government when judging today\u2019s data, and, members\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229dfedde5130948688a420c402a6f8951\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Good, that\u2019s enough. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224478b7cb554b4997b2dcf567b6816349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228cc6b403436b49aeacfc08ef9b1cc8e3\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014I would also say this\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221574930dedf648899dfabd2c55de78d9\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That is enough, thank you\u2014the end of the question, thank you. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb2929110b9e4de593f6e50397159f32\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f70a996caeb544468b53c29d3bd80503\u0022\u003ENancy Lu\u003C/span\u003E: What is the Government doing to address unemployment? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224478b7cb554b4997b2dcf567b6816349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b8d1ba42651243839f14b038cb1dccc0\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Well\u2014[Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ea3ac02b1574c079f55aa9335318a96\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Wait\u2014just wait. You can\u2019t start a barrage like that before there\u2019s even one word out of the Minister\u2019s mouth. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224478b7cb554b4997b2dcf567b6816349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ed7f349eeb474f678d2fadd4134f4e73\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, a growing and strong economy is the key to getting more Kiwis into work. This is absolutely a time for backing effort, aspiration, and job creation. It is not the time for introducing broad new taxes and returning to reckless fiscal management. Our Government has been focused on rebuilding the economy to deliver more and better-paying jobs; fast tracking private sector projects that are job-rich, from housing to infrastructure expansion\u2014opposed by my colleagues on the other side of the House\u2014and delivering\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022afebd8d7b2ea40528c4b43d85bde5f2b\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Good. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224478b7cb554b4997b2dcf567b6816349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022050ea33872db45a5815e6d7f3bea4f15\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014$7 billion of Government-funded construction work and the Investment Boost tax policy. These are the policies which drive growth and job creation. This is the prescription New Zealand needs. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221ecbfa031c374055a6cc3d1923aafd66\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019d just remind all Ministers that concise answers are good answers. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022be9ae8b9f17b4d079d2e7a5528db92d9\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 2\u2014Prime Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002250f5bb7d5a8746cf826d89cfc3794c78\u0022 data-id=\u002229ba542879e548a5915653ac02f9d91b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002250f5bb7d5a8746cf826d89cfc3794c78\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002229ba542879e548a5915653ac02f9d91b\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition):\u003C/span\u003E Point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand the Prime Minister is in the building. He was on the tiles about five minutes ago answering media questions, so I seek leave for my question to be held until he\u2019s available in the debating chamber to answer it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022 data-id=\u00222d24d96a4a7d4d73b92009eb415065d2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222d24d96a4a7d4d73b92009eb415065d2\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, that\u2019s an interesting reference you\u2019re making to a member\u2019s not being present, which is not appropriate. However, I will put the leave. Is there any objection to that course of action?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dcb695bdb1494214aaea31b3338d42aa\u0022\u003EHon Members\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002250f5bb7d5a8746cf826d89cfc3794c78\u0022 data-id=\u0022b93c13c74f674694b586ac06ce96c8ec\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002250f5bb7d5a8746cf826d89cfc3794c78\u0022\u003E2. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b93c13c74f674694b586ac06ce96c8ec\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=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022 data-id=\u002266808101ca86425fa220be11923895f1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002266808101ca86425fa220be11923895f1\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Deputy Prime Minister) \u003C/span\u003Eon behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, absolutely, and particularly this Government\u2019s very careful use of its own finances. We inherited conditions where Government spending had increased very rapidly, leading to high inflation and high interest rates that were hurting Kiwis in their businesses, their farms, their firms, and their families. We have set a very conservative operating allowance, forcing Minister\u2019s to do more with less each year, just as families and households have had to do over the last few years. As a result of the Government being careful with its finances, we are able to see declining inflation, declining interest rates, and an economic recovery for the benefit of all New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f7e23d3e36441cbb5adcaca9866cbeb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022783eb73bf3374529bf4684740f542865\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: And a Prime Minister on the run. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a60f4d2c5f2e4ac79a0cb108328cff56\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, sorry, you can\u2019t make a statement like that. Just calm it down.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002250f5bb7d5a8746cf826d89cfc3794c78\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f966ddc46ef547ba815b8f33c2351190\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by his claim six months ago that unemployment had peaked, given that it\u2019s still rising, with as many people now out of work as the entire population of Tauranga?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d099c52bdaf249ab8c3da190abf8aeb7\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: I do stand by that statement, because clearly unemployment has moved very little since that time. It is peaking and will decline in good time. As the Minister of Finance has recently said, one of the last things to be fixed when you have to do an economic repair job is unemployment. First comes the Government spending blowout\u2014thanks, Labour\u2014then comes the inflation, then comes the interest rates, and this Government, just as the Labour Government knocked each of those dominoes down, is putting them up in sequence, but there are no shortcuts. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002250f5bb7d5a8746cf826d89cfc3794c78\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224d78791db1bf4ee5b2406b8e9720fbba\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: If the unemployment was unacceptable, as he said in September 2023, is it now more unacceptable, given 37,000 more people have lost their jobs since then, or does he apply one set of standards for the previous Government and a different set of standards to his own?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022511cfc95cdb44e5db2075b6e2c828bf8\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: We have always treated unemployment as a percentage figure. It is currently 5.3\u00A0percent. That is around 165,000 people. What\u2019s interesting is that in late 2023, the time of the statement the member referred to, the Treasury was forecasting, on Labour Party policy settings, that unemployment would be 165,000 people. If you want to play these kinds of games, then you could say that under this Government, 5,000 fewer people have lost their jobs than they would have with those guys\u2019 mismanagement. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022049c2849f7d64c599bc31743d84135be\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I certainly don\u2019t want to play games with any figures, at all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002250f5bb7d5a8746cf826d89cfc3794c78\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220131b925426d4a7a917257e85dbcb0a1\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: If the pre-election fiscal update is tracking according to plan, what happened to the 2 percent economic growth that the Treasury were forecasting before the election, which has actually turned, under his leadership, into a shrink of the economy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002233408f3183ea457fb8e8d3632da16c89\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: The member is right to point out the difference in economic growth, but the other way you could look at it is that under this Government, in spite of softer economic conditions which have multiple unexpected causes, the facts are that more people have kept their jobs than otherwise expected. For New Zealanders anxious about losing their job and for New Zealanders trying to put food on the table and pay their bills, a Government that is good for employment is good for Kiwi families.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002250f5bb7d5a8746cf826d89cfc3794c78\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022279554265d984a8985a25d33818763fa\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Does he regard rising unemployment as being a sign of a Government that\u2019s good for employment?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224852f3c339a8451689082eac1d731811\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the member has really got to decide. The forecasts when the people kicked him out\u2014quite rightly, in my view\u2014were that unemployment would continue to rise. In actual fact, it\u2019s risen less than it was forecast when he went out of Government, deposed by the people of this country. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002250f5bb7d5a8746cf826d89cfc3794c78\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224eaae4c62a714ed79fbc8462a00a7555\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Does he see any link between the fact that one in seven young New Zealanders is now unemployed under his leadership and the fact that 200 New Zealanders every day are giving up and permanently leaving the country?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022611d86dbfd3745aaa1a405951d546d62\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: On behalf of the Prime Minister, as I was saying on behalf of another Minister yesterday, I think sometimes the Opposition fails to give due credit to the intelligence and perspective that New Zealanders have. As a wiser man once said, maybe they measure the minds of others by their own. The fact is that New Zealanders understand that the economic conditions we face today are a product of at least three things: the conditions set by historical policy decisions, including those of the now Opposition, the previous Government; international factors, such as the world\u2019s largest economy effectively deciding to renegotiate its deal with the rest of the world economically; and also the policies of the current Government. When they look at the third factor, the policies of the current Government, they see a Government that spends carefully, that cuts red tape and regulation, that tries to push people up instead of pulling them down, as we saw so often from the Opposition, and that is why this Government is in control, because people can see that the things we\u2019re doing are making their future brighter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002250f5bb7d5a8746cf826d89cfc3794c78\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f8bbb042dddf4a20b68d56dbaf6fe882\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by his claim that for unemployed people who \u201Cdon\u2019t play ball\u201D, the free ride is over; if so, how many of the 37,000 extra people who have joined the unemployment queue, who had jobs before he became Prime Minister, does he regard as \u201Cnot playing ball\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222713d169d2954a7aba76a354dcf1b274\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: In answer to the first leg of the question, yes, absolutely. This Government doesn\u2019t believe that welfare is a lifestyle choice. We believe that if you can work, you should work. We believe that you have obligations to look for work just as people who get up every morning and go to work to pay their taxes have to fulfil their obligation to pay the tax to fund your welfare. That is absolutely what this Government believes in: mutual obligation. There\u2019s something else about it, which is that we believe that people who don\u2019t have a job right now have value and do have the capability to get one. We don\u2019t consign them to the scrapheap with the soft bigotry of low expectations like those guys did.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a2eb35d78cd84ee694856498c1b5b2ba\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 3\u2014RMA Reform\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022df23ed9a7102406f9899558fb3841582\u0022 data-id=\u00229caab9d5930d4f82ac4c4b67000f9307\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df23ed9a7102406f9899558fb3841582\u0022\u003E3. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229caab9d5930d4f82ac4c4b67000f9307\u0022\u003EDr CARLOS CHEUNG (National\u2014Mt Roskill)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: What announcements has he made regarding Eden Park?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022 data-id=\u00228789b71243194386a2f98841bd7cc12b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228789b71243194386a2f98841bd7cc12b\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform):\u003C/span\u003E Today, I\u2019ve announced the Government\u2019s released an investigative report showing Eden Park planning restrictions could be costing hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue and hundreds of fewer jobs. Eden Park is a vital asset for Auckland and New Zealand, hosting major sporting and entertainment events that inject millions into the economy. Restrictive local planning rules are stifling Eden Park\u2019s ability to drive growth. It\u2019s worth noting the rules were put in place in an attempt to balance the use of Eden Park as a venue of local community preferences, but it\u2019s important to ensure that the rules remain fit for purpose and do not hold back Auckland\u2019s event and tourism sectors.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df23ed9a7102406f9899558fb3841582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002278f7cf37519544c296c80f7cd42075a2\u0022\u003EDr Carlos Cheung\u003C/span\u003E: What did the investigative report into Eden Park\u2019s planning rules show?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002225b38ea3f4b84189b732d52ad1f4f3e2\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: It found that restrictions on Eden Park\u2019s operations will cost the region at least $432 million in lost income, with 751 fewer jobs over the next 10 years. The investigation was carried out under a new power in the Resource Management Act introduced in August to modify or remove provisions in local plans if they negatively impact growth, development capacity, or employment. The Government is not willing to let unnecessary restrictions in district plans hold back millions or billions in economic potential.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df23ed9a7102406f9899558fb3841582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225b58f3d8cdbf44369e8f09d606935adc\u0022\u003EDr Carlos Cheung\u003C/span\u003E: What changes have been recommended as part of this report?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002242575b62ebf2473588b175de5d9b39cd\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: The report contained a large number of recommendations\u2014for example, permitting 12 large concerts of more than 30,000 people each year, as well as 20 medium-sized concerts of between 10,000 and 30,000 people each year; more flexibility on timing for concerts, including permitting concerts of up to eight hours duration; more flexibility for sport games; and the removal of size limits for conferences and large functions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df23ed9a7102406f9899558fb3841582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225d51ed7772c04464aae926a3fed6be30\u0022\u003EDr Carlos Cheung\u003C/span\u003E: What are the next steps in this process?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022de6aeb54fe554204b630ce828075dff6\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Public consultation begins today and will run until 19 November 2025 via the Ministry for the Environment\u2019s online hub. Local residents and business owners can give feedback. We\u2019re also consulting, obviously, with the Auckland Council. Following the consultation, the Government will consider what changes are warranted to boost growth in the region. We hope to make announcements by the end of the year.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e9e06ad6eca4476484d722773ec79a0c\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 4\u2014Resources\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eac6c3aa5817441f89ae786e919f239b\u0022 data-id=\u0022c347b2a1edf5482e824fe13501e5b4d0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eac6c3aa5817441f89ae786e919f239b\u0022\u003E4. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c347b2a1edf5482e824fe13501e5b4d0\u0022\u003EDr DAVID WILSON (NZ First)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister for Resources: What reports, if any, has he seen regarding the resources sector?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022528134adfa6c4ba1a72e2cdf9c07bd9e\u0022 data-id=\u0022958544ba44d049648075dc149a354e1c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022528134adfa6c4ba1a72e2cdf9c07bd9e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022958544ba44d049648075dc149a354e1c\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources):\u003C/span\u003E I can announce that we have mounted the crest of a golden millennium for mining. Santana\u2014major investment\u2014has been issued a mining permit for 30 years, over $5 billion to $6 billion worth of wealth, and to the small number of worry warts, allow science and technology to wash away your unnecessary anxieties. [Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225dcafbc576464896a4d15ba4a70efe9a\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Just wait for the House to settle.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eac6c3aa5817441f89ae786e919f239b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223c75a1f4de874ce787192889ad67e619\u0022\u003EDr David Wilson\u003C/span\u003E: How will this contribute to the economy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022528134adfa6c4ba1a72e2cdf9c07bd9e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002290bf092eef7b4322a5d09ddfd4ff37aa\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: As we know, as a consequence of the failed economic policies we inherited when we took over in 2023, we are managing a situation where unemployment is, sadly, quite high, but what about the 800 to 900 direct and indirect jobs? I say to the politicians oozing green elitism, think about the New Zealanders who will gain those jobs, who this very day are looking for new opportunities, and think about the royalties that will come over 14 years of operation. I say again: we are entering a golden age, not that I can completely claim all the credit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eac6c3aa5817441f89ae786e919f239b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002226b7d8fa1657421882b2f53fd59ff304\u0022\u003EDr David Wilson\u003C/span\u003E: What other reports has he seen regarding the resource sector?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022528134adfa6c4ba1a72e2cdf9c07bd9e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f8894071f9ee4d37ae6e77242f525344\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: Father Christmas has come early. On the West Coast of New Zealand, the sum of $172 million over the last day or three has been announced to be dedicated to the Federation Mine in Reefton, now known as the Endura mine.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022002041ee93e94d75a55bbf80fb803f27\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a65ce2a995ea4effbb3728ffcd7dc583\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: Tell us about climate change, Shane. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022528134adfa6c4ba1a72e2cdf9c07bd9e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eecb0c4414434c19a76ad87ce20813a2\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: Why do people on the other side of the House hate investment? Why do they undermine jobs? Why do they stand with frogs and geckos and unnecessary critters? No, we need jobs, and I am happy to announce $172 million is going directly into the economy of the West Coast, and I fear that it will be more busts they make of my good self.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c9e66e442e6548f8a5e8349e8d054343\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I think answers should not contain questions to other parties.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eac6c3aa5817441f89ae786e919f239b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d811bba305f0444e8ac3651e46e46306\u0022\u003EDr David Wilson\u003C/span\u003E: What will this announcement mean for the local economy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022528134adfa6c4ba1a72e2cdf9c07bd9e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e34ae8974f324ff19e7beb4a06dac0fd\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: Modesty forbids that I claim total credit, but please think about the forlorn period of time that has afflicted these parts of the South Island. When we have fresh investment, unlike downtown Auckland\u2014you don\u2019t get rich by doing each other\u2019s washing\u2014we are able to extract the endowment, the resources, the critical minerals, the gold, the silver. What New Zealander does not want a brighter future through new investment and the jobs and the income and the growth that will spread through a part of New Zealand that has been neglected for far too long?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227b9d7951744240569e55387728ca5953\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cc03dd00306442e9a60e6f35d7c4f982\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Can I ask the Minister, just looking around this Parliament and this building here, about what percentage of it is derived from extraction?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022528134adfa6c4ba1a72e2cdf9c07bd9e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022018ea10c20fc4e0d9285599cbdbaac86\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: If I can deploy my fifth form mathematics, I\u2019d say about 96 percent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002229bcfb4001c94c1fa206b100f894456c\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 5\u2014Finance\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225dec06e8b9d847bdbf5a51cad169ca1b\u0022 data-id=\u002294fa52a55e374275b1f1da8e1a9fb7f4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225dec06e8b9d847bdbf5a51cad169ca1b\u0022\u003E5. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002294fa52a55e374275b1f1da8e1a9fb7f4\u0022\u003EHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour\u2014Mana)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224478b7cb554b4997b2dcf567b6816349\u0022 data-id=\u00224e6b1c46ea464d65b00386370bf5fcc0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224478b7cb554b4997b2dcf567b6816349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224e6b1c46ea464d65b00386370bf5fcc0\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance):\u003C/span\u003E Yes, in the context in which they were given. I particularly stand by my statement that with a hard-won economic recovery now under way, this is not the time for broad new taxes and a return to reckless fiscal management. Instead, this is a time for Government policies that back effort, aspiration, and job creation, and we are the Government doing that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225dec06e8b9d847bdbf5a51cad169ca1b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228be742b1ec944cfcbef8aa08af76d8ce\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: If she\u2019s happy to use pre-election forecasts, will she compare her recessionary minus 1.1 percent growth rate to that in pre-election forecasts, which was 2 percent?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224478b7cb554b4997b2dcf567b6816349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d3c9027aaa644ebd90e1d96dd1e2f82c\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, what I would compare is the actions that have been taken, and in particular I want to highlight the success of the fast-track legislation introduced by this Government, opposed by those opposite, which so far has seen the Auckland port expansion permitted, with 140,000 jobs being supported over the coming decades. It has seen the Milldale housing development fast tracked, supporting 3,500 jobs. It has seen the Maitahi Village housing development in Nelson fast tracked, supporting 2,700 jobs. If you stand for jobs, you should vote for them, and you didn\u2019t vote for fast track.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226af0333f238d46f1b7df9e19c14687fd\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019d just say to Government members: they may find it necessary to support the Minister, clearly, with things that are not being said that they would like to be said. It\u2019s not helpful. Allow Ministers to answer questions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225dec06e8b9d847bdbf5a51cad169ca1b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022707fd6537d4945e8947544cf6858c297\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: Why is she cherry-picking the best number that suits her, when she has said, \u201CForecasts aren\u2019t reality\u201D, and the reality is things are worse?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224478b7cb554b4997b2dcf567b6816349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222bab0588dfe746e8ac2054c0215878ab\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I\u2019m not quite sure why the member would talk about cherrypicking when in her own press release today, she chose to highlight the increase in net departures of New Zealanders. Now, of course, that didn\u2019t start under this Government. In the 21\u00A0months of data before our Government came to office, annual net migration of New Zealand citizens increased by 38,000, whereas in the 21 months since we were elected, that number has only increased by 5,800. If you want to talk cherry-picking, sort it out. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022835c20dda10f432ab585b9c55c7eda72\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Answers to questions should relate to Government activity, not attacks on the Opposition, and that is dangerously close to that, which will see limited opportunities moving forward. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225dec06e8b9d847bdbf5a51cad169ca1b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ebe124b5c0674df0917e843663de8144\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: Is the 160,000 unemployed people\u2014the highest in 30 years\u2014a sign that her economic plan is working? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224478b7cb554b4997b2dcf567b6816349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bfb64dcb492c429185a364f2b6d5806b\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it certainly isn\u2019t the highest unemployment number in 30 years, as a proportion of the workforce. It\u2019s also the case that it remains below the long-term average. Most importantly for that member, 160,000 is lower than the 165,000 unemployed people that Grant Robertson was predicting prior to the election. I want to see more workers getting the jobs they deserve in this economy, which is why we are driving growth and job-creating businesses. I\u2019ll tell you what won\u2019t help: new taxes, reckless fiscal management, and a return to the old Labour ways.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002217343c194d6142df9a02cb68b780c3fa\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: There is a lot of noise coming from the centre row of the Opposition that needs to just calm right down. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225dec06e8b9d847bdbf5a51cad169ca1b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022690a0c59515545b68c984ee9819f61fb\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: When will she take responsibility for growing unemployment, negative growth, increasing homelessness, a record number of liquidations and KiwiSaver hardship withdrawals, and increasing inflation, or will she continue to blame everyone else? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224478b7cb554b4997b2dcf567b6816349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f8cc838ce5f9433281e9f735907e732b\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I certainly won\u2019t take responsibility for the economic mess this Government inherited. What I will take responsibility for is the results we are delivering to fix it, including lowering taxes\u2014[Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e83b72f35ade409da49005a611a592e2\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Hold on, sorry. It\u2019s ridiculous. Why ask a question if you don\u2019t want to hear an answer?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224478b7cb554b4997b2dcf567b6816349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002259033d04b5564c58a7b452f092d047aa\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014including lower taxes, inflation back in band, lower interest rates, policies that drive job creation, fewer children growing up in emergency motel rooms, delivering more State homes than that Government delivered in the previous periods. We are a Government that is delivering the fix. We inherited a mess, and we\u2019re getting on with it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00229f88aecc957b4fc396338b19c2660106\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 6\u2014Prime Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022002041ee93e94d75a55bbf80fb803f27\u0022 data-id=\u0022467693e7cfd240138d88ba381880a22e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022002041ee93e94d75a55bbf80fb803f27\u0022\u003E6. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022467693e7cfd240138d88ba381880a22e\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=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022002041ee93e94d75a55bbf80fb803f27\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=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022 data-id=\u00226a7386c74fd74a1a80e58a0509710779\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226a7386c74fd74a1a80e58a0509710779\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Deputy Prime Minister)\u003C/span\u003E on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, absolutely, particularly this Government\u2019s decision to reverse the ban on oil and gas exploration. We risked being the only country in the world that was transitioning from gas back to coal. If we want to have a so-called just transition, we actually need transition fuels, and most people would much rather be burning gas to generate electricity than coal. What\u2019s more, it helps people with more affordable energy. You see, the member likes to say that people are doing it tough financially, and she may be right about that, but she can\u2019t also put in place policies that make it harder for them to provide for themselves and their families by banning technologies that make life more comfortable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022002041ee93e94d75a55bbf80fb803f27\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220866464175454c05ad76184dd29f99e1\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Government still committed to the Paris Agreement?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226cf1cd8ec503401bac45c58c1d418c15\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, the Government is committed to the Paris climate agreement as it signed up nine years ago. It may have been a long time for the member, but we keep that commitment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022002041ee93e94d75a55bbf80fb803f27\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d471739d817347ba83005a16687a8db9\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: How does he reconcile his statement that the Government is still committed to the Paris Agreement with the Government\u2019s announcement late last night that it will remove reference to \u201Ccontributing to the global effort under the Paris Agreement\u201D from our climate change laws?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022da7b7ce3545d4fc180c2e487bb8bbdec\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s very simple. This Government has something the member will be familiar with, known as the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act, and that sets our domestic commitments to reduce emissions. Those emissions commitments or reduction commitments, I believe, are very, very strong and ambitious. As a result, they are the targets that we need to adhere to. The Paris Agreement is something different, but, actually, that doesn\u2019t mean that we can\u2019t achieve one by pursuing the other.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022002041ee93e94d75a55bbf80fb803f27\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022df71555c38354f6fa357c47da0a86590\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: Can he name just one individual or group external from the Government and who the Government consulted with who supports the changes that were announced late last night to weaken our climate change laws?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226e3e25f5d03b4ec0b7c045fff7347a52\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, in answer to the member\u2019s question, I certainly can. But having the capability doesn\u2019t mean that I will, because, you see, there\u2019s a tone in this member\u2019s questions\u2014the one that chants things like \u201CFrom the river to the sea\u201D\u2014that makes people unwilling to be identified and be able to share their views. That\u2019s why I\u2019m not going to participate in her doxxing and outing of people who have different views. So I could name them, but I\u2019m not going to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228f3b1ec4de234c4892091fa309e48619\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Look, if there\u2019s going to be just a question then a barrage as the answer comes, there\u2019s not much point in continuing with the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022002041ee93e94d75a55bbf80fb803f27\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225d396c6f354d4928aaaf49d562c0f7a4\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: How exactly can he claim to be committed to our climate agreements while he is removing requirements for independent advice and accountability, removing reference to the Paris Agreement in law, and revoking rules that require our emissions trading scheme to align with our international climate agreements?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223c061476cdd740b6867d2cd71e352b1a\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Well, very, very simply: we can achieve those reductions without necessarily using the mechanisms that the member describes. What\u2019s more, the member needs to reflect carefully, because she cannot have it both ways. I, like many members of this House, grew up in the North. I grew up in Whang\u0101rei. I\u2019ve driven many times past and visited Portland cement, and there are really tough decisions that Governments face, that we face as a country. Do we want to put those 200-odd people at Portland out of work so that we can have Vietnamese cements on the shelf at Bunnings and in the concrete we use to build our homes, or do we want to keep doing cement refining in New Zealand, keeping Kiwis in work? The member can\u2019t complain about jobs and the economy and the cost of living\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002285499e26ba23470587a6a52c72bafe75\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b53febccb43d4cf79c73c9ba818ba0df\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014one day, and then have policies that destroy people\u2019s effort to pursue\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225ef1e2de161e47de89d489044a3716ef\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yep. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022961c61803c444357a4e7d422adda1dc2\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014those goals the next.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226e5ddd2769534121aee3f6365b359d46\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Very good.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022002041ee93e94d75a55bbf80fb803f27\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226d34dd12bcb94c248320f7912f2af20c\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: Is he aware that it is entirely feasible to create good, green jobs in a sustainable economy, such as proposed by the Green Party in our Green budget and industrial strategy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221ca50a4d43ff4cf2bd9823a9e6f7a256\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: In so much as the Prime Minister has responsibility for the Green Party\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022202d106fe27e4dcc8d93f645ffabdefc\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker, I seek your\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022de837c107bf0408a89cfa3daba82c7e3\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Hang on, wait until I\u2019m finished. In so much as he has responsibility for any other party\u2019s\u2014other than the Government\u2019s\u2014policies, he may choose to make a very brief response. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221af0854760fe48feac2abe904d3d4725\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance. You see, it\u2019s against the rules for a member on the Government\u2019s side to ask a question designed to launch an attack on the Opposition. But what if the Opposition asked a question that could only be designed to launch an attack on the Opposition? The fact is\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022631a5c8f5a3b4b918f0ceb27fb4b15f1\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, that is\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229067d9dd2bfc4d929ab8a51318cc9272\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014to Chl\u00F6e Swarbrick: sound bites and slogans don\u2019t create jobs. It\u2019s that simple. Over here in the real, practical world, we have policies that are designed to get\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bf702fa52b9d4da0bf9ffbdf9698e327\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Sit down\u2014sit down. I\u2019m not going to have that sort of outburst. The reality is that it is the job of the Opposition to point out the weaknesses, as they say, of the Government and, therefore, something the member needs to accept. Is there another supplementary, Chl\u00F6e Swarbrick? [Interruption] I\u2019m on my feet\u2014I\u2019m on my feet. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022002041ee93e94d75a55bbf80fb803f27\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002249faa15f282b4e50b82b69bfa18dae0b\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: Highest unemployment in nine years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e75dc7e0da3a41bab499cdd07aad57f6\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Someone is going to leave. I\u2019m on my feet, and it\u2019s not a good idea to call out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227b9d7951744240569e55387728ca5953\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bf3752dbb6254e15a0f6f6d33cdeeb61\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Can I ask the Minister as to whether the Government intends to take advice from people about jobs when they\u2019ve never had a real job?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a1f10268a2654c17938fc4a7256e2f59\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, that\u2019s not something the Government is\u2014the Government\u2019s responsible for a lot of things; that\u2019s not one of them. [Interruption] Listen, someone is going to have to symbolically leave so everyone else gets the message that question time is quiet when a question is being answered. The Government cross-bench back row might like to take that on board.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f78b460955754ed7a497fb1366974e0f\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 7\u2014Social Development\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227621aa65fb9249cd978df57a6441c990\u0022 data-id=\u002259735c13429349059ca271798fb7d8f5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227621aa65fb9249cd978df57a6441c990\u0022\u003E7. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002259735c13429349059ca271798fb7d8f5\u0022\u003EHon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her 50,000 jobseeker support reduction target; if so, why?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002215080e7fbe3a4bfc9d4e668dd042447f\u0022 data-id=\u00222c7cbdf2ca4d4894b1d013cdb0d83bf5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002215080e7fbe3a4bfc9d4e668dd042447f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222c7cbdf2ca4d4894b1d013cdb0d83bf5\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment):\u003C/span\u003E Yes, I absolutely stand by our target of 50,000 fewer people on the jobseeker support by 2030. Our Government is ambitious for all New Zealanders, and our target is ambitious and reflects our Government\u2019s view that work brings independence so people can lead healthier, happier lives. That\u2019s why we\u2019re delivering practical support, clearer expectations, and stronger partnerships with employers to help more people move from welfare into work, and we\u2019ve seen over 83,000 people leave benefit for work in the last 12 months.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227621aa65fb9249cd978df57a6441c990\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224646d06070a04a6da913bd6f91fabefc\u0022\u003EHon Willie Jackson\u003C/span\u003E: How can she stand by her target when figures released today show unemployment at a nine-year high, job seekers have increased every quarter, and she is nowhere near meeting her own target?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002215080e7fbe3a4bfc9d4e668dd042447f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a52803be42d34d4896004abf2276697e\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: Because, as I\u2019ve said in this House before, the jobseeker target is ambitious, and the numbers were always going to get worse before they got better. The pre-election fiscal update had unemployment at 5.3 percent. Today, it was announced at 5.3 percent. While it is incredibly challenging for any individual that is without work right now, our Government is focused on the practical steps that help them to prepare for work and get ready for work, and our economic growth agenda\u2014that we\u2019ve already heard about today in terms of fast track and mining jobs\u2014is on track.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227621aa65fb9249cd978df57a6441c990\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222d4a3fe0cd4649da8de4a5a8542c5eba\u0022\u003EHon Willie Jackson\u003C/span\u003E: Does she think forecasts from the Ministry of Social Development and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet are wrong, that show she is failing to meet her own target and that she will be 40,000 people over by June 2029?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002215080e7fbe3a4bfc9d4e668dd042447f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f6afbcb4e84f4c62b285070ff5832964\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: The report that the member is referring to is a progress update on the jobseeker target, and, as I\u2019ve said, I\u2019ve never shied away from the fact that it was always going to get worse before it was better. But what our Government is unwilling to accept is that for a young person who goes on to welfare under the age of 25, that means 18 future years of their life on welfare, a figure that is 49 percent worse in the six years that they were in charge.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227621aa65fb9249cd978df57a6441c990\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227e3f35ef41ba48e686cbe739b3bb5b18\u0022\u003EHon Willie Jackson\u003C/span\u003E: Who is correct: the Prime Minister, who encouraged young job seekers to look to horticulture jobs in the Hawke\u2019s Bay, or Paul Paynter, CEO of Yummy Fruit, who said the industry wasn\u2019t short-staffed right now?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002215080e7fbe3a4bfc9d4e668dd042447f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227306c3b005c74d91b29b4d2f8270b15b\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I always agree with the Prime Minister, and there are jobs available, otherwise we would not have seen 83,000 New Zealanders leave welfare for work in the last 12 months, despite there being challenging economic times\u201483,000 New Zealanders leaving welfare into jobs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227621aa65fb9249cd978df57a6441c990\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db77bd153c6b4b829cdc002cb9c08b03\u0022\u003EHon Willie Jackson\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister think it\u2019s fair that if a job seeker fails to miss their targets to find work, they get sanctioned, but when she fails to meet her targets, she gets praised by the Prime Minister for making it harder for people to get support in the first place?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002215080e7fbe3a4bfc9d4e668dd042447f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224364d895b5c244b185fe8b185212f7f8\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: One of the things that we have done is got a way more active welfare system, which includes making it really easy, through the traffic light system, for those on benefit to know what their obligations are, and providing assistance and support to ensure that they fulfil their obligations. Yes, there\u2019s a consequence if they don\u2019t. Why do we have a system like that? Because we want more people exiting welfare into work, and over 83,000 in the last 12 months, I think, is good news.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00223d00a169fb424868ab4b32fd4a7b07f5\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 8\u2014Housing\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022602\u0022 data-id=\u0022d097ac3ff86547cd849db74c027fd74e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022602\u0022\u003E8. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d097ac3ff86547cd849db74c027fd74e\u0022\u003EORIINI KAIPARA (Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori\u2014T\u0101maki Makaurau)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by the Government\u2019s proposed changes to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022 data-id=\u00229d02e08f0635474099315c2ae510974f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229d02e08f0635474099315c2ae510974f\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing):\u003C/span\u003E Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c57b843d5fab483a93d70243a2e35d2b\u0022\u003EOriini Kaipara\u003C/span\u003E: What advice, if any, has he received from the Minister of Crown relations regarding the potential impact these reforms will have on Treaty settlements in T\u0101maki-makau-rau?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022062bd77a4bfd4dc68030882688febcf5\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: I don\u2019t believe I\u2019ve had any specific advice from the Minister that the member references in relation to that particular issue, although clearly the Minister and I work closely together across a range of different areas. I would emphasise, for the member and the House, that the commitment to upholding Treaty of Waitangi settlements is a core coalition Government priority.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228a7abd0afea448b6a256d85d7128891c\u0022\u003EOriini Kaipara\u003C/span\u003E: How many T\u0101maki-makau-rau iwi and hap\u016B were identified during the developments of these reforms, and how many of their Treaty settlements will be affected?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221e866ffe0cc74835b3765cbcbae71e10\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: I don\u2019t have that specific number and\u2014[Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b81b95e90a4147e5aa43aab27dfe50ce\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I think we\u2019ll just stop the cross-party, cross-bench discussion. The Minister will start the answer again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ed1fba2c8cbd46c1a7e4ea1ccdbb81fd\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: I don\u2019t have that specific number in front of me, but if the member puts it down as a written question, I\u2019ll be happy to get that feedback to her or get that answer to her. As I say, upholding Treaty settlements is a core Government priority. In relation to T\u0101maki-makau-rau, the Government is working with a range of iwi in the area around a range of different housing developments, including, for example, at the Carrington site, where we\u2019re making real progress\u2014which is a land for housing programme started under the last National Government, continued under the previous Labour-led Government, and continuing under this coalition Government\u2014and where we are building houses at some scale, utilising what was formerly Crown land, and working with our iwi partners in relation to that project.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d680ff38a70e48aa8d553873f6ec89e7\u0022\u003EOriini Kaipara\u003C/span\u003E: Can he confirm that the Government\u2019s reforms to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development will not undermine nor conflict with settlement redress, including cogovernance arrangements in T\u0101maki-makau-rau?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002253e80af4be814fb18c45acfc150e36e2\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: As I\u2019ve said a couple of times now, it is a Government commitment to uphold Treaty of Waitangi settlements, and all of the changes we are making to our national direction\u2014for example, the National Policy Statement on Urban Development\u2014will reflect that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bab007e25fff4471a1460f7b5378fc2f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223da5ca0d7a6045529842cd790e5af578\u0022\u003EHon Tama Potaka\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Minister please confirm that this Government proposes to move a national statement in relation to papa k\u0101inga that will enable up to 10 houses to be built on papa k\u0101inga lands and also that this Government has articulated and foreshadowed that this Government will commit over $400 million to have 1,000 houses built on M\u0101ori land?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222f8f3df71c1246d5b9dffbc7f4896ad9\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I can confirm that there will be a national environmental standard developed in relation to papa k\u0101inga housing. It\u2019s our view, as a Government, that there is real potential for this type of housing on whenua to unlock the potential for different housing typologies that will put warm, dry homes in place for people in need. We expect to have the national environmental standard, which will slot into council district plans, developed and promulgated in the first half of 2026.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00223f1aa31c739b46a9b4f28f14d93b750a\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 9\u2014Housing\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022311eba0f075e448993bb59225ea956bb\u0022 data-id=\u0022fe07071b8c6e4e6dbda1eee0275d64b2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022311eba0f075e448993bb59225ea956bb\u0022\u003E9. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fe07071b8c6e4e6dbda1eee0275d64b2\u0022\u003EHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by his statements that \u201Cit\u2019s clear that rough sleeping is a genuine problem\u201D and \u201Cwe can and will do more for rough sleepers\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022 data-id=\u0022a25f30d443ca4cc0ab6e18c27886159b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a25f30d443ca4cc0ab6e18c27886159b\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing):\u003C/span\u003E Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022311eba0f075e448993bb59225ea956bb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022874e22712264406e81eeefc35a11b5ff\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Why is the Government working on legislation that would enable the removal of rough sleepers from central business districts?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bf7efd7c2dd740a994589b737e160c77\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: The Government isn\u2019t.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022311eba0f075e448993bb59225ea956bb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002263105ea1abbc4f16a112f07abc2d6bfc\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Why is the Minister denying this when police Minister Mark Mitchell confirmed on Newstalk ZB this morning that \u201CPaul Goldsmith and justice are doing a lot of work around that.\u201D and that legislation to move homeless people from CBDs to the suburbs was \u201Cfully supported by caucus and the Prime Minister.\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227825667eb5ea48979268f2c6f7f64dc4\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: The Government is considering a range of different things in relation to the CBD. It is 8 percent of the country\u2019s economy; it is of national significance; and, with the City Rail Link opening next year, the International Convention Centre opening, and an increased push for tourism\u2014for example, from cruise ships\u2014the Government, as well as Auckland Council, is of the view that we can make the CBD a more desirable place for everyone to be than it currently is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022311eba0f075e448993bb59225ea956bb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022572bd4dc126b433c8f79e89aaab8fe58\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: So which is it: the Government isn\u2019t working on legislation to shift homeless people from the CBDs, or they are considering legislation to shift homeless people from the CBDs?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ea258ceb7a934617b8289e4a981fd2d0\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: The member asked whether or not the Government was developing legislation. The Government is not, but, as I say, we are looking at a range of things in order to clean up the CBD. [Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f7952e92669e4309b36679ea7c73151f\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Just wait for your colleagues to calm down.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022311eba0f075e448993bb59225ea956bb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221661908416e2484585fee178f3d961d4\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: If people are concerned about entering the CBD because of homelessness, how does he expect them to feel when the issue is moved to their doorstep in the suburbs?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c370bd9589a84318a01812428a4c30b5\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, as the member knows, rough sleeping and homelessness is part of a complex cocktail of issues that successive Governments have had to grapple with. This Government is putting additional resource into Housing First, which is an internationally proven, evidence-based programme, that I know the member supports, in order to specifically provide housing options for people who are rough sleepers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022528bff81a75942df8b97f66c623c8a91\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cc62ab8e0ef64aa29f4977fde20cb3a7\u0022\u003ETamatha Paul\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2014prisons? The cells?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224a8e42c442c146008165f48f47ac4dc9\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Housing First does not support prison cells. Housing First supports warm homes so that people who are sleeping rough on the streets can move in\u2014and, more specifically, it provides the kind of wraparound support that people in those difficult situations often need. The starting point of Housing First is that it is difficult to supply people with mental health or addiction service support unless they are in a house in the first place. That\u2019s why the Government is proud to back Housing First. No one is pretending that this is a problem that is going to be solved overnight, and no one is pretending that this is not a difficult and complex problem that successive Governments have had to grapple with, but we are working hard with front-line providers like the City Mission and others in the Auckland CBD to get on top of the problem.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bab007e25fff4471a1460f7b5378fc2f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a4c26934d64c46ca81193bc241f089fb\u0022\u003EHon Tama Potaka\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Minister please confirm that this Government has reduced the spend of over $1 million a day on emergency housing to less than $200,000 a day; funds nearly half a billion dollars per annum on transitional housing, Housing First, and other related programmes; and has now contracted an additional 300 Housing First places, the majority of which are in Auckland, with Housing First providers to support rough sleepers within these and related contractual arrangements? [Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fffa82148d484494b7e70227cccee5b5\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: When the House is ready, we might hear the start of the Minister\u2019s answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c8b0a27ac71642a4b3ffe977d2b7e258\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I can confirm that\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022311eba0f075e448993bb59225ea956bb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002287e738845fdf49cd8a30419e38cf1d4c\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: How many people have got a place from that announcement?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223e9982dede3b4e37a0c4e6aa056983ee\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: As the member well knows\u2014and the member yelling out the problem well knows\u2014the Government is working hard to make sure that we can supply warm, dry homes for people in very vulnerable situations. It is a complex, difficult challenge, but one that we are up for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022528134adfa6c4ba1a72e2cdf9c07bd9e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022857ed476b90642279e0df9d90bb47f56\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Supplementary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022667b5017cded4e3cb4883998cee066c0\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: A supplementary question, the Hon Shane Jones\u2014and no one else speaking.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022528134adfa6c4ba1a72e2cdf9c07bd9e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dc7d68e7b4cc466b9548a74f758d562f\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: To the Minister: can he confirm it is not appropriate to use homelessness as a moral cloak to hide drug taking, criminality, and violence?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222c62d6f068944fe59a7ee3a38d3b9807\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I don\u2019t think the Minister\u2019s got particular responsibility in that regard. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00222af76dfef8dd4b748d44b5eba9d60225\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 10\u2014Health\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002212fd037a8544418390244b7c3a65216e\u0022 data-id=\u0022b94e21d32c364f1fb396d7281c6dafdb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212fd037a8544418390244b7c3a65216e\u0022\u003E10. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b94e21d32c364f1fb396d7281c6dafdb\u0022\u003EDr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National\u2014Ilam)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has the Government made about boosting hospital capacity?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002208f355c54a924840b843fc8311bab212\u0022 data-id=\u0022db8c7437d8ae4686893e2349970e2cd5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002208f355c54a924840b843fc8311bab212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022db8c7437d8ae4686893e2349970e2cd5\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health):\u003C/span\u003E Our Government is delivering real results for patients and staff across the country. That\u2019s why we recently announced a programme to deliver 140\u00A0new hospital beds at five of New Zealand\u2019s busiest hospitals. These new fast-tracked hospital wards will be open in the second half of 2026, boosting capacity and easing pressure where it\u2019s needed the most. This is part of our broader plan to strengthen health infrastructure, getting hospitals built faster, using smarter construction methods, and ensuring our workforce is in place to deliver care. This Government is delivering more beds, more capacity, and better care for New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212fd037a8544418390244b7c3a65216e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002298f378cc36b94843b4d43c60d85a609d\u0022\u003EDr Hamish Campbell\u003C/span\u003E: Which hospitals will benefit from this programme?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002208f355c54a924840b843fc8311bab212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224ffcb50a765e469ea49dbe99ab545c33\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: A total of 140 new beds will be delivered across five hospitals, with operational funding for these wards approved by Health New Zealand. The first will be at Middlemore, where we\u2019re expanding general medicine capacity to take pressure off the emergency department. At Waikato Hospital, a new assessment and diagnostic unit will speed up patient flow. At Wellington Hospital, the new ward will support acute care and help support the shorter stays in emergency departments target. At Nelson Hospital, the new ward will provide flexibility during seismic work and add in-patient capacity ahead of the construction of the new in-patient building funded in the Budget. And, in Hawke\u2019s Bay, the new ward will cater for short-stay surgical patients and surgical assessments, freeing up space elsewhere in the hospital. These investments will make a real, practical difference for both patients and staff.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212fd037a8544418390244b7c3a65216e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e03c55a732e84d3e84001648f9a6380f\u0022\u003EDr Hamish Campbell\u003C/span\u003E: How was the Government able to deliver more wards than originally planned without increasing the cost?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002208f355c54a924840b843fc8311bab212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002230de96d76dbb41b6b981f2434867e2a6\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: This is what happens when you run a disciplined and efficient system. The rapid-build wards will be constructed off site and installed on hospital grounds, enabling faster, more cost-effective delivery while also providing flexibility to redeploy units to other hospitals if required. As part of Budget 2025, we expected to fund three new wards, but through a competitive procurement process and the use of modular construction, we can now deliver four wards within the same funding, alongside the fifth ward at Hawke\u2019s Bay Hospital announced earlier this year. That is smart management, better value for money, and faster delivery\u2014exactly what New Zealanders elected this Government for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212fd037a8544418390244b7c3a65216e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b91336c7d9104d2ea342de24bf1f4343\u0022\u003EDr Hamish Campbell\u003C/span\u003E: What impact will these new wards have once they\u2019re operational?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002208f355c54a924840b843fc8311bab212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e605057a71da44f498a584f826b28398\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: Adding additional capacity to hospitals would usually take multiple years. However, through our use of rapid-build wards, we can ease pressure on emergency departments, speed up admissions and discharges, and improve patient flow across the hospitals faster, meaning both patients and staff will feel the benefits sooner. The rapid-build wards will also give our front-line staff modern, flexible spaces to deliver the best possible care. We\u2019re building capacity, supporting our workforce, and making sure New Zealanders can get the care they need when they need it. That is what delivery looks like, and that\u2019s what our Government stands for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00226ed96a6a0a194bceab42f5ec03f5a4c2\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 11\u2014Education\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224653ab470afe42beb97a6de14d326409\u0022 data-id=\u0022849f34b7cb4f4a4b95d4044608400048\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224653ab470afe42beb97a6de14d326409\u0022\u003E11. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022849f34b7cb4f4a4b95d4044608400048\u0022\u003EHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Education: How can parents be confident that she is \u201Cputting the child\u2019s needs at the centre of the education system\u201D when education experts have described the newly rewritten curriculum as \u201Cmore political than educational\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022625b767707f6446e8d6a0fe3b7de0c5a\u0022 data-id=\u0022bf55ab9b1c6c452aa2cf8d468c10e02f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022625b767707f6446e8d6a0fe3b7de0c5a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bf55ab9b1c6c452aa2cf8d468c10e02f\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education):\u003C/span\u003E In context, as stated in my press release from 5 September, parents can absolutely be confident we\u2019re putting their children\u2019s needs at the centre of the education system by ensuring 101,000 year 1 to 8 students and their teachers will benefit from the skills and support of a learning support coordinator working in their school next year. In response to the second part of the question, this is a direct quote taken from an open letter addressed to me in regard to the mathematics and statistics curriculum. I completely disagree with the small number of authors of that letter, and there is no politics in our children\u2019s right to master key mathematical concepts like fractions, times tables, place value, and geometry. There\u2019s nothing political about our maths curriculum. I encourage the member to read it and engage in an intellectual debate on the content of the maths curriculum.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002211ce25e43b034492bc68f1414bfd416c\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019ll just have concise answers, thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224653ab470afe42beb97a6de14d326409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b9cb9b9f30bc4df7af2dcdbac5c5cd2b\u0022\u003EHon Willow-Jean Prime\u003C/span\u003E: Why should parents trust this curriculum is right for their kids when it puts kapa haka and mau r\u0101kau into the physical education curriculum?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022625b767707f6446e8d6a0fe3b7de0c5a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221ee4d1c814274240814a0b047e82dd73\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: Parents should trust this curriculum because it\u2019s knowledge-rich year by year and it\u2019s aspirational for their kids. It\u2019s very clear that the member opposite hasn\u2019t actually bothered to read the curriculum, because if she had, she would notice that in mathematics, for example\u2014which relates to the primary question\u2014we are teaching children place value by teaching it to them in te reo M\u0101ori, because it makes much more sense to say tekau m\u0101 rima, 10 and five, than it does to say 15. She\u2019d also be well advised to read it and to understand that we teach shapes in te reo M\u0101ori because it\u2019s easier to understand tapatoru, three sides, than it is a triangle, but it\u2019s clear she\u2019d not read it. [Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b11dbf3aa0ee4e22888e7b70c3c0be7b\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Just a minute. Look\u2014[Interruption] Sorry, but there is discussion going on all over the House, particularly on those backbenches over there. One or two of you are in sights and will be going early if there cannot be a reasonable approach to questions being answered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224653ab470afe42beb97a6de14d326409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e3abed91ec9842609bdd7581643f4b0b\u0022\u003EHon Willow-Jean Prime\u003C/span\u003E: How can parents be confident that the curriculum was written with their kids\u2019 learning in mind when year 3s will be taught Charles Elton\u2019s concept of ecological pyramids?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022625b767707f6446e8d6a0fe3b7de0c5a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002287ddc94f783447788c9aa42d82137578\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s really important for young people when they\u2019re learning concepts to understand that there were people before them who came up with these concepts. In year 1, children will learn about Karl von Frisch. Why are we learning about Karl von Frisch? Because he realised that bees dance when they communicate. How fun is it for a year 5 to buzz around the room, because that\u2019s how bees communicate. But we didn\u2019t just make this up. There was a guy who thought about it. We need to be more aspirational for our kids, because if we\u2019re just going to be worried\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222447af8d5f944f41b0f94e86a0b2d88d\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, but would three people on the front bench like to leave? If you don\u2019t want to leave, don\u2019t perform like that. We\u2019ll also have concise answers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224653ab470afe42beb97a6de14d326409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224658270536274fbd8e2552524b952afd\u0022\u003EHon Willow-Jean Prime\u003C/span\u003E: How can parents be confident that the curriculum was written with their kids\u2019 learning in mind when year 7 students will have to study Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the 1852\u00A0Constitution Act, the French Revolution, and the Industrial Revolution in one hour a week?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022625b767707f6446e8d6a0fe3b7de0c5a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022392f086b9350430fa9b0601d060e9825\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: Well, parents should feel confident because finally we have a curriculum that is not just so narrowly focused on New Zealand history but actually teaches children our place in the world. The Education Review Office review said that children enjoy history more when they are learning about faraway places and our connection to the world. If that speaker thinks we\u2019re just going to be focused on one of area of the curriculum, New Zealand history, well then she can take that to the election, but I am more ambitious for our kids.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222c90699764b9456095d0fbe7ddbbc875\u0022\u003EHon David Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: Has the Minister heard any serious suggestions that maybe children shouldn\u2019t be taught Newtonian mechanics because Newton was a white man?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221f6709fe76fd44419856f675bbcf3335\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No\u2014sorry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224653ab470afe42beb97a6de14d326409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225d943802c4ff48bdb7a9f5ad7c3567d1\u0022\u003EHon Willow-Jean Prime\u003C/span\u003E: How can parents be confident that the curriculum was written with their kids\u2019 learning in mind when maths experts called it potentially damaging to learners, history teachers called it developmentally inappropriate, and technology teachers said it was a major step backwards?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022625b767707f6446e8d6a0fe3b7de0c5a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022de626a0fbc3e46d4861813cd638ba04e\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: I can tell her that parents should feel confident in this curriculum, because there are a lot of other people\u2014teachers and educators and principals on the front line\u2014who take time to write to me and say things like, \u201CI want to take a moment to express my full support for the work you and your team are doing to undertake in developing and launching the new curriculum. As a principal of a small rural school, I see firsthand how these changes are encouraging deeper learning, higher expectations, and a renewed sense of purpose across Aotearoa classrooms.\u201D These two new curriculum areas have been in place for a year, and we are already seeing improved achievement in the classroom.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f11f1c950da4a61913cfa9ee26283c4\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Question No. 12, Kahurangi Carter\u2014just wait for a bit of quiet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d4ff028918b0498eb1345e03c70edc70\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 12\u2014Children \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ba79c9cbab554c389a55314c7574ad07\u0022 data-id=\u0022e183e145834a48529049f9a5b76450a0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba79c9cbab554c389a55314c7574ad07\u0022\u003E12. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e183e145834a48529049f9a5b76450a0\u0022\u003EKAHURANGI CARTER (Green)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by her statement, \u201CWe have refocused the children\u2019s system on what matters\u2014the safety and wellbeing of children, whether in the community or residences\u2014and the results are clear\u201D; if so, what results is she referring to?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223590b041308241868a09b9ec8fda5803\u0022 data-id=\u00228ff75a1f60334d9a9f28bce6b2fd1c4d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223590b041308241868a09b9ec8fda5803\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228ff75a1f60334d9a9f28bce6b2fd1c4d\u0022\u003EHon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children):\u003C/span\u003E Yes, in the context in which it was made, which was the achievement of the first ever reduction of harm in youth justice and care and protection residences\u2014a 14 percent decrease since 2024, which is a reduction of 33 findings of harm. Other results from the Safety of Children in Care report included a decrease in physical harm findings from the previous year and a reduction in harm by staff. However, at the same time, I also stand by a statement I made in the House during question time on 23 October that \u201CI acknowledge that the latest Safety of Children in Care report shows that in the 12 months, from 31 March 2024 to 31 March 2025, there was an increase of 23 children and young people having a finding of harm compared to the previous year.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba79c9cbab554c389a55314c7574ad07\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222cc82a79f2b74494bba41cebad4711f8\u0022\u003EKahurangi Carter\u003C/span\u003E: Is it correct that there has been an increase in recorded findings of harm for children in State care?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223590b041308241868a09b9ec8fda5803\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224e5378af52a447409046a5db388affc3\u0022\u003EHon KAREN CHHOUR\u003C/span\u003E: I believe I just answered that, where I said there was an increase of 23\u00A0children and young people who had a finding of harm compared to the previous year.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba79c9cbab554c389a55314c7574ad07\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e92808bce76e400db62eec53835fc887\u0022\u003EKahurangi Carter\u003C/span\u003E: What does she say to Aroturuki Tamariki chief executive Arran Jones and Children\u2019s Commissioner Dr Claire Achmad, who warned, \u201COverall, the number of children in State care being abused or neglected has increased, and this is unacceptable.\u201D, and \u201CWe must pay attention to the fact that 10\u00A0percent of all children in State care were abused or neglected over the last 12\u00A0months.\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223590b041308241868a09b9ec8fda5803\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002213fbb258f55f4b78b5ad4070dba4b719\u0022\u003EHon KAREN CHHOUR\u003C/span\u003E: What I would say is, yes, definitely, it\u2019s unacceptable. No child should be hurt or harmed in this country. If you are taking care of a vulnerable young child in our care, don\u2019t hurt them, don\u2019t harm them, and take responsibility for your actions, because, at the end of the day, if people that care for our young people don\u2019t hurt or harm them, we wouldn\u2019t be in this position to have Oranga Tamariki.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba79c9cbab554c389a55314c7574ad07\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220871cf41c0124131a8565297efacbd08\u0022\u003EKahurangi Carter\u003C/span\u003E: What does she say to ng\u0101 m\u014Drehu, the survivors of State abuse, as we come to the anniversary of their apology, when reports tell us that the cycle of abuse they endured continues for tamariki in State care today?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223590b041308241868a09b9ec8fda5803\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002268700d2526cc42f38fa805ecbe211c6e\u0022\u003EHon KAREN CHHOUR\u003C/span\u003E: What I would say is that the highest risk of harm is return-to-home care. This is where families and wh\u0101nau are given a second chance to look after young people who have been removed from their home in the first place. We put support around those wh\u0101nau and family, but, ultimately, at the end of the day, the people responsible for the harm are the people that are caring for those children.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba79c9cbab554c389a55314c7574ad07\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229c599cb31b71404fb727e4da9d9f7831\u0022\u003EKahurangi Carter\u003C/span\u003E: Does she support implementing all recommendations of the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in State care; if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223590b041308241868a09b9ec8fda5803\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227f959cf29f2d48c394650eefc1770543\u0022\u003EHon KAREN CHHOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, can you just repeat that question?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba79c9cbab554c389a55314c7574ad07\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e245712580ca48fc960d2f7038940ae6\u0022\u003EKahurangi Carter\u003C/span\u003E: Of course. Does she support implementing all recommendations of the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in State care; if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223590b041308241868a09b9ec8fda5803\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220ca208c5a60d4462875981950a7a1477\u0022\u003EHon KAREN CHHOUR\u003C/span\u003E: There is currently a work programme in place around the report of abuse in State care and faith-based care. What I would say to you is that this is a large work programme, which the Government is committed to working through to make sure that across the board, young people are safe in the homes that they live in, and that is my priority.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223590b041308241868a09b9ec8fda5803\u0022\u003E\u003Cbr\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022bac68a37e9f4415fa848c185bcda29e1\u0022\u003EMotions\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00220d8c879718c74d33b56b3be42780021c\u0022\u003EMyanmar Military Regime\u2014General Election\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227b9d7951744240569e55387728ca5953\u0022 data-id=\u0022fa5a1195e00b47f48a1d1d22f05c3a47\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227b9d7951744240569e55387728ca5953\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fa5a1195e00b47f48a1d1d22f05c3a47\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That this House expresses grave concern that the Myanmar military regime\u2019s elections, as currently planned, cannot be free nor fair and will not lead to sustainable peace; regards the election arrangements as significantly flawed because there will be no genuine Opposition parties on the ballot paper and repressive laws have been passed criminalising public criticism of the elections; considers that if held under current arrangements, the elections would not be credible; calls on the Myanmar military regime to release all political prisoners, cease the air strikes and other military action, enable genuine inclusive dialogue with all stakeholders, and relieve the humanitarian suffering of the Myanmar people; calls for the urgent implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2669 and the Association of South-east Asian Nations Five-Point Consensus as a necessary step towards a sustainable solution in Myanmar; calls on the New Zealand Government and the international community to not lose sight of the grievous position and situation of the Myanmar people, which will not be ameliorated by this election as currently planned; and continues to stand in solidarity with the people of Myanmar and their desire for inclusive and genuine representative democracy in their country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227b9d7951744240569e55387728ca5953\u0022\u003EThank you. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227d50be4a7fd042fca27c41c4c644561f\u0022 data-id=\u0022ecd0504f29b148dd87afaa55f8e0a3b6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227d50be4a7fd042fca27c41c4c644561f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ecd0504f29b148dd87afaa55f8e0a3b6\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B):\u003C/span\u003E The people of Myanmar are bravely resisting one of the most brutal military dictatorships in the world today, and they deserve our help. The war criminals running Myanmar are planning to hold elections before the end of this year, but this is not a general election; it is a generals\u2019 election. It is a cynical repackaging designed to make the military regime look civilian and attract the international legitimacy that the generals so desperately crave. It cannot be free and fair. It is a sham election.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227d50be4a7fd042fca27c41c4c644561f\u0022\u003EThe regime is only planning to hold it in some of the country\u2019s townships because they don\u2019t control most of the country. No genuine opposition parties will be allowed on the ballot, and it\u2019s clear that people will be forced at gunpoint to vote. The regime has in recent weeks passed three repressive laws criminalising the criticism of the elections, and there are currently teenagers in jail because they dared to criticise the elections on Facebook.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227d50be4a7fd042fca27c41c4c644561f\u0022\u003EIn the lead up to the sham election, the military has intensified its air strikes, artillery shelling, and scorched earth operations against civilians. These air strikes target schools, churches, monasteries, hospitals, and camps of internally displaced persons. On our recent fact-finding mission on Myanmar, everyone that we met wanted the international community to reject the military junta\u2019s sham election. The election has no legitimacy, it should not be recognised by the international community, and that\u2019s why Labour supports this resolution.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227d50be4a7fd042fca27c41c4c644561f\u0022\u003EThe war criminal Min Aung Hlaing stole democracy in a military coup four years ago, and since then he has waged war on his own people. He tortures political prisoners, burns down villages, and drops bombs on hospitals and schools; 3.6 million people are displaced from their homes inside the country, and 16 million people are starving, according to the World Food Programme.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227d50be4a7fd042fca27c41c4c644561f\u0022\u003EThrough this resolution of our Parliament today, we call on the international community to stand in solidarity with the people of Myanmar. The anti-junta movement has in the past few years taken back control of more than two-thirds of the country. It has built an impressive unity among the various groups opposing the regime, and it has advanced a constitutional process to establish an interim Government based on the principles of federal democracy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227d50be4a7fd042fca27c41c4c644561f\u0022\u003EOur fact-finding mission from this Parliament heard firsthand from people all over Myanmar who are building a new society and new forms of government in the liberated zones. They call it a bottomup federal democracy. The Myanmar junta is destabilising the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, one of New Zealand\u2019s most important relationships. The junta\u2019s war is the biggest cause of forced displacement in Asia. Under the generals, Myanmar is the source of most of the methamphetamine that makes its way to New Zealand. It is a leader in human trafficking and home to the notorious scam centres that swindle money from New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227d50be4a7fd042fca27c41c4c644561f\u0022\u003EWe urge the New Zealand Government and other liberal democracies to step up and work alongside our friends in South-east Asia to reject and isolate the military regime and stay true to the cause of democracy in Myanmar. We say to China, India, and Russia: stop propping up this murderous regime that conducts air strikes on schools and hospitals on a daily basis. Stop funding them, stop doing business with them, stop training their military, and stop supplying them with the military hardware they use against their own people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227d50be4a7fd042fca27c41c4c644561f\u0022\u003ETo people all over the world, we say: don\u2019t forget Myanmar. If you believe in democracy, human rights, and international law, the people of Myanmar need you now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a5921c9f295441b0ba570475a71a860e\u0022 data-id=\u0022efa72e0a15ab42d59959f12ea1771468\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5921c9f295441b0ba570475a71a860e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022efa72e0a15ab42d59959f12ea1771468\u0022\u003ETEANAU TUIONO (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to support this very considered motion, and I know that it will be meaningful for the diaspora Myanmar communities here in Aotearoa, around the world, and indeed in Myanmar itself.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5921c9f295441b0ba570475a71a860e\u0022\u003EI was also on that fact-finding mission, and as we spent some time on the border of Myanmar, we met with many, many people from various parts of the country. They talked about how their villages had been bombed. They talked about the air strikes. They talked about the impacts on their future and the impact on democracy. Having a motion like this debated and talked about in the House is an incredibly important move.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5921c9f295441b0ba570475a71a860e\u0022\u003EWe also spent some time feeding back to the community. Appropriate decision-making is an important thing for the Green Party. The last of those meetings was hosted by Rachel Boyack, a Labour Party MP, and it was packed. Over a hundred people were there to listen about what we had learnt. In that vein, I want to acknowledge both the cultural, social, and political support we had from Phyo Sandar Soe, Ja Seng Ing, and Mi Kun Chan Non. Being able to understand what this means and the impacts particularly for their community brought a revelation to me in terms of the impact that was happening there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5921c9f295441b0ba570475a71a860e\u0022\u003EWhat everybody said was that this is a sham election. It is not a general election; it\u2019s a generals\u2019 election, and they highlighted that for a number of reasons. One of them is the fact that the military junta itself controls less than a third of the country. They also pointed to the fact that, actually, with the elections that they\u2019ve planned, they already get 25 percent of the ballot, but also they get to declare who will be on that ballot as well. There were also concerns raised about how it will be phased out as well. There could be one phase, two phases, or three phases and an ability to move that around. That is not a fair democracy, let alone the impact on all of the communities there, with 3.6\u00A0million and more internally displaced people fleeing the conflict into the liberated areas, and also the millions more that are refugees on the border.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5921c9f295441b0ba570475a71a860e\u0022\u003EThis also has particular significance for us in Aotearoa, because much, if not most, of the methamphetamine originates from Myanmar. It makes its way down here as well, and there are the growing concerns of scam centres\u2014something that I had not heard of before until they talked to us about it\u2014and the concerns there around people that have been trafficked into those scam centres.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5921c9f295441b0ba570475a71a860e\u0022\u003EIt was a very learning experience, spending some time with the community, and I think it\u2019s important to acknowledge as well the role of the New Zealand Myanmar Campaign Committee. This is a committee that is chaired by Stanley Saw, with his wife, Sandra Saw, supporting, as well. Their daughter is part of our Green caucus: Yadana, who is a Wellington Greens regional councillor.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5921c9f295441b0ba570475a71a860e\u0022\u003EThese are impacts that impact not just Myanmar but right across Aotearoa New Zealand, so having our attention on this is incredibly meaningful. It means that the people can say that people in New Zealand have actually considered this motion, that they have considered the issues, that they understand the issues, that they understand the harm that the military junta is doing in Myanmar and are willing to make a stand and to call it out. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5921c9f295441b0ba570475a71a860e\u0022\u003EThis will be an important resolution. It will be a meaningful resolution for the Myanmar communities here in New Zealand but also a meaningful resolution for the communities who, across the world, have had to escape their homes, and also for those who are struggling on the ground\u2014the anti-junta movement. It is meaningful also, noting the comments around the emerging democracy of hope, the emerging federalism of hope, and just to note that also we met with some of the young people who are trying to build a future as a part of this new emerging federalism. Some of them had an opportunity to go to Victoria University and to learn about public policy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5921c9f295441b0ba570475a71a860e\u0022\u003ESupport in these areas is incredibly, incredibly important. I commend this motion to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5921c9f295441b0ba570475a71a860e\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f2ac97043e424147b76ba2dfaa68031b\u0022\u003EGeneral Debate\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00226eaa8fce979f4212999a18ac3892629c\u0022\u003EGeneral Debate\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224478b7cb554b4997b2dcf567b6816349\u0022 data-id=\u00226d8dd971d58e467385807338c876a522\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224478b7cb554b4997b2dcf567b6816349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226d8dd971d58e467385807338c876a522\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224478b7cb554b4997b2dcf567b6816349\u0022\u003EFresh from the dumpster fire that was the economic management approach of the last Government, last week a phoenix emerged, and its name was Chris Hipkins. Chris Hipkins, after six years of trashing the economy, emerged with energy renewed to say, \u201CI have a new approach to the task, and its name is more taxes.\u201D That\u2019s his prescription for the New Zealand economy: to slam a new capital gains tax (CGT) on all those New Zealanders who have saved hard, who have invested, and who have worked hard to build up a nest egg, a rental property, a business. Chris Hipkins\u2019 message to them: we\u2019ll punish you for your effort with a new tax.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224478b7cb554b4997b2dcf567b6816349\u0022\u003EYou cannot trust Labour on tax. Everyone who has worked hard in this economy is in their sights, because when they mismanage the economy and they run out of money, they always come after yours. The funny thing last week was, of course, the whole policy got leaked, because not only is there civil war in Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori; it turns out there\u2019s civil war in the Labour Party too. There\u2019s a host of them who want the tax to be bigger and bolder and brighter, so they hadn\u2019t quite got around to finalising the details when the policy got leaked. I found it really amusing, colleagues, to see how upset some of their members are that I would have the temerity to point out that this policy will impact businesses, this policy will impact KiwiSaver funds, this policy will impact everyday mums and dads. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224478b7cb554b4997b2dcf567b6816349\u0022\u003EI don\u2019t know whether it\u2019s fair for me to say that Labour are actively misleading New Zealanders about their CGT, because I suspect that, actually, they don\u2019t have a clue about their own policy. They don\u2019t actually understand it\u2014so, listen up. Let me spell it out. When you say, members opposite, it won\u2019t impact businesses, answer me this: how do you levy a tax on buildings and land and not impact a business, when it is sold, that includes buildings and land? The simple fact is that you are putting a tax on that business. The Labour Party still hasn\u2019t answered how this isn\u2019t a tax on KiwiSaver. Just go and have a look at what KiwiSaver funds are invested in. It turns out they invest in commercial property in New Zealand. When you tax it more, you are cutting the returns of New Zealanders in their KiwiSaver accounts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224478b7cb554b4997b2dcf567b6816349\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve had all of these questions asked about the details. Valuation day\u2014which, apparently, is going to be on 1 July 2027, but they can\u2019t tell us how they\u2019ll value the properties, how much it will cost, and who will be doing it. Apparently, it\u2019s all fine, because they\u2019ll sort it out when they get into Government. Well, they don\u2019t have time to do that, because there will be no way they can get that detail worked out in time for legislation to be passed. It\u2019s just classic Labour\u2014light on detail.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224478b7cb554b4997b2dcf567b6816349\u0022\u003EThe real thing here is what\u2019s being left unsaid by Labour, which is that, actually, they are opening the door with a capital gains tax, with the true desire in their hearts to expand it even further. You saw that crystal clear with Mr Hipkins, didn\u2019t you? When asked, \u201CWill you introduce any other new taxes?\u201D and given the absolute opportunity to rule it out, what did he do? He said, \u201COh, well, there\u2019ll be more to come.\u201D There\u2019ll be more to come! For all those New Zealanders who have been working hard, Mr Hipkins\u2019 message for you and your economy and your job and your family\u2019s savings is: \u201CI want to tax it.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224478b7cb554b4997b2dcf567b6816349\u0022\u003EWe have to ask ourselves this: what kind of a country do we want to be? I want this to be a country that backs hard-working people. I want to back their aspirations, their efforts, their hard-won savings and achievements. Labour wants the opposite. They want a tax on people who have done the right thing\u2014on those people who\u2019ve saved up, built a nest egg, built a business. This is what Labour always do. They mismanage the economy, and then they make other people who do the right thing pay for it\u2014and that\u2019s before we talk about what the Greens want to do and what Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori want to do. It\u2019s chaos on the other side. The phoenix has emerged. It\u2019s not enough to moan anymore; now they want to make it worse. We say no.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002240e5649619404f2c80ddb4dd8ea03662\u0022 data-id=\u00229994b68c56264e5da65f94013c45b763\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002240e5649619404f2c80ddb4dd8ea03662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229994b68c56264e5da65f94013c45b763\u0022\u003EDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader\u2014Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koe e te P\u012Bka. Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori, first of all, wants to commemorate the P\u0101huatanga day. Today, 144 years ago, reminds us of the violent invasion that happened at Parihaka, on 5 November 1881, when Crown troops stormed on a peaceful M\u0101ori community that was leading the world in non-violence, resistance, and selfdetermination\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022584ccdd8416c492caec744afa82c5738\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, I don\u2019t mean to interrupt the member, but the discussion that\u2019s going on in the Government benches is far too loud. You want to have a conversation, go out into the lobbies. Start again for Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, I\u2019m sorry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002240e5649619404f2c80ddb4dd8ea03662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c4a0fb72c5ed485a84288df5f147ddc7\u0022\u003EDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER\u003C/span\u003E: Kia ora, e te P\u012Bka. A hundred and forty-four years ago today, there was a violent invasion on Parihaka. On 5 November 1881, Crown troops stormed on a peaceful M\u0101ori community that was leading the world in non-violent, self-determinant resistance. Parihaka for us was actually a place of vision. It was about just peaceful. It was about a united nation. Our ancestors were collectively building a future grounded in aroha, in peace, and in mana motuhake, showing a way through colonisation and horrific capitalisation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002240e5649619404f2c80ddb4dd8ea03662\u0022\u003EParihaka developed an economy rooted in whenua and collective responsibility and care. There were communal gardens. There was cooperative trade. There was shared labour. There was a real independent M\u0101ori economy that didn\u2019t rely on some of the aged colonial systems that made individuals rich only. The people of Parihaka understood that prosperity must never come at the cost of land or the dignity of others. Had the Crown not invaded Parihaka, we today may have had an Aotearoa model for a regenerative circular economy where food security, energy, and housing were locally controlled and community-driven.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002240e5649619404f2c80ddb4dd8ea03662\u0022\u003EThat is part of Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori\u2019s economic vision, where policies are M\u0101ori-led, where the iwi economy is actually respected and it\u2019s contributing, where we have M\u0101ori banking systems, where we have the ability to raise capital for M\u0101ori resources removed out of the way, and community-based energy solutions that reflect principles of self-reliance and community opportunities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002240e5649619404f2c80ddb4dd8ea03662\u0022\u003EThis is what we wanted to talk about today: how Parihaka led a social movement of peace and unity. It welcomed everyone, M\u0101ori and tangata Tiriti, who sought refuge from violence and injustice. It modelled restorative justice, manaakitanga, whanaungatanga, long before these became State policy terms. It showed that true leadership does not come from force but from moral courage and compassion. If the vision of Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu K\u0101kahi had been allowed to thrive, Aotearoa today would be a society where decisions were made through consensus, not dominance, with social systems of inclusivity and future focus.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002240e5649619404f2c80ddb4dd8ea03662\u0022\u003ETe P\u0101ti M\u0101ori\u2019s policies for Wh\u0101nau Ora, M\u0101ori health transformation, living wages, pay equity, free education, constitutional reform through Matike Mai Aotearoa all uphold these same values. We stand for a nation where communities design their own futures; where wellbeing, not wealth, is measured for success. The Matike Mai movement is the modern expression of that vision. It offers a pathway to constitutional transformation promised by Te Tiriti. It\u2019s an opportunity where M\u0101ori and the Crown, side by side, are able to talk and negotiate political restoration. That was spiritually envisaged in Parihaka.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002240e5649619404f2c80ddb4dd8ea03662\u0022\u003ECulturally, Parihaka was the pulse of M\u0101ori innovation. It nurtured language, spirituality, collective knowledge. It was a place where karakia and k\u014Drero guided governance and where children were raised to see peace as power. Had it been left untouched, Parihaka could have been an intentional centre of indigenous thought, peace, education, and cultural exchange. Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori carries that cultural aspiration forward\u2014our commitment to te reo M\u0101ori, M\u0101ori media, protection of m\u0101tauranga M\u0101ori. We fight for that restoration of our land and our oceans.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002240e5649619404f2c80ddb4dd8ea03662\u0022\u003EHad the invasion of 1881 not occurred, Aotearoa might have grown into a country led by partnership and peace, not control and not confiscation, with shared governance models that are rooted into Te Tiriti o Waitangi, with M\u0101ori and tangata Tiriti co-designing national systems of economy, education, and justice. The principles of Te Whiti and Tohu might have guided how we care for the vulnerable and respected the difference. Our kaupapa of mana motuhake, oranga whenua, reo, wairua, and wh\u0101nau\u2014our fight for an Aotearoa hou\u2014is a continuation of Parihaka\u2019s peaceful resistance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002240e5649619404f2c80ddb4dd8ea03662\u0022\u003EWe believe that by returning to the values of Parihaka, we can heal our nation: economically through redistribution, socially through care, and culturally through truth. P\u0101huatanga is not only a remembrance of injustice; it is a call to action to finish what the legacy of Parihaka began, the building of an Aotearoa where peace, equity, and tino rangatira are not only dreams but they are daily realities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002240e5649619404f2c80ddb4dd8ea03662\u0022\u003EToday, I stand in honour of all of those who believed in this nationhood, who stood in passive resistance against some of the worst atrocities and violence ever known and seen in mankind. I hope that one day we can be a place that not only reflects those values but truly aspires to achieve it. N\u014D reira, kia ora koutou katoa.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022 data-id=\u0022bb608421829a4a36a17609105157d92a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bb608421829a4a36a17609105157d92a\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing):\u003C/span\u003E What a month\u2014months, plural\u2014it\u2019s been for Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori. Right now, they\u2019re like a bad episode of a reality TV show. Rather than Everyone Hates Chris, Keeping Up with the Kardashians, and The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, it\u2019s more like \u201CEveryone Hates Rawiri\u201D, \u201CKeeping Up with the Kapa-Kingis\u201D, and \u201CThe Real Housewives of the Waipareira Trust\u201D. I was going to make a joke about Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, but man of the people John Tamihere is already one of those.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EA couple of things last week revealed New Zealanders should never put their faith and confidence in the mess of parties opposite to govern this country ever again. One was the ongoing civil war inside Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori, and we\u2019ll wait and see how that transpires. The second, and the more important and the more substantive issue, was the release of what Chris Hipkins tried so hard not to call a capital gains tax. After two years of labyrinthine internal debate between the \u201Cpolicy council\u201D, Phil Twyford and Helen White and David Parker, and all of the hard left of the Labour Party, and the ongoing backwards and forwards between the hardheads in the caucus and the softies on the backbench who want to go hard on a wealth tax, we\u2019ve ended up with, basically, something that pleases nobody, least of which New Zealanders, which is this halfway house capital gains tax that Chris Hipkins spent much of the first week trying to say was \u201Cnarrow\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EEvery time someone asked him a question, he said, \u201COh no, it\u2019s narrow.\u201D Is it a capital gains tax? \u201CNo, it\u2019s a narrow tax\u201D, every time someone asks him\u2014\u201CNo, it\u2019s narrow, very narrow, very narrow.\u201D Except it affects commercial property. Now, people go, \u201COh, commercial property\u2014oh, that\u2019s all good, commercial property.\u201D Except when you think about the corner dairy, which is commercial property; the packhouse for the Kiwi fruit orchard, which is commercial property\u2014when you start thinking about the factories, the logistics hubs, the warehouses, the GP surgeries. Actually, when you think about it, other than the sort of digital nomads who\u2019ve got a laptop, it\u2019s actually quite hard to imagine a business in New Zealand that doesn\u2019t use buildings or land\u2014all of which will be taxed. On 1 July 2027, a couple of years away\u2014less than a couple of years away\u2014everyone\u2019s going to have to go out and get a valuation. If you sell your business, you\u2019ll have to work out what the proportion of the business is that is the commercial property arm of it and how much that\u2019s increased in the last few periods. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EOh, this is the other thing: don\u2019t take account of inflation. That\u2019s not allowed to be taken into consideration, which is actually how most capital gains schemes work, and then apply the capital gains tax on top. What does that mean? As the Minister of Finance says, KiwiSaver is affected, mum and dad landlords and businesses are affected, businesses up and down the country. Chris Hipkins has the temerity to say, \u201CNo, no, no, it\u2019s narrow. It\u2019s not a tax on business.\u201D Almost every business in the country will be affected, but he says, \u201CDon\u2019t worry, don\u2019t worry\u2014it\u2019s all under control. Vote for us and we\u2019ll let you know the details after the election.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EThat was the real kicker. The real kicker? It was like, \u201CTrust us\u201D\u2014having driven the economy into the ditch in the first place through high debt and high spending and high taxation, he turns around and says, \u201CDon\u2019t worry, it\u2019s all under control. Vote for us and we\u2019ll let you know the details later.\u201D The arrogance, the contempt, the disrespect for the voter, that they would expect New Zealanders to vote for a capital gains tax that even they can\u2019t articulate properly to the New Zealand people. As a former political leader who I greatly admire said, \u201CIf you don\u2019t understand it, don\u2019t vote for it.\u201D That\u2019s exactly what I think the New Zealand people will do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EBut \u201CDon\u2019t worry,\u201D Chris Hipkins says, \u201CWe\u2019ve learnt the lessons. We\u2019ve listened. We\u2019ve learnt the lessons from the last time we were in Government.\u201D Except their first two policies contain very little detail, and to the extent they do contain detail, they are bad policies for New Zealand. Every day that goes by, they demand more spending, more tax, and more debt. That is precisely the toxic cocktail of policies that the last Government left this country in. I put it to the House: has the Labour Party learnt the lessons when everything in their record and their policies to date indicate the exact opposite? We say no.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229ea8d231f4e948c19f942d51a4ae19bf\u0022 data-id=\u0022f701b793db3f45a392312f448714df2a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ea8d231f4e948c19f942d51a4ae19bf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f701b793db3f45a392312f448714df2a\u0022\u003ELAURA McCLURE (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E Well, ACT is fixing what matters in this Government, and, for our children, nothing matters more than a good education. Education sets the direction of a young person\u2019s life. It determines opportunity, confidence, and, ultimately, the future of New Zealand. Sadly, our education system hasn\u2019t been living up to this responsibility. For the past six years, under the Labour Government, our education was in a steady decline. One of the very reasons that I am here in Parliament is because during COVID, I saw the state of the education and the quality that my child was being sent home with. Having to teach a Year 2 student how to do basic mathematics was completely outrageous, and it opened my eyes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ea8d231f4e948c19f942d51a4ae19bf\u0022\u003EThese concerns are now being addressed by this Government. Not only have we put the basics back in place\u2014literacy and numeracy, and making sure that these are at the forefront\u2014we heard yesterday under a new announcement just announced that student achievement will be the paramount objective for school boards, and they will not be bound to a Treaty mandate. This is highly important for our schools. They no longer will be having to wrestle between a Treaty obligation and making sure that our kids are achieving high standards. I get hundreds of emails and comments from concerned parents about their kids\u2019 education and the fact that their kids are having to karakia three times a day but are unable to do the basics at school. It has turned into more of a cult than it is culture.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ea8d231f4e948c19f942d51a4ae19bf\u0022\u003EThe new curriculum will be better for our children and, ultimately, better for all New Zealanders. The new social sciences curriculum is the biggest win for ACT in this Government. It delivers on our coalition commitments to restore the balance to the New Zealand\u2019s history curriculum and teach facts, not feelings. The old Labour-designed system turned classrooms into a barn battleground of ideology. Its so-called big ideas divided New Zealanders into the victims and the villains. Those days are over. Under the new curriculum, students will actually learn about not just New Zealand history; they\u2019ll also learn about ancient Egypt, Rome, Greece, the industrial revolution\u2014issues that are wider beyond our shores. They will actually learn about democracy, freedom, and the ideas that have driven human progress and the free society that we live in today. I was shocked when one of my sons\u2019 12-year-old friends didn\u2019t even know about World War I or World War II but could recite a karakia three times a day. Like, come on, there needs to be balance here. We need to think sensibly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ea8d231f4e948c19f942d51a4ae19bf\u0022\u003EOur kids will see not a story of oppression, but they\u2019ll see a story of human achievement. They\u2019ll learn about the beauty and discover the freedom of the great ideas that have shaped our Western civilisation\u2014ideas that have lifted billions out of poverty and built this modern world that I think a lot of people on the other side of this House have forgotten. It\u2019s the very reason that we are sitting here today. For too long, young people have been taught to feel ashamed of their history and where they came from, not to be uplifted by their history, and that changes right now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ea8d231f4e948c19f942d51a4ae19bf\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ll also be teaching our kids about financial literacy. Education is becoming useful again. For years, we had a system that produced students who could recite political slogans, but they couldn\u2019t even add up their money in the bank. From their earliest years, children will now learn about money. They will learn that it\u2019s limited, that choices matter, and that budgets help make decisions. Something makes me think that the other Government don\u2019t want kids to know about budgets and money, or they may lose some voters. Let\u2019s be honest: a few members opposite could have benefitted from those lessons themselves. Financial literacy is about real life. It\u2019s about responsibility, independence, and understanding the value of work and saving.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ea8d231f4e948c19f942d51a4ae19bf\u0022\u003EThis is the difference ACT is making in Government. We\u2019re replacing indoctrination with education. We\u2019re giving opportunities. We\u2019re saying yes to charter schools; yes, that kids learn differently; yes, that some kids want full M\u0101ori immersion; some kids want to be in a sports college or a sports institute. We\u2019re replacing guilt with grievance and curiosity with critical thinking, and we\u2019ve replaced division with a shared sense of what being a New Zealander means, because that is the Kiwi way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224a498204a64042f68c4586c8592992d2\u0022 data-id=\u0022749069fe6f794efd89423b140c793102\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a498204a64042f68c4586c8592992d2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022749069fe6f794efd89423b140c793102\u0022\u003EHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Mr Speaker. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fd8ea5eb35bd44939c9e0830271b43ce\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: \u0100mene.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a498204a64042f68c4586c8592992d2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b5398730e1e6464faab40f0552b948be\u0022\u003EHon GINNY ANDERSEN\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, \u0101mene. Today we\u2019ve got the stats out on our most recent unemployment figures for New Zealand, and they are a stark reality. The record reached today is a nine-year high for New Zealanders, right now. The worst part of the 160,000 people who find themselves without a job, under this Government, is the fact that our young people are the ones that are impacted the most. Of those who are without a job, it is actually 15 percent of those under 24 who do not have employment. At a time in New Zealanders\u2019 lives when there should be opportunity for learning, opportunity for taking up skills, there is none for our young people, and that is the deepest concern.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a498204a64042f68c4586c8592992d2\u0022\u003EWhen we heard Nicola Willis and Christopher Bishop stand up and make their case this afternoon, did we hear one idea about what there are for jobs for young people? Did we hear one of their plans to look at how we\u2019re going to increase opportunities for the youth in New Zealand? Did we have one single policy on how we\u2019re going to stop 200 New Zealanders leaving our shores every single day? All they could talk about was Labour policies, because what Labour has is a clear plan for our future: to invest in our future, to invest in our people, and to make sure they stay here. That\u2019s what is, sadly, lacking from those members opposite\u2014absolutely no vision about what we do for young people here in New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a498204a64042f68c4586c8592992d2\u0022\u003EThe response they have given\u2014there has been one policy so far. The policy is that 18- and 19year-olds will no longer be eligible to receive the jobseeker and, in fact, if their parents are means-tested and the combined income is over $65,000, they are ineligible to receive that support. What I don\u2019t understand\u2014and maybe some of the other debaters this afternoon can enlighten us\u2014is what happens to driver licensing for those young people who need to find employment? What happens to their statistics and their details from the Ministry of Social Development? They are vanished from the records, because if they are not there, then how do the support services that enable them to get driving, to get trained, and to get employed work? How do those services work? They are the very questions that many NGOs and many support groups across our country are now scratching their heads, wondering how we turn our unemployment statistics around when this Government\u2019s plan is to simply vanish 18- and 19-year-olds from being able to receive the support they need to get a job.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a498204a64042f68c4586c8592992d2\u0022\u003EBut wait, there\u2019s more, because, typically, when unemployment is high, what happens is people take that opportunity to learn, to take up an apprenticeship, to train in a new area, to look at ways that they can improve their skills because employment isn\u2019t currently available. But this Government has taken the opportunity to cut those services at the very same time they drive up unemployment. It is once again our young people that bear the brunt of that force. We see right across the country 550 courses cut in New Zealand; 900 full-time jobs gone, and those training courses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a498204a64042f68c4586c8592992d2\u0022\u003EI was in Tokoroa last Friday, and not only has that small rural community faced two significant closures for wood manufacturing, with significant unemployment as a result, but on top of that, their local trade training, Toi Ohomai, is losing 60 full-time teacher equivalents that are training people. What a time. What a time to cut trade training and to stop people from picking up a new skill, at a time when this Government has witnessed and driven 20,000 construction jobs overseas\u2014gone from New Zealand\u2014and caused the downward spiral of our construction industry. They are cutting apprenticeships by making it harder for people to learn a trade. Once again, when they\u2019re looking for jobs, it\u2019ll be migration they use, not the skills and the talent right here in New Zealand\u2014not backing our young people to pick up a trade, to be able to learn some skills that can grow our economy, grow our local economies, grow our communities, and make them stronger.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a498204a64042f68c4586c8592992d2\u0022\u003EThat sums up why neither of the first speakers on that side could offer up one ray of hope for our young people here in New Zealand, because they want them to be disappeared off the benefit register. They want them gone. They don\u2019t want to count them. They don\u2019t want to pay for them. They don\u2019t want to know about them. On this side of the House, we back our young people. We want to train them, we want them to stay here, and we want them to have a hope, right here in New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eac6c3aa5817441f89ae786e919f239b\u0022 data-id=\u00223e371190eba548d69fcfe5edd308d886\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eac6c3aa5817441f89ae786e919f239b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223e371190eba548d69fcfe5edd308d886\u0022\u003EDr DAVID WILSON (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let\u2019s talk about banks\u2014and I think I\u2019ll make it exciting for you. The recent banking inquiry has concentrated on increasing competition, but there is more work to be done.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eac6c3aa5817441f89ae786e919f239b\u0022\u003EExcess profits\u2014let\u2019s start there. There is $8 billion per annum going across to the Aussie investors\u2014not our retirement savings; theirs. This is the modern-day equivalent of the Vikings coming for your treasury. Remind me\u2014why did we sell the BNZ and the ASB? Now we\u2019re in this situation. Wow. Let\u2019s get into a bit more.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eac6c3aa5817441f89ae786e919f239b\u0022\u003EWestpac just recently had $1.2 billion in profit\u201413 percent in tough times. ANZ\u2019s profit nearly doubled, with just under $2.3 billion in\u2014in their words\u2014a tough year. Oh, how tough it must have been! What do they do to achieve this? More customers, better service, better productivity, increased investment in software maybe? Oh, well, let\u2019s not think about that. The UBS, an investment bank\u2014yes, they invest in banks\u2014called the ANZ profit \u201Calpha profits\u201D. Yeah, there\u2019s a reason why they call it that. The Commerce Commission called the \u201Cbig four\u201D a cosy oligopoly, where CEO salaries are more than what most of our fintechs could dream of in terms of capital. It\u2019s a cosy oligopoly concentrating its profits from mortgages, not commercial banking. Why? Mortgages are low risk and very profitable. It\u2019s been calculated that on average, mortgages in New Zealand cost us 1 percent more than in Australia. Why is that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eac6c3aa5817441f89ae786e919f239b\u0022\u003EOver the life of a mortgage, an average loan will cost New Zealanders, on that basis, $500,000 extra. How about those interest rates? How are we doing with those? Well, net interest rates are at the moment approximately double the official cash rate (OCR). Really? That\u2019s right. It\u2019s a 100 percent mark-up. I can figure that out. Even the best fixed interest rates are around 80 percent higher than the OCR.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eac6c3aa5817441f89ae786e919f239b\u0022\u003EWhat are we doing about this? Kiwibank is touted as the answer to our competitive woes, and it was set up to provide greater support for Kiwi businesses. Well, really, in my view, it\u2019s just a smaller, much smaller, \u201Cme too\u201D. Judge them by what they do, not by what they say. So far, not good. There\u2019s a lot to be done there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eac6c3aa5817441f89ae786e919f239b\u0022\u003ELet me move to scams, which were mentioned earlier\u2014Myanmar. The banks have been very quick to make positive statements around implementing confirmation-of-payee systems to address fraud. This is over a decade behind other jurisdictions, and have they updated their software systems on the back of excess profits to protect us from scams? Hmm. Has there been recompense to the victims who have lost their life savings as a result of inadequate banking software and systems? Do we seriously believe that these same banks are going to get ahead of extremely sophisticated organised crime groups funding terrorism? Really? This is woeful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eac6c3aa5817441f89ae786e919f239b\u0022\u003EThe institutional arrangements are not a system here; they\u2019re like a fire swamp. For those of you who remember the cult movie The Princess Bride, it\u2019s like entering the fire swamp: man-eating giant rodents, sinking sands, and fire swamps at every turn. That\u2019s what you\u2019re navigating: a series of disconnected institutions\u2014banks, the Banking Ombudsman, media, the Financial Markets Authority, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, the Department of Internal Affairs, Justice, lawyers, the Serious Fraud Office, and Police provide for a maze that you may never leave. Victims are confronted by painfully slow deliberation, obfuscation, and blame shifting. Gee, this is not a good picture, is it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eac6c3aa5817441f89ae786e919f239b\u0022\u003EBut never fear: New Zealand First is here. Thanks to the excellent work by Minister Costello to address organised crime, alongside forthcoming work that New Zealand First has been doing in addressing scams in the banking sector, we are on to this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eac6c3aa5817441f89ae786e919f239b\u0022\u003EBanks are afforded a social licence to operate. Profitability is not enough. They must go beyond legal compliance to act in ethical ways. Banks have encouraged all of us to bank digitally. Now we are facing an artificial intelligence digital tsunami. Perhaps some of the vast profits that we have witnessed should now go towards protecting consumers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022333cbe863aa64ae7816c10ddcdfe265e\u0022 data-id=\u00223fba90dda9ed40d6a7b1c5514dcb4683\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022333cbe863aa64ae7816c10ddcdfe265e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223fba90dda9ed40d6a7b1c5514dcb4683\u0022\u003EHon PEENI HENARE (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity to speak in the general debate. Over the last few weeks, Labour set out the first steps in its very clear plan and goal to realise New Zealand\u2019s full potential. We want more investment, more innovation, more good jobs in every community up and down this beautiful country of ours. Our plan is about backing aspiration. It\u2019s about investing in our ideas, our businesses, and our people so our future is made right here in New Zealand\u2014a New Zealand where our kids want to stay, where they can build good lives here at home and not feel forced to look overseas for opportunities. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022333cbe863aa64ae7816c10ddcdfe265e\u0022\u003ERight now, we\u2019re at risk of losing all of that. Every day, more than 200 New Zealanders pack up and leave to find work that should be available here at home. Christopher Luxon stood in front of New Zealanders and promised to fix the economy and the cost of living. Instead, it\u2019s getting worse. This Government\u2019s decisions are causing tens of thousands of talented New Zealanders to head offshore and ply their trade elsewhere. National\u2019s economic credibility has taken a massive hit. The economy shrank by nearly 1 percent in just three months, while our competitors in the countries we like to compare ourselves to are growing and continuing to grow. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022333cbe863aa64ae7816c10ddcdfe265e\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s clear on this side of the House that this Government has no plan but are strong on excuses. Today, it was revealed that the number of people unemployed is the highest it\u2019s been for 30 years. Businesses are closing at rates higher than\u2014in fact, 2,700 in the past year alone, the highest in a decade. This decline isn\u2019t just something you read about in an economic report; no, it\u2019s the lives our people in this country are living. People feel it when they are filling up their car, when families are paying more at the supermarket, and when people can\u2019t afford to see a GP. Sitting around the kitchen table, wh\u0101nau are looking through their bills, trying to make it all add up, wondering how they are going to plan for the future. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022333cbe863aa64ae7816c10ddcdfe265e\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s clear that while families are trying to create survival plans, this Government has presented the country with no plan. Christopher Luxon\u2019s only answer is to start selling off our assets and open the door wider to foreign investors, giving away our future instead of building it. Labour has a better way: we\u2019re proud of Kiwi ingenuity and we\u2019ll invest in it, creating good jobs, backing local businesses, and keeping talent here at home. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022333cbe863aa64ae7816c10ddcdfe265e\u0022\u003ENew Zealand is in a moment of urgency and extraordinary opportunity. We have a skilled workforce, great ideas, and a proud history of innovation, but decades of under-investment and shortterm thinking have, sadly, held us back. Productivity is very clear in this country: it has stagnated. We are too dependent on commodity exports, meaning only one part of the economy can race ahead while the rest fall behind. Wages are low even as people work some of the longest hours in the developed world. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022333cbe863aa64ae7816c10ddcdfe265e\u0022\u003EThe New Zealand Future Fund is the first step in Labour\u2019s plan to back our own potential; create good, secure jobs; and grow our wealth so people can build their future here at home and not overseas. For too long, great Kiwi ideas haven\u2019t had the backing they deserve. Too many of them have been forced offshore, bought by foreign investors, or never realised at all, taking jobs and opportunities with them. The New Zealand Future Fund will fix that. The future fund will invest in\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022212cf7474b304d86a379dbfeb693d855\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022057db9a864594054be372a626005010b\u0022\u003EHon Mark Patterson\u003C/span\u003E: You stole it from us!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022333cbe863aa64ae7816c10ddcdfe265e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228bfc46a2b37e47bbbfd3018cdf8e22a7\u0022\u003EHon PEENI HENARE\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014New Zealand\u2019s people, ideas, and industries, making life more affordable. And while New Zealand First will say we took it from them, they\u2019re in Government and still can\u2019t do it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022333cbe863aa64ae7816c10ddcdfe265e\u0022\u003EWe want to also be clear: part of our plan is a capital gains tax. A simple, targeted capital gains tax on property profits made after 1 July 2027 is also part of the plan. Right now, too much of our wealth is locked up in property instead of backing Kiwi ideas, Kiwi jobs, and Kiwi innovation. These aren\u2019t my words; these are Christopher Bishop\u2019s words. This Government agrees but are doing nothing about it. A capital gains tax will help unlock that money and get it working for our economy, investing in businesses that create real opportunity. What it\u2019ll also do is invest in good healthcare. We are saying to New Zealanders, \u201CIf you vote for Labour and you get us on to the Government benches, we will give our families\u2014every person in this country\u2014three free GP visits.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022333cbe863aa64ae7816c10ddcdfe265e\u0022\u003EThe Minister of Education today said that three sides in M\u0101ori is a tapatoru. Well, this is a tapawh\u0101 roa. Tapawh\u0101 is a square; tapawh\u0101 roa is a rectangle. We want to say to New Zealanders right up and down the country, \u201CWith this, you can access better healthcare, three free GP visits for every New Zealander, and a plan this country deserves.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224b2f5c45d42a433893ae6677b9a7307d\u0022 data-id=\u00223ea59805799c4e339fa2dbe8707a0464\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224b2f5c45d42a433893ae6677b9a7307d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223ea59805799c4e339fa2dbe8707a0464\u0022\u003ECAMERON BREWER (National\u2014Upper Harbour):\u003C/span\u003E When I was a little boy, my favourite song on my favourite 45 record went like this: \u201CI\u2019m a little fire engine. Flick is my name. They won\u2019t let me put out fires. Isn\u2019t that a shame? Someday I\u2019ll be big and strong and fight every flame.\u201D That song was ringing in my ears as New Zealanders last week watched the shambles that was Labour\u2019s capital gains tax announcement and their leader then racing around doing his best to douse out the flames. Chris Hipkins was desperate to hose down speculation that the Green Party would demand even more taxes in any future coalition negotiations. And they would\u2014they would. In fact, the Green Party co-leader Chl\u00F6e Swarbrick wasted no time describing Labour\u2019s capital gains tax (CGT) as a mere starting point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224b2f5c45d42a433893ae6677b9a7307d\u0022\u003EIntroducing a 28 percent tax on all profits made after the sale of commercial or secondary residential property made Kiwis\u2019 blood run cold. What gets whacked with Labour\u2019s new tax? The investment flat helping pay your kids\u2019 uni costs, yes. Mum and Dad\u2019s small rental in Timaru, yes. The $900k bach in Gisborne, yes. How about this? How about the $550k rental in H\u0101wera? Yes. Labour\u2019s hurried CGT now poses many more questions than answers. That\u2019s not just National\u2019s assessment; that\u2019s according to many tax experts, economists, and commentators.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224b2f5c45d42a433893ae6677b9a7307d\u0022\u003EHere\u2019s the first credibility fail for the Labour Party. The $700 million raised on average per year will not be enough to fund free doctors visits for all 5.3 million New Zealanders three times a year, plus all the other health initiatives they\u2019re promising with their CGT grab. That\u2019s not even factoring in the rising demand when \u201Cfree\u201D is written on every doctor\u2019s front door. The computer simply says no.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224b2f5c45d42a433893ae6677b9a7307d\u0022\u003EWith $700 million not cutting it, that only means one thing\u2014it only means one thing. More new taxes and more debt will be required. Make no mistake: Labour\u2019s capital gains tax is a Trojan horse to a much, much bigger tax grab. To fund all their promises, Labour, Greens, Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori will not only need a CGT; they will need a wealth tax, they will need an inheritance tax, they will need a higher top tax rate, and much, much more debt. Read the Greens\u2019 alternative budget. It\u2019s eye-watering stuff, with a CGT just their starting point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224b2f5c45d42a433893ae6677b9a7307d\u0022\u003EEnter Deborah Chambers KC, with her column titled \u201CBugger off: why taxing property feels like punishing thrift\u201D. She wrote, \u201CFor many New Zealanders, property isn\u2019t a luxury, it\u2019s the only realistic savings plan. That\u2019s why many successful economies like Switzerland, Singapore, Hong Kong don\u2019t have a capital gains tax. They attract capital. A capital gains tax,\u201D she wrote, \u201Chits the psyche. It tells ordinary New Zealanders that saving, investing, and taking risk will be punished.\u201D, wrote Deborah Chambers KC.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224b2f5c45d42a433893ae6677b9a7307d\u0022\u003EThe policy leaked from within the Labour Party showed us that not everyone in Labour is happy nor convinced, nor were they in 2023. Chris Hipkins, on 12 July 2023: \u201CI am confirming today that under a Government I lead there will be no wealth or capital gains tax.\u201D Labour can\u2019t be trusted on tax. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224b2f5c45d42a433893ae6677b9a7307d\u0022\u003EWith Labour not able to answer most questions, it came down to the media bringing in the experts to try and explain and make sense of it. What we do know is that hundreds of thousands of individuals and small businesses would be liable for a tax if the Labour - Greens - Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori Government was ever elected next year. Yet, astonishingly, Labour thinks it\u2019s fine to fill in the details after the election. Let me repeat that: Labour is refusing to reveal key details of the tax until after the 2026 election. All Labour knows is how to tax Kiwis and dream up new ways of spending Kiwis\u2019 hardearned money.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224b2f5c45d42a433893ae6677b9a7307d\u0022\u003EThis is exactly the same recipe that landed New Zealand in this mess and that this Government continues to clean up. Like a possum in the headlights, Flick the little fire engine has proven he\u2019s not big enough or strong enough to fight every flame, and, thankfully, Labour will never get out of the station again. Isn\u2019t that a shame!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022528bff81a75942df8b97f66c623c8a91\u0022 data-id=\u0022556fb737270545bf9577578c24b88d23\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022528bff81a75942df8b97f66c623c8a91\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022556fb737270545bf9577578c24b88d23\u0022\u003ETAMATHA PAUL (Green\u2014Wellington Central):\u003C/span\u003E Kia ora, Mr Speaker. This is a quote from a person you may know, Mr Speaker: \u201CPeople who need housing and social support are more important than who owns the houses.\u201D Those are the words of Sir Bill English, in a report that came out about public housing called Owning Less to Achieve More. Yes, that is the same Bill English who led the review of K\u0101inga Ora, our nation\u2019s public housing arm. Some think it\u2019s a review and some see it for what it really is, which is the deconstruction or the dismantling of K\u0101inga Ora\u2014things to be expected of the very same person who sold off 10,000 of our nation\u2019s public homes, which happened to correlate with an increase of homelessness at the time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022528bff81a75942df8b97f66c623c8a91\u0022\u003EAside from the fact that the K\u0101inga Ora review that Sir Bill English led relied on flawed information, there are some major flaws in the Government\u2019s logic when it comes to public housing. The thing is, the Government that we have today, compared to the last National Government we had, are a lot sneakier when it comes to public housing and getting rid of it. Last time, it was just simply \u201CSell it off. We don\u2019t care. We don\u2019t care what it looks like.\u201D This time, it\u2019s \u201CWhy does the Government need to run and own and manage public housing?\u201D That\u2019s besides the fact that they actually are still selling public housing, by the way. In this term alone, they have sold 444 public homes, 232 public homes are on the market, and that\u2019s on top of the 3,500 public homes that they have already cancelled.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022528bff81a75942df8b97f66c623c8a91\u0022\u003EWhy should the State own and manage public housing? Why should the market not be left to run and own public housing? It\u2019s the common catchcry of privatisation, isn\u2019t it? It doesn\u2019t matter who runs or who owns a service or an asset, as long as the service or the asset is delivered. That\u2019s the common catchcry of privatisation. The obvious reason why the State should build and maintain public housing is because we have the money, we have the balance sheet, we have access to capital in a way that is cheaper and easier than other entities and organisations to borrow to build that housing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022528bff81a75942df8b97f66c623c8a91\u0022\u003EThe second reason is because of productivity and role modelling. We know that only 2 percent of our entire housing stock is accessible, despite the fact that we have a population where over a quarter of all people are disabled. We know that a decent chunk of our carbon emissions come from energy efficiencies in homes and in housing that isn\u2019t suitable, and we can role model what sustainable and accessible housing looks like, because, let\u2019s be real, the market doesn\u2019t have an incentive to do that. The market has always been and will always be driven by one thing and one thing only, and that is profit. The market doesn\u2019t have social or environmental obligations. The market doesn\u2019t feel a sense of responsibility for the suffering that happens when you deny people a home.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022528bff81a75942df8b97f66c623c8a91\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s no point arguing that community housing providers should provide public housing instead of the State, when the Government is only willing to work with and fund five community housing providers out of the hundreds that exist in Aotearoa.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022528bff81a75942df8b97f66c623c8a91\u0022\u003EThe market doesn\u2019t care about people in need; it cares about people with money that want to feed their insatiable greed. K\u0101inga Ora was always going to be public enemy No. 1 when it came to this Government, because this Government\u2019s economic strategy relies on rich people trading houses amongst each other. It\u2019s not about jobs, it\u2019s not about industry, it\u2019s not about productivity. It\u2019s their typical laziness when it comes to the economy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022528bff81a75942df8b97f66c623c8a91\u0022\u003EThe mission of right-wing Governments in the playbook around the world is to funnel as much public funds into the hands of private greed as they can, and that is exactly what we have seen from this Government. We have seen our money being funnelled into the hands of tobacco companies, to landlords, and to oil and gas mining companies. With K\u0101inga Ora being the biggest landlord in Aotearoa, it is no surprise that they are public enemy No. 1 when it comes to this Government wanting to dismantle them so that their mates who are landlords can make profits and so that everybody has to rely on the private rental market.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022528bff81a75942df8b97f66c623c8a91\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s no surprise that National Governments insist on calling it social housing when it has and should always be called public housing. It is housing that is owned by and for the people, and so it should remain. It is not about profit and it is not for greed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb2929110b9e4de593f6e50397159f32\u0022 data-id=\u0022b8880ef5fae0445a901254e4a65696c1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb2929110b9e4de593f6e50397159f32\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b8880ef5fae0445a901254e4a65696c1\u0022\u003ENANCY LU (National):\u003C/span\u003E Let\u2019s talk about Labour\u2019s capital gains tax (CGT). It is the wrong tax, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons. It will not build a single extra home for New Zealand, it will not lift productivity, and it will make it harder for New Zealanders to save, to invest, and to grow.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb2929110b9e4de593f6e50397159f32\u0022\u003ETrust and competence come first when it\u2019s about running the country. Labour\u2019s plan, first of all, was leaked\u2014it was leaked before it was even ready. Key design choices are still to come. Look at this: \u201Cnot to be revealed until after election\u201D. No clear valuation day rules, no certainty for small business goodwill or fit-outs, no credible guidance for family workshops\u2014no nothing. Any political party who wants new tax should bring detail to the people before asking the people for a mandate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb2929110b9e4de593f6e50397159f32\u0022\u003ETrack records also matter. During the COVID period, the Labour Government spent $66 billion. I have another image: public breakdown shows $31 billion\u2014that is 47 percent\u2014went into a range of initiatives, and yet we have nothing to show for it in this country. That\u2019s $31\u00A0billion of hard-earned taxpayers\u2019 money spent on a wide range of initiatives. Now the country actually has a debt of over $120 billion, which we are paying $9 billion in interest costs for every year\u2014just on interest\u2014to service the debt. This is hard-earned taxpayers\u2019 money\u2014more than Police, Corrections, Customs, Defence, and Justice combined. All of these combined are still not quite enough to pay the interest on our country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb2929110b9e4de593f6e50397159f32\u0022\u003EIf Labour is to handle the money from their capital gains tax, New Zealanders have the right to ask the questions: where are they spending the money that is expected to be mismanaged? What is really on the table? Labour is now pitching for a tax that, in practice, will bite businesses and investment properties. Economists and experts have now come out to give their understanding and reading on the very, very, very thin Labour tax policy. One of the economists that I listen to, Ed McKnight, has spelt it out: the first-year revenue assumes only 6,000 to 7,000 investors will sell, and that capital growth is modest. Now, this is not a broad capital gains tax, and, effectively, it\u2019s only a real-estate investor tax. On the claim that everyone has one, that is so not true: only about 10 to 14 percent of New Zealanders actually own an investment property. When Labour says that everyone is doing it, it is simply very misleading.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb2929110b9e4de593f6e50397159f32\u0022\u003EInternational comparisons also don\u2019t support Labour\u2019s capital gains tax. Yes, some economies have CGT, but some don\u2019t, and some of economies, the most competitive, investor-friendly economies\u2014for example, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, Hong Kong\u2014do not have capital gains tax. In fact, they work so hard to attract and keep capital. Wouldn\u2019t it be better for Kiwis and for New Zealand to be more like Switzerland and Singapore? We know we can. We know that we are so much better. Capital gains tax doesn\u2019t stop house prices rising, either. Look at some data: since CGT was announced in many countries, house prices in Australia increased on average by 6.7 percent a year; in the UK, 8 percent a year; in Canada, 6.7 percent a year; in the USA, 5.4 percent every single year. CGT is not the solution to stop house price increases.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb2929110b9e4de593f6e50397159f32\u0022\u003ELet\u2019s bring it home with some examples: a mum and dad in Timaru will now be taxed under Labour; a small investment flat in South Auckland will now be taxed by Labour; a family engineering firm in Hamilton which is ready to sell a workshop to upgrade into a bigger site will now be taxed under Labour; a couple who have quake-strengthened a very tired building in Christchurch will now be taxed under Labour; a cafe owner in Palmerston North who wants to exit and retire will now be taxed under Labour. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb2929110b9e4de593f6e50397159f32\u0022\u003EA little personal note, actually: it\u2019s my mother\u2019s birthday today\u2014happy birthday, Mum\u2014but I do want to say, Mum is working so hard to help take care of my young children, who are four and five, so that I can be here working, like most ethnic and Kiwi families in this country, who work so hard at one job, two jobs, three jobs, so that we can have a good life in New Zealand. I do not agree with a capital gains tax and\u2014last two seconds\u2014Labour needs to work with the Greens, and this is only the beginning to more capital gains tax.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221b25fe0aaf4a441c89618f1fa196cd1e\u0022 data-id=\u0022b18e2e2c721b41298f1137ca1276d81a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221b25fe0aaf4a441c89618f1fa196cd1e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b18e2e2c721b41298f1137ca1276d81a\u0022\u003EDAN BIDOIS (National\u2014Northcote):\u003C/span\u003E Don\u2019t you like it when Labour tries to rewrite its own history? Labour\u2019s like an arsonist who then complains about the fire brigade\u2019s efforts to extinguish the fire. Let\u2019s run through Labour\u2019s track record and what they left this Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221b25fe0aaf4a441c89618f1fa196cd1e\u0022\u003EFirstly, COVID spending of $66 billion that went on for far too long and too far. Debt in this country increased 2.5 times between the six years that they were in Government to $155 billion. Deficits\u2014we inherited deficits on an annual basis of $10 billion. Productivity growth, as the other side likes to call it, was negative under the previous Government. The number of staff in Government increased by a whopping 18,699 people\u2014that\u2019s 34 percent under the previous Government. Inflation, as we know, reached 7.3 percent. Yet what did we get for that extra spending? Nothing. Worse outcomes in health, education, infrastructure, law and order, and transport. The only thing that was booming under the previous Government was house prices.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221b25fe0aaf4a441c89618f1fa196cd1e\u0022\u003ENow, Labour\u2019s policies\u2014let\u2019s turn to their policies, for which my colleague Cameron Brewer here has got a great metaphor: it\u2019s a Trojan horse. It\u2019s a sugar-coated trap. It\u2019s a gift-wrapped grenade waiting for the New Zealand public. Let\u2019s go to the capital gains tax, which apparently is narrow, but it keeps creeping and creeping even larger and larger. We don\u2019t know how much it\u2019s going to cost, and even Labour doesn\u2019t know how much it\u2019s going to cost. They won\u2019t tell us until after the election. We cannot trust Labour on tax.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220cca8d925277422396d3d4e7837175a3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cd46c202ffa2492a8a426ef5e9303f3b\u0022\u003ESam Uffindell\u003C/span\u003E: On anything.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221b25fe0aaf4a441c89618f1fa196cd1e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002279ea0bc97c334aa19662ca26e82e185d\u0022\u003EDAN BIDOIS\u003C/span\u003E: On anything. Let\u2019s go to the Future Fund: $200 billion sounds good\u2014it\u2019s nowhere near Singapore\u2019s model\u2014but, again, we have no idea how it\u2019s going to be funded. Where is that money going to come from? Right now, that $200 billion is being funnelled into other areas, outcome areas, and yet we don\u2019t know a single dicky bird of where that $200 billion is going to be cut from. I don\u2019t think they really know anything about their policies. Their costings are poor, and we\u2019ll leave it at that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221b25fe0aaf4a441c89618f1fa196cd1e\u0022\u003EI want to turn now to National, because National is the one left holding the mop after the party. We are the firefighters called in to douse someone else\u2019s fireworks. This side of the House is working as fast as we can to improve things for New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221b25fe0aaf4a441c89618f1fa196cd1e\u0022\u003ELet\u2019s talk about our record: inflation down to 3 percent, the OCR down to 2.5 percent, fulltimeequivalent numbers down 5 percent since the election, crime rates down over 20,000 since the election, wait times for elective treatment down, wait times for first specialist of treatments down, and the tax to GDP ratio down, all under this Government in the last two years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221b25fe0aaf4a441c89618f1fa196cd1e\u0022\u003ENow, we know that times are tough for many New Zealanders right across this country, but there are green shoots and positive things to come.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221728c83aef144fd2932788b376b5ffe8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002251afddd46bf744638179d821b6d6e7c9\u0022\u003EHon Dr Deborah Russell\u003C/span\u003E: Lots of Roundup being poured on them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221b25fe0aaf4a441c89618f1fa196cd1e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022901aab59342a4652a6e41d4056eb31ca\u0022\u003EDAN BIDOIS\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s going up\u2014and \u201CWhat\u2019s going up?\u201D, Deborah Russell wants me to ask. Growth in the economy is growing up. Education results are going up. Business and consumer confidence is going up. Optimism in the future of our nation is going up. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220cca8d925277422396d3d4e7837175a3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b903d70dd7214038866adecc89ec6ec3\u0022\u003ESam Uffindell\u003C/span\u003E: Elective surgery.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221b25fe0aaf4a441c89618f1fa196cd1e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022817ce575c95f489d96616589e1ab8df5\u0022\u003EDAN BIDOIS\u003C/span\u003E: Elective surgery is going up. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ad9f402f06844c586a6f2f904712412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b37dd8d0db5c45e49978f910bdc4daa3\u0022\u003EMike Butterick\u003C/span\u003E: Export income.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ad9f402f06844c586a6f2f904712412\u0022\u003EThe export income is going up, my colleague here says. There is great news in green shoots all around.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ad9f402f06844c586a6f2f904712412\u0022\u003EThe alternative to our approach is what? Tax more, borrow more, and spend more\u2014tax more, borrow more, spend more. After two years of being in Opposition, that is all the Opposition have come out with today. On this side of the House, we are optimistic. We are going for growth, because that is the only way that we can lift the productive capacity, lift incomes, and make sure that your kids, my grandkids, have a great future in this country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221728c83aef144fd2932788b376b5ffe8\u0022 data-id=\u00226070e7c93da541189bab31c5efa6b3b5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221728c83aef144fd2932788b376b5ffe8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226070e7c93da541189bab31c5efa6b3b5\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E We have announced the most progressive tax policy change that New Zealand has made for about 40 years\u2014the most significant change is being made for 40 years. It is a targeted tax on investment property and on commercial property, and what have we heard in response from the Government? Mistruth, disinformation, and, frankly, hysteria about what it might entail. What I want to do today is set the record straight. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221728c83aef144fd2932788b376b5ffe8\u0022\u003EWe have proposed a capital gains tax. It will not apply to the family home. Why? Because we know how important people\u2019s homes are to them and because we know how important that sense of security is. Like most capital gains taxes around the world, our capital gains tax will not apply to the family home. No, it will not\u2014that is not going to happen. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221728c83aef144fd2932788b376b5ffe8\u0022\u003EOur capital gains tax will not apply to KiwiSaver. When a person takes their savings out of KiwiSaver, there will be no capital gains tax on their KiwiSaver\u2014no, that is not going to happen. Why? Because KiwiSaver is a productive asset that helps to grow a person\u2019s own security and that helps to grow the economy. There will be no capital gains tax on a person\u2019s KiwiSaver. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221728c83aef144fd2932788b376b5ffe8\u0022\u003EThere will be no capital gains tax on the sale of a business\u2014it\u2019s really straightforward. Why? Because businesses are productive assets that help to grow the economy. No capital gains tax on a business\u2014that is not going to happen\u2014and that is because it is important to our productivity. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221728c83aef144fd2932788b376b5ffe8\u0022\u003EThere will be no capital gains tax when a small business that wants to grow sells its building in order to move to a larger one. There will be no capital gains tax on that, so that is a really straightforward answer. Most businesses actually lease their building. Most businesses lease, but where a small business owns its own building, where it is growing and it needs to move to a larger building, there will be no capital gains tax on that transaction. Why? Because we know that a productive asset needs to grow. We are not taxing productivity. There will be no capital gains tax on the sale of a building by a small business. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221728c83aef144fd2932788b376b5ffe8\u0022\u003EThere will be no capital gains tax on the sale of a farm. Why? Because a farm is a productive asset. We want farms to continue to grow and continue to be productive for New Zealand\u2014no capital gains tax on the sale of a farm. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221728c83aef144fd2932788b376b5ffe8\u0022\u003EThere will be no capital gains tax on inheritances. We know that many people get an investment property because they want it for their children. Where that property is left to their children, there will be no capital gains tax\u2014it\u2019s a really straightforward rule. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221728c83aef144fd2932788b376b5ffe8\u0022\u003EWhat about the case of a family home which is used partially for a business, such as a dairy\u2014the question that that side of the House brings up continually. Business people are familiar with the way that apportionment works. There will be no capital gains tax on the home that is part of that business. It\u2019s straightforward, and any accountant knows how to do it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221728c83aef144fd2932788b376b5ffe8\u0022\u003EWe have had a whole series of questions raised by that side of the House and we have said always that back in 2018, the Tax Working Group worked through a series of technical issues to do with a capital gains tax. We are following the rules set by the Tax Working Group, with some of them modified somewhat, and we are also using the rules set up around the brightline test. These are familiar rules. They are easily applied around the capital gains tax. It is a targeted tax, and what we are doing is encouraging Kiwis to invest in productive businesses. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221728c83aef144fd2932788b376b5ffe8\u0022\u003EThis new tax is about raising revenue to pay for healthcare, but it is also about directing investment to the productive economy. Stop the hysteria, National, and get real. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221728c83aef144fd2932788b376b5ffe8\u0022\u003EThe debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00223b4cd8ff049d405fbb129f36de7af083\u0022\u003ESittings of the House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022391b5e0203334da4a33a12271b64dd69\u0022\u003ESittings of the House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022 data-id=\u00220721749a8bc04ba6b4471d5460392473\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220721749a8bc04ba6b4471d5460392473\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for the continuation of Government orders of the day Nos 1 to 7.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022eeaa34e871b549c997a0f63cdb18f4c3\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 motion 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\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022 data-id=\u00227bdadbf85d504db1bb3dc7ac183b9e73\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3421c47b95e43b0a0c8a30392b77297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227bdadbf85d504db1bb3dc7ac183b9e73\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Parliament Bill and the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f1fb6b51cf334ab0aabeb8de21389440\u0022\u003EHouse in Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00222920495056fd49bd8c91832078cd2e7f\u0022\u003EHouse in Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022 data-id=\u00229c84c0d6768d4bbb9640c5a6eff6181f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229c84c0d6768d4bbb9640c5a6eff6181f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the House is in committee on the Parliament Bill and the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) 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=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a6554f2b7f854aa6986f7e98089c85ae\u0022\u003EParliament Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002292528f32a3824dbbb95a8827671fed83\u0022\u003EIn Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000356\u0022\u003EDebate resumed from 23 October.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00228c7ccdc96cd648d38198baeb62325c09\u0022\u003EPart 8  Amendments to Public Finance Act 1989, and Schedule 7\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022 data-id=\u0022604b0c87479f41ac810d6cf097eb7c0d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022604b0c87479f41ac810d6cf097eb7c0d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: We come first to the Parliament Bill. When we were last considering the bill, we had just completed the debate on Part 7. We now come to Part 8, which is the debate on clauses 191 to 215, \u201CAmendments to the Public Finance Act 1989\u201D, and Schedule 7. The question is that Part 8 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022 data-id=\u00229c24d566f79149ce9251e0a461428cb4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229c24d566f79149ce9251e0a461428cb4\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central):\u003C/span\u003E Kia ora, Madam Chair. This part might seem, to many, to be a little dry, because it deals with amendments to the finance Act. It\u2019s actually one of the more important parts, and I would just invite the Minister to, perhaps, make some comments on it. One of the important aspects of it is the fact that this makes the Budget process for the Clerk\u2019s Office and Parliamentary Service independent, at least notionally, of Government. I guess the main clause is clause 203, and in particular the inserted section 26EB, and I just would invite the Minister, essentially, to outline the nature of this process. In particular, there\u2019s one thing here I\u2019m interested in, and that is in new section 26EB(2), there seems to be a distinction between general appropriation and capital appropriations. I would like him to elucidate, if he can, exactly how capital appropriations will be differently treated, and whether that remains entirely independent of the executive or not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EThe other thing I\u2019d be interested in him discussing is the relationship that Parliament, through whatever committee process is engaged, will have with Treasury, because it\u2019s clear that Treasury will be involved. Essentially, this is a special kind of Budget bid, and Treasury has a lot of work to do on every single Budget bid in working through  exactly what the appropriate appropriation is, how finetuned it should be, and the final amount. Obviously, it is just as important for an appropriation, essentially, to parliamentary agencies as for anywhere else that they\u2019re accountable. One of the basic rules of Budget is if it\u2019s not in the appropriation line, then it can\u2019t be spent on it. I\u2019m wondering whether there\u2019s an expectation that it will be a very generic appropriation, say, to Parliamentary Service, or will it be kind of a line-by-line appropriation for the various\u2014for the library, for salary, or whatever else it might be.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EThere are the first two questions: can we just have a bit of a discussion around the distinction between capital appropriations and other, and also just perhaps an explanation of what the expectation is of the role of Treasury and the consultation and degree of detail that will be expected in this budgeting process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022 data-id=\u00220abb0dbfbd5c45ce8cc1204f5a4d8a2f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220abb0dbfbd5c45ce8cc1204f5a4d8a2f\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E The member makes a good point that this is an important section of the bill. The intent of the Parliament Bill is to amend the Public Finance Act to establish a model for the House to determine the funding of parliamentary agencies, similar to that used for the Officers of Parliament\u2014the Ombudsman, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Auditor-General, for example. I think it would be fair to say that there\u2019s been some dissatisfaction in recent years that Parliament\u2019s budget is, essentially, controlled by the executive now. Clearly, by definition, the executive has control of the House, because if they didn\u2019t, they wouldn\u2019t be the executive, but it is important to distinguish between the executive and Parliament itself, and so these clauses, which are new, will change the Public Finance Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EThe member makes a range of different points. In relation to capital\u2014the member can see it there\u2014in new section 26EA(1)(b)(i) deals with an appropriation in a Vote that \u201Cis appropriated for the purpose of authorising the Parliamentary Service to incur capital expenditure in respect of Crown assets managed or controlled by the Parliamentary Service;\u201D. Here, for example, this House, this Parliament, is controlled by the Parliamentary Service. There\u2019s a variety of capital expenditure that\u2019s put in place in relation to that for upgrades and various other things that happen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EThe member asked about Treasury. The reference in new section 26EB(3): \u201Cthe chief executive of the parliamentary agency must consult the Secretary\u201D\u2014and that reference to Secretary there at new section 26EB(3) is the Secretary of the Treasury\u2014\u201Cbefore submitting information under subsection\u00A0(1) or (2).\u201D New section 26EB(1) states, \u201CBefore an appropriation in a Vote administered by an agency may be included in an Appropriation Bill for a financial year, the chief executive of the parliamentary agency [has to] prepare and submit to the House\u2014(a) an estimate of expenses and capital expenditure to be incurred for\u2014(i) each proposed appropriation; and (ii) each proposed category of expenses\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EI think most members will be familiar\u2014certainly those who\u2019ve been in Government will be familiar\u2014with that. Ultimately, the executive lays before the Parliament the appropriations that are applied for to the House for a given year, broken down in a variety of different ways. There\u2019s, literally, the Estimates, which are broken down into both operating and capital. The same thing will happen. But the point is they have to consult the Secretary for the Treasury before submitting that information. Then there is an Address to the Governor-General, which is, ultimately, how the Parliament funds the Officers of Parliament\u2014which is a similar mechanism for the Estimates and the capital injection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EUltimately, if the member reads new section 26EB(5), \u201CThe House \u2026 may request that the estimates be included as a Vote, and the capital injection be authorised, in an Appropriation Bill for that year\u201D. The point is to give greater independence to the Parliament and give it greater control over its own destiny from a budgetary point of view but also to make sure that the Government has some ability to influence exactly how much is being asked for from the Parliament, but that\u2019s a step forward from the status quo, where, basically, the Government, essentially, controls that budget. Now, that has not really been an issue, so one could argue this is arguably a case of constitutional niceties. The Parliament Bill itself is a constitutional nicety, in a funny way, so it\u2019s important to get these things right from a procedure point of view. I think it\u2019s laid out there and relatively straightforward.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022 data-id=\u00221f17e6383ab64f27bc480b804f4c4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221f17e6383ab64f27bc480b804f4c4cf0\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for that, Minister. Also, I\u2019m a little curious\u2014I probably should know\u2014what an Address to the Governor-General would look like in this House. It may just be a part of the debate, but I think moving this process to, essentially, as you say, move it away from entire control of the executive to at least\u2014and I don\u2019t think it\u2019s a nicety, actually. I think it\u2019s a pretty important constitutional point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EOne of the things that does happen is that the part of the Public Finance Act which applies to reporting will apply to these parliamentary agencies: the Office of the Clerk and the Parliamentary Service. I haven\u2019t got it in front of me, but in the relevant section of the bill, new section 45FA\u2014I think it is\u2014inserted by clause 207, it lists all of the things that the agencies must report on. I guess there\u2019s\u2014and I\u2019ll come to the Privacy Act later, but one of the things I think it would be worth, in this Chamber, just at least giving the Leader of the House an opportunity to comment on is the number of people who said it\u2019s all very nice to have that kind of reporting, but, in fact, we would expect these agencies to have even greater transparency\u2014the same as any other Government department. Of course, they were referring to\u2014and there were a number of submissions along these lines, because I sat on the Parliament Bill Committee\u2014the Official Information Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EWhilst there\u2019s annual reports and all kinds of other proper financial accounts and so on, the fact of the matter is that the usual grounds for transparency under the Official Information Act still don\u2019t apply to these agencies. Whilst there might be, within the practices and procedures of Parliament, a willingness to provide information, there\u2019s certainly no obligation. I think it would be useful for the Minister to just speak to that, in some ways for completeness, but certainly I think it\u2019s a useful point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022 data-id=\u0022f55da365626244788acad8245f13973a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f55da365626244788acad8245f13973a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Could the member just clarify if he was speaking to a specific clause in Part 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b46f62f73ea64a46802dd692a047f472\u0022\u003EHon Dr Duncan Webb\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, I was speaking to clause 207, which inserts new section 45FA, which is about the reporting obligations of the agency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220244e9bcb8514e72b07657feffdbfa45\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022 data-id=\u0022dfae9fba09634489b005243ed66e1703\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dfae9fba09634489b005243ed66e1703\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E The vexed issue of the application of the Official Information Act (OIA) to Parliament is one that members with long memories will know has been around for a while, and the proposal in the Parliament Bill is not to make any changes there. There is a case that Parliament should be subject to the Official Information Act. It applies to everything else, basically, including school boards of trustees, for example. Some boards of trustees are surprised to discover that as an agency of the State, they are subject to the Official Information Act. Most people don\u2019t know that, including most boards of trustees, I suspect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EThe challenge has always been how you disentangle the legitimate things that the public might be interested in\u2014much of which is public, by the way\u2014like running Parliament and the cost of the Chamber and these sorts of things. Much of that is public already. How do you disentangle that stuff from MPs\u2019 emails and all the other things that happen in Parliament that, frankly, is rightly the province of members and should remain private? Over the last few years, there\u2019s been quite a degree of transparency\u2014for example, members\u2019 travel expenses are now made public; their mileage and travel expenses are made public; hotel accommodation is made public. All of that stuff is public, and Ministers\u2019 credit cards are made public\u2014although, that\u2019s a slightly separate issue, because it\u2019s the executive.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve never been able to come up with a formula in which things that everyone thinks should remain the legitimate realm of members is disentangled from everything that should be public. No one has been able to come up with a formulation. The member is finishing up in a year or so, and we will miss his wisdom and his sagacity in the Parliament\u2014if the member wishes, in his retirement, to come up with a form of words, I\u2019m sure the Standing Orders Committee would welcome a submission. Maybe they wouldn\u2019t\u2014I don\u2019t know. But no one has been able to come up with one, so the OIA is excluded from the Parliament Bill at this stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022 data-id=\u00227abf6b8fa78c4fec9b69dbff7694b893\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227abf6b8fa78c4fec9b69dbff7694b893\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central):\u003C/span\u003E I think this is, for me, my final contribution on this part. It\u2019s actually about clause 211, which replaces section 80 of the Public Finance Act. In particular, it subjects the Parliamentary Service\u2014fundamentally the Parliamentary Service, but also the Office of the Clerk\u2014to Treasury instructions. Now, this might sound arcane. I mean, Treasury has the ability to issue directions which are a kind of form of secondary legislation, as I understand it. This is not an area I\u2019m right deep into, but I understand that they can do things, for example, to say, \u201CYour accounts should be presented in such and such a way.\u201D, or \u201CYou must adhere to this accounting standard when you prepare your accounts.\u201D, or \u201CYou need to report in terms of the financial situation in a particular way.\u201D, and so on and so forth.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EJust an interesting thing there, which is it\u2019s actually giving Treasury a degree of influence over Parliament in that it can actually tell Parliament what to do, because the Clerk and Parliamentary Service is part of Parliament. Whilst we in this House are ultimately the Parliament, these are agents of Parliament. I\u2019m just really curious. I can see why we want to have good financial procedures, but is it appropriate for Treasury to be able to tell Parliamentary Service and the Office of the Clerk how to do their job?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022 data-id=\u002203c37588f16e4c49aec2292dcd42130e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002203c37588f16e4c49aec2292dcd42130e\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E A couple of other matters. The member asked earlier about an Address\u2014how that works. An Address is prepared by the Speaker to reflect the House\u2019s resolution about its contents. In practice, it\u2019s prepared beforehand to reflect the recommendations of the select committee. Members who\u2019ve seen an Address to the GovernorGeneral on behalf of His Majesty in relation to the salary or the appropriation for the Ombudsman, for example, will have seen that it\u2019s relatively unusual but an important part. I think there was a discussion around clause 207 inserting new section 45FA, where the parliamentary agencies will, largely, be required to report under the Public Finance Act in the same way as they are now. The new section 45FA, essentially, reproduces those requirements, even though those agencies will no longer be requirements.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022 data-id=\u00224b44222267034662a64a6b2fa33b2440\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224b44222267034662a64a6b2fa33b2440\u0022\u003EVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Leader of the House for responses to questions on this part thus far. I wasn\u2019t privileged to be on the select committee but have read through some of the submissions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003EThe Leader of the House commented on the new section 26EB, inserted by clause 203, and particularly in terms of the consultation that happens before a determination is made on the specific appropriation. I did note that the Council for Civil Liberties in their submission asked the question of what participation the public would have in terms of inputting into the appropriate amount of appropriations, if you like. They used the example of the Ombudsman and the Officers of Parliament Committee process as a model for making their point and said that the Ombudsman at one stage had argued that the office did not need additional funds to be able to meet their task of working to investigate Official Information Act complaints. The Council for Civil Liberties argued that the timeliness of those investigations was such that, actually, an additional injection of finances would have been useful, and they would have appreciated the opportunity to make that argument. Their proposal was to require \u201Cpublic evidence sessions on proposed budgets not only for parliamentary agencies, but also for the Officers of Parliament.\u201D as well, and that that should be included, which of course it would have if it was in the body of section 26EB. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003EThe question is really to the Leader of the House about whether that was considered and, if not, what sort of influence the public can have in this process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022 data-id=\u0022ac355ffd7c30423bba1484565c167041\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ac355ffd7c30423bba1484565c167041\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E I wasn\u2019t familiar with Treasury instructions either, Dr Webb, but I now know slightly more than I did five minutes ago. The advice I\u2019ve received is that Treasury instructions largely follow accounting standards, so it just really relates to the accounting treatment of the way in which things are done. Parliamentary agencies will be treated in the same way as Officers of Parliament are currently treated. Treasury will not be able to issue instructions to the Office of the Clerk or Parliamentary Service other than in relation to new section 26EA(1)(a), inserted by clause 203, which we\u2019ve already dealt with.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EIn relation to Vanushi Walters\u2019 point, it will ultimately be over to the select committee that considers the appropriations of the Officers of Parliament Committee or whatever select committee the House determines to reflect public input. My own view is that there probably is a bit of a role around public input in a way that there hasn\u2019t been in the past. Ultimately, it will be over to the House to determine via select committee. Obviously, the special select committee considering the Parliament Bill did not see fit to include mandatory consultation in relation to the Council for Civil Liberties submission, but that\u2019s certainly open to the House over time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022 data-id=\u002292d4c4e7d44c43b1a9542a370dfffb25\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002292d4c4e7d44c43b1a9542a370dfffb25\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendment to Part 8 set out on Amendment Paper 362 and Amendment Paper 401 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003EPart 8 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002222295cbc173c4864a7dbfad8c744c52e\u0022\u003EPart 9  Amendments to Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022 data-id=\u002222da6c9eba2a4ef2a2fafaf6687d9267\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002222da6c9eba2a4ef2a2fafaf6687d9267\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we now come to Part 9, which is the debate on clauses 216 to 229, \u201CAmendments to the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993\u201D. The question is that Part 9 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002225f41afbd3704a77be3e16ea18a99f20\u0022 data-id=\u0022daa10c71ee4e47bc9410b597ff2609fc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f41afbd3704a77be3e16ea18a99f20\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022daa10c71ee4e47bc9410b597ff2609fc\u0022\u003ECELIA WADE-BROWN (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a number of questions about this part. I was involved in, I think, the very first attempt at a citizens initiated referendum, although I have some grave doubts about their role in a democracy. The very first one was about battery hens and about getting rid of battery cages, so we have made some progress on that issue. But I have a couple of small questions, and then perhaps a slightly larger question. Clause 219 seems perfectly sensible: that we move to internet instead of newspapers. I am unsure about clause 218 replacing section 6, section 6(2)(c), where it talks about \u201Cthe contact details of the person or their representative\u201D, and why it has an address rather than just email and phone number contacts\u2014or maybe it needs both? Maybe we should be more specific? Back in 1993, this was the one way of raising an issue to the House of Representatives. There was no alternative. I think the bigger question now is what is the role of a citizens initiated referendum when we have petitions? Is it something that we think will continue? Are there amendments to make it easier to do, harder to do, or does it really make no difference other than some technicalities about addresses and websites rather than newspapers? Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022 data-id=\u00227a784ad5d15547afa1d1428e78d30fbd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227a784ad5d15547afa1d1428e78d30fbd\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E The old citizens initiated referenda, which\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef044682c0bd4c8885c626cbc9acb678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002228b82ed00e254ca7aa50d94f8b2445f0\u0022\u003ETom Rutherford\u003C/span\u003E: That old chestnut.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e4d3b29972a345f58ed53b3398f8663d\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: That old chestnut\u2014that\u2019s right. There hasn\u2019t been that many of them, and those that we have had have not often times been\u2014well, I was about to say they\u2019ve been ignored, but I think that\u2019s probably a bit unfair, actually. I was a young 16-year-old whippersnapper back in 1999 when we had the referendum that had four things to it, including hard labour, tougher sentences\u2014I can\u2019t remember the other\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002267175b694c904725831dda32c70cfaba\u0022\u003EHon Dr Duncan Webb\u003C/span\u003E: The death penalty.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022101225755c0044f7aa85641e9a813d68\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: No, that wasn\u2019t in it, but it may as well have been. There were four different things, and it duly passed 85 to 15, or whatever it is. It was a bit unclear what exactly people were voting on. But the general vibe was pretty clear: people wanted tougher sentences. Actually, that did lead, ultimately, to some tougher sentences from the Helen Clark Government back in 20002001\u2014members will have different views about whether or not that was the right thing to do or not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EThis is actually quite a minor change. What this does is transfer\u2014because you need 10 percent of registered voters\u2014the counting of that away from the Clerk to the Electoral Commission, and I think it\u2019s pretty obvious why that\u2019s the case. Back when we set up the citizens initiated referenda back in the 1990s\u20141993, I believe it was\u2014for whatever reason, the role of both the certification and the approval of the wording and the counting was given to the Clerk. Now, the Clerk\u2019s a great office, a great man, but their specialty expertise is not in the counting. Actually, what happens now is the Clerk goes and talks to the commission around how all that works anyway. This just formally transfers it and says, look, the responsibility for counting of the votes and working out the number of electors and the registered number of voters and all that stuff, that\u2019s the commission\u2019s core job. That\u2019s literally why they exist. So that should be why it\u2019s there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003ECelia Wade-Brown asked about clause 218, replacement section 6(2)(c), I think\u2014the contact details. I have to admit that is not something I have closely thought about, but I\u2019m assuming that the contact details, including an address, is to make sure that those who are interested in promoting the referendum can be contacted at that. There\u2019s probably a case to put email address in there as well. Maybe it\u2019s a little bit old fashioned just referring to a physical address, but it will just be to make sure that it\u2019s all in order from a promotion point of view. Maybe that\u2019s something we can tidy up through a statutes amendment bill later on if members are willing to do that, or potentially some sort of regulatory standards bill. It\u2019s not something I\u2019ve given a huge amount of thought to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022 data-id=\u00227547640782f44840bfc64bba0b15c4f7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227547640782f44840bfc64bba0b15c4f7\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central):\u003C/span\u003E I just have a couple of points. One of my personal favourite legislative tools is when you define something to mean something entirely differently. In this articulation, we are moving the counting job to the Electoral Commission. The count in new section 18(4)\u2014that\u2019s clause 226 of the bill\u2014says, \u201CThe Electoral Commission must certify an indicative referendum petition under subsection (2) within 2 months of the receipt date.\u201D One of the funny things about the Electoral Commission is that unlike the Office of the Clerk, they get busy over election periods, while the Office of the Clerk actually doesn\u2019t have quite as much to do as usual, although they would protest that, I\u2019m sure. Then subsection (5) says, \u201Cthe 2-month period includes, in whole or in part, an election period,\u201D. The election period is the date from writ date to the last date noted for the return of the writ. I can\u2019t remember exactly how long that is, but it\u2019s about three months, isn\u2019t it? What we have is that the Electoral Commission must return it within two months, which means five months if there\u2019s an election on\u2014it\u2019s one of those fantastic drafting things where two months means five months. But that\u2019s quite a long time. I just wonder if, Minister, you\u2019ve considered whether that\u2019s appropriate. Now, I get the logistics of it, but I\u2019ll be perfectly honest that when we considered who was the best counter\u2014clearly it\u2019s the Electoral Commission; that is their job\u2014that now means that there\u2019s a bit of a glitch in the system. I\u2019d be interested to hear comments on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EThe other thing is this, and this isn\u2019t new, but I\u2019m not sure, given the opportunity we had, that we should have carried it over. That is because 10\u00A0percent of however many voters there are\u2014there might be, I don\u2019t know, 4 million; that\u2019s 400,000. By new section 19, which is the same insertion, the commission works with the Government Statistician to, essentially, count by sample. It appears that you don\u2019t have to count every signature. You can calculate the number of signatures that must be checked, presumably, for legitimacy by sample. Whereas, if you\u2019ve got an election, we know that there\u2019s a tortuous process\u2014because the Government\u2019s currently worried about that\u2014of going through and checking that every voter is properly enrolled and so on and so forth. But here it appears you might check 1,000 signatures, and say three are not legitimate people, and the Government Statistician says, \u201CThat\u2019s a decent sample; let\u2019s just assume that three in every thousand are not legitimate.\u201D Given that and given the importance to some people of these referenda, I\u2019m wondering whether it\u2019s appropriate for the Electoral Commission to not verify each signature but to simply verify a few and project that across all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022 data-id=\u00228026ae4108ff49088082fcb348cd95a7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228026ae4108ff49088082fcb348cd95a7\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E I\u2019ll just deal with a couple of matters. I sort of made up some reasons why we needed a physical address before, but I\u2019m advised that the reason is it\u2019s the status quo, and the requirement for a New Zealand address is needed to ensure the petition is promoted in New Zealand. It\u2019s just to double-check that petition promoters are New Zealand people, which I think is relatively straightforward.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EIn relation to Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s point around the two-month versus five-month glitch in the system, it was probably true. But I suppose the lesson, the take-home point out of that, is don\u2019t organise a citizens initiated referendum for election year; organise it for the off years. They\u2019re every three years; you\u2019ve got two out of three. It\u2019s not too bad.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EIn relation to the 10 percent point, reasonable people can disagree about what the threshold should be. Most people, I think, would think 5 percent is too low and 15 percent is probably a bit too high. Is there any right answer? Probably not. Not everyone agrees we need citizens initiated referenda, but we have it, have had, for 30 years. But the status quo is that they use a sample so that we don\u2019t have to go through the laborious process. Again, let\u2019s put the people who are expert at that in charge of it; in relation to New Zealand, that\u2019s the Chief Statistician. So that\u2019s what we do. It just replicates the status quo, and to the extent we have citizens initiated referenda, I think most people agree it probably works quite well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022 data-id=\u00222c8ccd7dc18145dbb01ee26d3e585e15\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222c8ccd7dc18145dbb01ee26d3e585e15\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Part 9 set out on Amendment Paper 362 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003EPart 9 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022bba7ec24d697440d9c6013d183c2f0a2\u0022\u003EPart 10  Amendments to other Acts, and Schedule 8\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022 data-id=\u002221bc4815daa048fc830b642a20aba73d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002221bc4815daa048fc830b642a20aba73d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we now come to Part 10, which is the debate on clauses 230 to 237, \u201CAmendments to Other Acts\u201D, and Schedule 8. The question is that Part 10 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022 data-id=\u00226ad5411288af49a883e51756b6d42389\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226ad5411288af49a883e51756b6d42389\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central):\u003C/span\u003E Oh, Madam Chair, what a treat.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223221c783e4514a6f800424e8f7d3005e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Beating them off!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229dacd131710e4ebe849a97dcac20624c\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah. Look, a very brief contribution here. It\u2019s actually just around\u2014so the key amendment here, one of the key amendments, is to the Privacy Act. Clause 231 inserts, essentially\u2014or actually kind of reformulates an existing framing, which is the Parliamentary Service. It\u2019s the Privacy Act, except in respect of\u2014and these are exclusions. Actually, it\u2019s quite important, that. Section 8(b), amended by clause 231, says these are excluded from the scope of being an agency under the Privacy Act, and they exclude the Parliamentary Service except in respect of employment information and personal information in respect of a security officer. That amended section\u00A08(b)(vi)(B) is the new bit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EI\u2019m just wondering, in terms of the Privacy Act, whether that will also capture the Office of the Clerk, or is the Office of the Clerk then by default captured? You haven\u2019t expressly excluded it, and, under this piece of legislation, the Office of the Clerk is quite a distinct entity, as it is in this House and on precinct, from Parliamentary Service. Does that mean that the Office of the Clerk falls within the ambit of being an agency and therefore subject to the Privacy Act, or not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EThe second question is the Parliamentary Corporation, which is one of those arcane beasts that exists around here, because that would seem to be an agency that is captured by the Privacy Act by not being included in this section. The Office of the Clerk is a little bit perplexing to me. The Parliamentary Corporation seems to have been included in the Privacy Act. Is that what is intended?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022 data-id=\u002255bc03ab166a42c98466751f191daa4a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002255bc03ab166a42c98466751f191daa4a\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E I\u2019m advised that this clause 231 replacing section\u00A08(b)(vi), in relation to section 8(b)(vi)(B), \u201Cpersonal information obtained by a parliamentary security officer\u201D\u2014I\u2019m advised that\u2019s intended to be included, after consultation with the Privacy Commissioner. It\u2019s to make it clear that any information obtained by a security officer through a search or security action on the precinct\u2014which we dealt with a couple of weeks ago\u2014is subject to the Privacy Act, essentially. The Privacy Commissioner recommended it and we\u2019ve agreed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022 data-id=\u00229721644403a04f34bb1cd75e00c3cae6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229721644403a04f34bb1cd75e00c3cae6\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central):\u003C/span\u003E Is the Minister confident that the Office of the Clerk is not subject to the Privacy Act?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ead1e0caf734e18a391ed4ea17bc8e9\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I think the Minister is getting some advice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022 data-id=\u0022d5acb1a05cf04b28b7d56befc4c26935\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d5acb1a05cf04b28b7d56befc4c26935\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E Perhaps we could take that one on notice, Dr Webb? I mean, I don\u2019t want to particularly hold the debate up. The officials are checking. We think the answer is no, but perhaps we can take it on notice and get back to you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022 data-id=\u00225d97f15481e940968e510e88d81c822b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225d97f15481e940968e510e88d81c822b\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central):\u003C/span\u003E Perhaps we could. I\u2019m happy to move on from this part, and the Minister can come back with me about it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002234541f516953462287f82ac86156430b\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: Sure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002227f92a33bb6848f7935dd9b400e795a6\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, sure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EPart 10 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002238f49762ac3f4a07929a76f26866fee5\u0022\u003EPart 11  Repeals and revocation\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022 data-id=\u002280e2090ecd2f499a949cd3d37552f940\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002280e2090ecd2f499a949cd3d37552f940\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we now come to Part 11, which is the debate on clauses 238 and 239, \u201CRepeals and revocation\u201D. The question is that Part 11 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022 data-id=\u00225ad5f75c4d8c4c54886cfec63d9f38a2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225ad5f75c4d8c4c54886cfec63d9f38a2\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E While the officials scurry to find the answer to Dr\u00A0Webb\u2019s very interesting question, I thought I\u2019d take a call and talk very briefly around the Legislative Council Abolition Act. Despite the fact that we are on Part 11 of a chunky bill, this actually is an important part, because one of the actual objectives of the Parliament Bill is to bring together all of the different bits of legislation that make up the machinery of our constitution, our parliamentary constitution. As I\u2019ve previously said, the Clerk of the House of Representatives Act is now gone, because that information has now been modernised and is included in the Parliament Bill. The Parliamentary Service Act 2000 is now 25 years old\u2014same thing. The Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Act 2013, which has been a much-amended piece of legislation thanks to various Governments\u2019 desires over the years to cut MPs\u2019 pay, has now gone as well, and, of course, the Parliamentary Privilege Act\u2014and I\u2019ve been around long enough to remember the Parliament debating this after the Attorney-General v Leigh decision\u2014is an important piece of legislation, and, of course, that\u2019s now included within this bill as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EI am someone who likes repealing things. I got into Parliament to try and get rid of some stuff from the statute book and stop the ever-growing and increasing arm of the regulatory State.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000424\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f7e23d3e36441cbb5adcaca9866cbeb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224f540ca5c1504a6192a87d156ed612d1\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: And then you replace it. You say you\u2019re going to replace it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022742e3c1a56d040668514703c24eb6057\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, no, hang on; that\u2019s very unfair. We\u2019re replacing one, two, three, four, five Acts with one, so from a cost-benefit point of view, that\u2019s a win. Five statutes are now gone from the statute book. They might be replicated in another statute, but let\u2019s\u2014it\u2019s still between friends for now. Anyway, the Legislative Council Abolition Act\u2014people forget we used to have a Legislative Council. It\u2019s just over yonder. It\u2019s a beautiful old debating chamber.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002263fb1089151e4d03bc58ec733635dc08\u0022\u003EHon Dr Duncan Webb\u003C/span\u003E: Bring back the council.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002299181d604364446ca9d3a99e1796c800\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, \u201CBring back the council.\u201D, says Dr Webb. Here we go. This is Labour\u2019s grand plan to win the next election\u2014an Upper House. It\u2019s coming back. It\u2019s coming back\u2014you heard it here first.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000428\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EAnyway, with that brief, brief moment\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224b2f5c45d42a433893ae6677b9a7307d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220c9c3fd2b5cb41a6ad9ded55b7d5f827\u0022\u003ECameron Brewer\u003C/span\u003E: \u201CLord Webb\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef044682c0bd4c8885c626cbc9acb678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ca695d5059784f6fb2993c2287df34a2\u0022\u003ETom Rutherford\u003C/span\u003E: Lots of cobwebs up there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022195508edab4b4b54bffd40a718ac9feb\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: \u201CLord Webb\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef044682c0bd4c8885c626cbc9acb678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221bb7756aefc149638e17c28f66dd1d40\u0022\u003ETom Rutherford\u003C/span\u003E: Cobwebs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fe72ae78904b400cb39341d3711bdcb3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Order!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022332ce727d5e54b9e8c8ec0b8ae797983\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, we\u2019re not the United Kingdom, and there\u2019s no desire, in fact, for anyone to bring back the Legislative Council. In fact, it did itself out of a job. They self-defeated. They voted to abolish themselves\u2014the first time any member of Parliament voted to abolish their own job. So good luck to them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000435\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EAnyway, I now have the answer to the question on the last part, and I hope the committee will indulge me so I can answer it. The Office of the Clerk is subject to the Privacy Act 1993.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EPart 11 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022 data-id=\u0022bba2152dd19d4f4aae1c25266e2c8bbc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bba2152dd19d4f4aae1c25266e2c8bbc\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is, That the Minister\u2019s amendments to Schedule\u00A01 set out on Amendment Paper 362 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022 data-id=\u00228fc579d37bed4536a63fdc2f3229d9be\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228fc579d37bed4536a63fdc2f3229d9be\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is, That Schedule 1 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000440\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003ESchedule 1 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022 data-id=\u0022c711d463d18a4bb295f2f6e633d5f803\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c711d463d18a4bb295f2f6e633d5f803\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is, That Schedule 2 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003ESchedule 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022 data-id=\u00226a47f063a86440789663259f367db3c8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226a47f063a86440789663259f367db3c8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is, That the Minister\u2019s amendments to Schedule\u00A03 set out on Amendment Paper 362 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022 data-id=\u0022fe81a3fc5a0b486badff062243249779\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fe81a3fc5a0b486badff062243249779\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is, That Schedule 3 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003ESchedule 3 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022 data-id=\u00229a4d872295904e8db59f258e85118a6b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000447\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229a4d872295904e8db59f258e85118a6b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is, That Schedule 4 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003ESchedule 4 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022 data-id=\u0022520f9c6d6f3f4585a59cc9ba6f286258\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000449\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022520f9c6d6f3f4585a59cc9ba6f286258\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is, That Schedule 5 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000450\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003ESchedule 5 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022 data-id=\u0022e124e30075984a71b3f4358d51e6c955\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e124e30075984a71b3f4358d51e6c955\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is, That the Minister\u2019s amendments to Schedule\u00A06 set out on Amendment Paper 362 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000452\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022 data-id=\u0022276c5d3fa472437ebf60f5820102a0e0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022276c5d3fa472437ebf60f5820102a0e0\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is, That Schedule 6 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000454\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003ESchedule 6 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022 data-id=\u00227968469ac0834c1f9ed9a9be97d10d98\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000455\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227968469ac0834c1f9ed9a9be97d10d98\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is, That the Minister\u2019s amendments to Schedule\u00A07 set out on Amendment Paper 362 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022 data-id=\u0022da6904facdb9415b915fb375432243d8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022da6904facdb9415b915fb375432243d8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is, That Schedule 7 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003ESchedule 7 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022 data-id=\u0022c3dde0e42aa840869e7fc357c41070df\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c3dde0e42aa840869e7fc357c41070df\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is, That the Minister\u2019s amendments to Schedule\u00A08 set out on Amendment Paper 362 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022 data-id=\u0022b7a6d13f38dd48e5b0d464658c453039\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b7a6d13f38dd48e5b0d464658c453039\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is, That Schedule 8 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003ESchedule 8 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000463\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002235a26237473847beb691e0ba3e6faf89\u0022\u003EClauses 1 and 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022 data-id=\u0022bbeb6dd1ea574e4086bc9f9882b4973b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bbeb6dd1ea574e4086bc9f9882b4973b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we now come to our final debate, clauses 1 and\u00A02, \u201CTitle\u201D and \u201CCommencement\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022 data-id=\u00220721d6294a3e4142ab8d4b3ce68dd5fc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220721d6294a3e4142ab8d4b3ce68dd5fc\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central):\u003C/span\u003E Don\u2019t worry, this won\u2019t take long. Just two things. Firstly, the Act, when it\u2019s an Act, will be the Parliament Act 2025, not 2024. Just wondering why he didn\u2019t tidy that up with the Amendment Papers, or is it just one of the things the Clerks do? It\u2019s not a big thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EThe real substantive point I was going to ask about is clause 2(2)(c), which is for the application of Part 9, which \u201Ccomes into force\u2014(i) on a date or dates set by Order in Council;\u201D. This is the citizens initiated referenda part. For the life of me\u2014it always seems odd to me to have an Order in Council, not only because it\u2019s just another job to do but also because it gives a degree of vagueness. Given that it\u2019s a citizens initiated referenda, it would have seemed wise to simply have a hard line. Now, I can understand that you want to make sure that the Electoral Commission has got a system in place, but I would have thought that 30 June 2026 might have done it, or even if it was 1 January 2027. But is there any reason why you thought an Order in Council was needed there rather than just setting a hard date?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022 data-id=\u0022d4811599c7784c999eb66ad9ff6a7373\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d4811599c7784c999eb66ad9ff6a7373\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E Well, the member the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, I think, knows that bills have dates in them as they go through the process, but they get updated to the Royal assent. When it gets eventually to the Governor-General, it will say \u201CParliament Bill 2025\u201D, and it will eventually become the Parliament Act 2025.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EPart 9, as the member rightly notes\u2014he\u2019s quick on the uptake\u2014is in relation to the citizens initiated referenda, and it will be because of the variety of things that need to happen between the Clerk and the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission is obviously getting ready for an election next year, so there will be a range of other things going on as well, and I think a huge amount turns on that. That\u2019ll be the reason.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EClause 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022 data-id=\u0022c74444ff7ee3451997fc4b20dc56601f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000470\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c74444ff7ee3451997fc4b20dc56601f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is, That the Minister\u2019s amendments to clause\u00A02 set out on Amendment Paper 362 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003EClause 2 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022 data-id=\u0022ee26d547bd0649468276ec2ca4dfb365\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ee26d547bd0649468276ec2ca4dfb365\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E I move Amendment Paper 361 dividing the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EThe committee divided the bill into the Parliament Bill and the Parliament (Repeals and Amendments) Bill, as set out on Amendment Paper 361.\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=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b1dc5acbf77e4a969dea44d6e344fd54\u0022\u003ELand Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002222af66477dd4461f932bf5c742e9dc6c\u0022\u003EIn Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022411067f1f7d645bbbf7aeb58208299c8\u0022\u003EPart 1 Amendments to Land Transport Management Act 2003\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022 data-id=\u00220ed13f8ab17648da97dbf020cbf22ebe\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220ed13f8ab17648da97dbf020cbf22ebe\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we now come to the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill. We start with the debate on Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 and 4, \u201CAmendments to Land Transport Management Act 2003\u201D. The question is that Part\u00A01 stand part. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bdb4120af127433fb9e705b5f479e453\u0022 data-id=\u0022bbf35f7b6de44c43ad4aba3351b13a05\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bdb4120af127433fb9e705b5f479e453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bbf35f7b6de44c43ad4aba3351b13a05\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green\u2014Rongotai):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Madam Chair. I have a range of questions for the Minister, and I also have six Amendment Papers in my name, which I do hope the Minister and other members will consider. Some of the issues were not discussed at length in the select committee process. I do want to congratulate all the members of the select committee. I think it was a really great process, and we did make some changes with unanimous support, but the Green Party did note there are some lost opportunities that were not addressed, and I do hope the Minister will still consider those potential changes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bdb4120af127433fb9e705b5f479e453\u0022\u003EThe first one of these has to do with exemptions. This is primarily because of a submission, which I\u2019m sure the Minister has read\u2014a very hefty submission from Auckland Council\u2014where they talk about the need for flexibility with regard to both exemptions and mitigation in order to get the buyin that is needed for\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c607be2f37d4499681b6bfb28248f580\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m sorry to interrupt the member. Can you just refer me to the clause you\u2019re speaking to?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bdb4120af127433fb9e705b5f479e453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002264d871a410244f73af4a5493aa77d029\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER\u003C/span\u003E: Actually, I\u2019m speaking to my Amendment Paper, which is Amendment Paper 376. There\u2019s two issues. My Amendment Paper 376 amends clause 4. We absolutely agree with the bill taking a narrow approach to exemptions. However, the bill, we think, could make exemptions for mobility parking permit holders. If the Minister refers to successful congestion charging schemes in New York City, Stockholm, and London, they all have some form of exemption for disabled people. This is not something that we discussed at length at the select committee, but looking at the evidence from submissions, I do think it is something that does need to be considered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000484\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bdb4120af127433fb9e705b5f479e453\u0022\u003EI think the main point\u2014and this is raised in Auckland Council\u2019s submission\u2014is that in order for the scheme to be brought in by local authorities and to get the local political buy-in that we need for such a scheme, there needs to be some amount of flexibility to enable very limited exemptions. We did, in the committee, make an amendment that does result in one new exemption, which is for public transport buses. This is also the case in most other cities that have congestion pricing schemes. They do have exemptions for buses and emergency vehicles. The bill, as originally drafted, included exemptions for emergency vehicles. It did not include exemptions for public transport services, but at the select committee we made that amendment. However, the issue around disabled people holding up a mobility parking permit as a reason to enable an exemption or a refund is something that is widely available in almost every jurisdiction that has a congestion charge.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bdb4120af127433fb9e705b5f479e453\u0022\u003EI think the Minister would agree that Stockholm and City of London, some of the first places to have congestion charging schemes, have been successful even though they have allowed exemptions for people with disabilities. Usually there\u2019s some sort of official\u2014you know, it\u2019s different in every country, what the official process is to determine if someone legitimately has a mobility challenge that means that they are exempt from a congestion pricing scheme. In the case of New Zealand, we think this could be the mobility parking permit. Of course there has to be good enforcement of that, but I do hope that members in the New Zealand First Party, Labour, and the National Party will\u2014I wouldn\u2019t expect members from ACT to support it, but I think simply following along the international practice of enabling some sort of exemption for people with disabilities is a reasonable thing to do. But the main issue and the main point by raised by Auckland Council is simply that they need more flexibility. That was something that is raised by the submission.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bdb4120af127433fb9e705b5f479e453\u0022\u003EI, unfortunately, highlighted too many things in their submission, so I\u2019m not finding the exact quote right now, but I can bring it up later. It is about enabling local authorities\u2014here we are. It\u2019s on page 25 of the Auckland Council\u2019s submission: \u201CThe legislation needs the flexibility to provide for exemptions in limited circumstances, to address genuine hardships and increase the chances for scheme success.\u201D I know the Minister wants these schemes to be implemented, wants them to be successful, and so I would argue that simply addressing this issue is one way we can enable local authorities. They don\u2019t have to, but the legislation should allow for it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022 data-id=\u002261f0b551ef5c4e4c92d259371446aa13\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002261f0b551ef5c4e4c92d259371446aa13\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport):\u003C/span\u003E The short answer to the member the Hon Julie Anne Genter\u2019s question is no. As the member herself acknowledges, exemptions, by definition, start to chip away at the integrity of why you have congestion pricing\u2014it works the more people pay, because that affects behaviour. The moment you chip away and say, \u201CWell, you are exempt and you don\u2019t have to pay, and you don\u2019t have to pay, and you don\u2019t have to pay.\u201D, by definition, you diminish the utility of the scheme. I think people broadly accept that\u2014well, I hope they do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EThe Transport and Infrastructure Committee has rightly recommended emergency vehicles\u2014I think most people can agree on that\u2014public transport, buses, which again makes sense, because it actually links to the purpose of the scheme. The whole purpose is to incentivise people taking the bus and getting out of their cars, which is good.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EIs there a moral case or a legitimate case for people with disabilities? Yes. Are people sympathetic to that? Yes, of course people are. But the reality is\u2014and this might potentially be harsh, but it\u2019s just the truth\u2014you have to draw the line somewhere. The trucking industry asked for an exemption. Well, the trucking industry, freight\u2014they create congestion, so they should be part of the scheme. Again, though, we actually want them to be part of any congestion pricing scheme that\u2019s implemented.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EThere were lots of different suggestions for exemptions, and the Government\u2019s taken, I think, a pretty reasonable approach, which is: there\u2019s a couple of minor ones which can be justified, but beyond that, we\u2019re not proposing any further exemptions. The member\u2019s welcome to keep trying, but we won\u2019t be supporting those Amendment Papers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e7461359400d4a47873d0f17eac3cfdb\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Dr\u2014I\u2019m sorry, David Seymour.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022 data-id=\u002269ab72cc1590491280c435db12dd2a58\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002269ab72cc1590491280c435db12dd2a58\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation):\u003C/span\u003E Thanks for the random PhD, Madam Chair. I just reflect on something that the member who resumed her seat over there said, that she wouldn\u2019t expect ACT to support an amendment to support people of the disability community. Well, actually, our starting point is we certainly would, because at least two ACT MPs have people living with disability in their family. Our empathy and compassion for the disability community is long and strong. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EI can only assume that the member made that comment because she also knows the ACT Party has two economists in its caucus, and we know that if you want to help people with a disability, you want a functioning market and to use income transfers where appropriate to help them access the market, which, as the Minister has said, is the correct way to help people, rather than distorting the market on an ad hoc basis. I have to say, I don\u2019t think that is why the member said it, and it reveals a nastiness that does not become her well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022 data-id=\u00229d9f1cdf63fd4bf980756da635f4f3db\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229d9f1cdf63fd4bf980756da635f4f3db\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m calling Tangi Utikere. He was on his feet before.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ea399a30464f434e93ae242bc766e499\u0022 data-id=\u002291ee2ef0cb9f45509ddb97a988ce63c0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea399a30464f434e93ae242bc766e499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002291ee2ef0cb9f45509ddb97a988ce63c0\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. The Labour Party do support this bill. We have been long-time supporters of moves in this particular space. I do want to join with my colleague the Hon Julie Anne Genter in acknowledging the work of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, which was very collegial in coming to some common ground. I also acknowledge that Government members have also accommodated through the report and have seen some sense, perhaps, in agreeing with some of the proposals that the Opposition have promoted. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000496\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea399a30464f434e93ae242bc766e499\u0022\u003EI just have one first question for the Minister of Transport. It is that throughout the bill, it refers to \u201Cthe responsible Minister\u201D, as opposed to just \u201Cthe Minister\u201D, and so that\u2019s just a technical sort of question around that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000497\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea399a30464f434e93ae242bc766e499\u0022\u003EI want to pick up on the focus around exemptions. I think that it\u2019s right and proper that this bill does provide for a very narrow exemption lot\u2014and the Minister is correct. The select committee did hear from submitters around some in the freight industry wanting to be included in the exemption process. Civil defence emergencies do include Defence Force vehicles and the like, and where the committee landed was that, no, it did need to be narrow. What we have in front of us, effectively, is two exemptions, or three, really. One is the emergency vehicles, the other is the buses that are contained in a regional land transport plan\u2014so that\u2019s very specific; it\u2019s not around private charters and the like\u2014and the third is around Ministry of Education rural buses. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000498\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea399a30464f434e93ae242bc766e499\u0022\u003EInitially, our view in the Labour Party was to not support one that went beyond that. However, our view has changed just on the disability aspect, and the reason for that is that when we look at other parts of the world\u2014and Stockholm is one that I\u2019ve learnt to know over the last week, specifically having visited there last week. They have a number of exemptions for diplomatic vehicles and the like, but when I asked them why it was that they had a provision for disability users, it was very simple, and that is that the process, effectively, of authorising a vehicle that in New Zealand would be a total mobility permit is because those users have no other vehicle that they can use to get from A to B. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea399a30464f434e93ae242bc766e499\u0022\u003EI do invite the Government to perhaps reconsider the appropriateness of allowing those users who\u2014and I think that the total mobility permit is a good opportunity, actually. It\u2019s justified that that\u2019s the vehicle that meets their particular need. While we originally didn\u2019t support an expansion of that narrow exemption, Julie Anne Genter\u2019s suggestion is actually the one that we will look to support because of the inability of those who travel by that means to, effectively, use any and all other modes. I do ask the Minister to maybe just reflect on the willingness of the Government\u2014given that this is something that we\u2019re looking to try and get some multipartisan support around this bill\u2014around opening the door for scheme boards to consider that. It\u2019s not saying that it is a \u201Cmust\u201D, but it is still putting in the option list one option that scheme boards could turn their minds to. I would ask the Minister to think about that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000500\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea399a30464f434e93ae242bc766e499\u0022\u003EI don\u2019t think that that\u2019s going to undermine the integrity of this, because what\u2019s also really clear is that it could be that scheme boards decide that, actually, they don\u2019t want to offer an exemption process to buses that are contained in the regional land transport plan, or they don\u2019t want to offer exemptions to emergency vehicles. Those are decisions that sit with the scheme board, and so I know that the Minister has said that the Government is not prepared to explore that, but given that this is an option where, really, those that hold those permits have little to no other alternative, I think that it would be the right thing to do. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bdb4120af127433fb9e705b5f479e453\u0022 data-id=\u002244dfb27b4d3f4b33868620879a20e6d2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000501\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bdb4120af127433fb9e705b5f479e453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002244dfb27b4d3f4b33868620879a20e6d2\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green\u2014Rongotai):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the Minister for his reply. I do want to reassure the Deputy Prime Minister that I wasn\u2019t intending any insults in my comments. It was precisely because the ACT Party has been very staunch on not supporting exemptions. It\u2019s great to hear that the ACT Party does support people with disabilities, and, I guess, I\u2019d invite them to consider what the tool is for the transfer to help support people on disabilities because, currently, the support is quite inadequate, and there\u2019s nothing within the bill that, I think, explicitly enables that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000502\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bdb4120af127433fb9e705b5f479e453\u0022\u003EAuckland Council did raise in their submission that it is central government that is going to have to directly support people to mitigate the increased cost of the congestion charge, because the council simply doesn\u2019t have the levers or tools to do that itself. You get this slightly disconnected situation where a local authority is the one, hopefully, initiating the scheme. The goal is around transportation, but some of the support and mitigation for people has to come in through the social welfare system. I\u2019m not sure how that will be addressed if not through my Amendment Paper, but I do want to encourage the Minister just one more time. I understand what he\u2019s saying. Of course, we want to keep it very narrow, but my main point, as raised by my colleague, is that virtually every jurisdiction that has brought in a congestion charge has some form of exemption for people with disabilities, and they have all worked. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bdb4120af127433fb9e705b5f479e453\u0022\u003EAs Tangi Utikere pointed out, this is all about getting the ability for there to be public buy-in and political support at a local level, because a congestion charge will not be brought in unless local authorities are able to get it over the line. Central government is not going to be imposing these, and, rightly, they should not. Already, the way the legislation is drafted, as Auckland Council raised, has a lot of central government control. They said, put simply, that the legislation enables the New Zealand Transport Agency to, effectively, exercise a right of veto over scheme proposals that negatively impact the operation of the State highway network but do not give local authorities that same right in reverse. I would argue to the Government parties that if they want congestion pricing to be implemented, they need to give the scheme boards and the local authorities more tools to make it politically acceptable. Often, what is politically acceptable is not the pure, perfect theory of the economist; it\u2019s a kind of compromised version where we get as good as we possibly can get but we also acknowledge that lots of people have reasons to support things in practice. We want it implemented in practice, not some perfect thing in theory that never gets implemented. We\u2019ve been waiting 20 years for this, Minister\u201420 years\u2014and the Green Party was, I think, the first party to champion congestion charging. I think enabling local authorities to have a little bit more flexibility over exemptions\u2014specifically the one for disabilities, however that is officially recognised\u2014would be really, really valuable. It\u2019s not forcing scheme boards to put in place those exemptions; it\u2019s simply giving them an opportunity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022 data-id=\u002257acbb8f1420413ba934f8d10bfa8db6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002257acbb8f1420413ba934f8d10bfa8db6\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport):\u003C/span\u003E Well, the member the Hon Julie Anne Genter, I think, makes the right point, which is that we\u2019ve been waiting 20 years for this. Having waited 20\u00A0years to get to the point in which all parties in Parliament, I think, support the idea of putting a price on congestion in order to disincentivise it and lead to more economic and efficient use of the roads, can we all just agree that if we\u2019re going to do that, let\u2019s get the best damn public policy scheme we can? Let\u2019s try and get a world-class congestion pricing scheme in place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000505\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bdb4120af127433fb9e705b5f479e453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e53c2c4852db4ca3bdd311b968887068\u0022\u003EHon Julie Anne Genter\u003C/span\u003E: All the other cities do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226ee3d0dde8d34475a0a3b4f07a99bcaa\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, all the other cities do it, and that\u2019s not good public policy. I\u2019m advised that when London did it, 50 percent of people didn\u2019t pay it, which, you know\u2014is it a step forward? Well, yeah. Is it better than the status quo? Yes. But is it better than 95 percent of people paying and being subject to the price point, and leading to changed behaviour? No, it\u2019s not. Now, London clearly had to make political compromises along the way, but just because London did it and other countries did it does not mean that New Zealand has to. I just reject the contention that congestion pricing in Auckland will fall down because people with disabilities may pay a congestion price depending on the behaviour that they engage in. They\u2019re still going to pay petrol, by the way. We don\u2019t exempt them from petrol tax, which is a way of, basically, road pricing by proxy. If they drive an electric vehicle, they\u2019re going to pay road user charges, and, eventually, they have to pay based on how much they drive on distance-based pricing, which is a far fairer way of doing it\u2014and we\u2019ll eventually get to that piece of legislation in due course.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000507\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EI just reject outright the idea that the whole scheme is going to fall over because we haven\u2019t allowed an exemption that the member is keen on, and Auckland Council might be keen on it. It\u2019s an interesting point of view. But as I\u2019ve said twice now, the whole purpose is to subject as many people and groups as possible. It\u2019s a bit like GST, right? Every now and then, people have got bright ideas for things we should exempt from GST. You know, children\u2019s books. Well, I\u2019ve got a threeyear-old. It\u2019d be great to have 15 percent off a children\u2019s book, assuming that the price was passed on, which it probably wouldn\u2019t be. I buy a lot of baby formula\u2014would that be good, to have that off? Yeah, absolutely. Sanitary products\u2014if people get worked up about that, fair enough. Fruit and veg, you know? I mean, I don\u2019t want to be too political, but we\u2019ve had various different suggestions for that. Once you pop, you can\u2019t stop, you know? Once you\u2019re down this path\u2014firstly, it\u2019ll be people with disabilities, then it will be the trucking industry, then it will be  people travelling to work at a particular time or going, then it will be\u2014people will find exemptions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000508\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227d50be4a7fd042fca27c41c4c644561f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ebc2f25e386c4d68b3d54f21138dbe34\u0022\u003EHon Phil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s a slippery slope!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000509\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d7d86a4ea5f04ec8a377db2ae7f4d589\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, so one example that\u2014Mr Twyford makes a really good point; it\u2019s a slippery slope. Stockholm did what the member the Hon Julie Anne Genter probably supports in her heart of hearts, which is they exempted low-emissions vehicles.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000510\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bdb4120af127433fb9e705b5f479e453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227e8548c764224c90aba454047535ef53\u0022\u003EHon Julie Anne Genter\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, good idea.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000511\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225394ca01c8604b4c8cb768654ea0b410\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, see, but that\u2019s a terrible idea. I\u2019m sorry, but that is a terrible idea. Low-emissions vehicles are vehicles. If you\u2019re trying to solve the public policy problem of fuel efficiency or carbon emissions, there are different ways to address that, and the member and I would probably disagree on the right public policy mechanism to do that. But they are vehicles. The problem is congestion, and you\u2019re putting in place a congestion pricing scheme that uses price to efficiently allocate road space. Focus on as many people as possible paying that price to change behaviour. If you\u2019re worried about emissions, that\u2019s a whole other debate. Do not confuse the two. The Government stands for good public policy\u2014I thought that member did too.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022 data-id=\u0022c685d760c41744389300725611c83177\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000512\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c685d760c41744389300725611c83177\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation):\u003C/span\u003E I\u2019d just like to acknowledge Julie Anne Genter\u2019s clarification. I withdraw my comments that she was nasty towards the ACT Party, and I\u2019d like to just record her acknowledgment of the ACT Party\u2019s microeconomic chops.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022 data-id=\u0022688fd34124f844e090eb73343ef0e0b7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000513\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022688fd34124f844e090eb73343ef0e0b7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: As it relates to this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022 data-id=\u00229e54f37581044f2db7430b7e3a38547d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000514\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229e54f37581044f2db7430b7e3a38547d\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to engage in the crossparty spirit of comity which has broken out across the committee, taking into account the Minister of Transport\u2019s reference to Pringles, what is the Minister\u2019s favourite Pringle?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000515\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022\u003EThe second question that\u2019s related to this is: has there been a distributional impact analysis done on the impact of congestion charging? Obviously, all members across the committee do support it, but we would like to, I guess, have the full facts in mind. We do want to acknowledge the Minister\u2019s commentary around the impact on not watering down the potential for pricing and the importance of keeping it as pure as possible in terms of the scheme. Obviously, there are many ways to create potential rebates so that everyone is still facing the price at the initial point, but maybe designing some sort of rebate scheme so that there is that pricing element that\u2019s still baked in, but there is potential for people to potentially get the rebate, like my colleague Julie Anne Genter suggested, which is potentially creating not an exemption scheme but, essentially, a rebate scheme for people with disabilities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000516\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022\u003EAcknowledging the Minister\u2019s comment\u2014surprisingly, the Minister would find common ground with the Degrowth Greens Network in not exempting low-emissions vehicles from the charge because, as the Degrowth Greens Network would point out, a vehicle is still a vehicle, and we need to consider the fact that that even though low-emissions vehicles are a lower emission mode of transport, it\u2019s still good to, if possible, shift people away from these emissions-intensive modes of transport, because low-emissions vehicles still require embodied energy to have to be made. They\u2019ll also still be running from the grid, and the grid is still not 100 percent renewable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000517\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cd3445b8926d46439a74bd8ec1d00875\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Can I just ask the member, which clause are you speaking to?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222e09d8adff0040dc898f82ef2fb92d46\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I\u2019m responding to the Minister\u2019s points about why it\u2019s good to not exempt low-emissions vehicles, so I\u2019m responding to an answer\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022 data-id=\u0022d225d983ef524ad6bfb4877e76b4ce12\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000519\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d225d983ef524ad6bfb4877e76b4ce12\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Can you please refer to the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000520\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002256977d5753b441ada2bfb9bc73528879\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014that the Minister gave. Clause 4\u2014I\u2019m still continuing on the point. That actually leads on to my next point, which is: has there been a climate impact analysis done on this? We do know that congestion pricing is one of the ways that we can help reduce emissions, and if there has been a climate implications of policy assessment that has been done on this, how many emissions will the introduction of congestion pricing lead to? Obviously, it\u2019s not mandatory at this stage, but I would like to see the modelling that\u2019s been done, because we do know that new section 65C, inserted by clause 4, makes it so that it\u2019s not compulsory for local authorities, but what is the sort of maximum range that\u2019s been done? Like, what\u2019s the assumption if all territorial local authorities do it? What are the emissions reductions if half of them do it? I\u2019d be interested in the answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000521\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022\u003EJust to recap on the questions that I\u2019ve asked, the distribution analysis would be good if there\u2019s one that has been done. The second is the climate impact analysis\u2014has one been done, and what were the results of that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022 data-id=\u0022a1df2e5e4f8d4f059cbfa6cd64a9a6cc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000522\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a1df2e5e4f8d4f059cbfa6cd64a9a6cc\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport):\u003C/span\u003E Just to deal with a few issues, I have to come back to you on the climate implications of policy assessment. I think the answer is it hasn\u2019t, but I\u2019ll double-check for you. A member asked what is my favourite brand of Pringles.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000523\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef044682c0bd4c8885c626cbc9acb678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002265f25ffa621d404fb3287c05f5d2ec7e\u0022\u003ETom Rutherford\u003C/span\u003E: Sour cream and chives.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000524\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e8fedf3690c04ebbbf17c7be8a834802\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: As it relates to this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000525\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227552ed309e76485ca08afbf13d5107c9\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Big time, sour cream and chives\u2014number one. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EA member asked about impact assessments. The point will be that local authorities that initiate a scheme are actually required to do an impact assessment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000527\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EBroadly, I think all members have now, basically, agreed that congestion costs anywhere between half a billion dollars and $2 billion. Estimates vary. Everyone agrees there\u2019s a problem in Auckland and Wellington in particular. Reducing that down has a big economic impact, but the exact scheme designs that local authorities engage in will depend, basically. They\u2019ll have to go through a process of doing that, and actually that has to be consulted on, so that\u2019s built into the scheme design that is part of the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000528\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EThe member makes a good point around rebate schemes, which, potentially, are a way of reallocating distribution\u2014you know, people who are affected by it. Actually, I\u2019m advised that new section 65Z(2)(d) inserted by clause 4 requires an analysis of the distributional impacts as part of the scheme.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000529\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EThe other point I\u2019d point out is the Total Mobility scheme, which provides very generous subsidies to people who have disabilities, for example. It\u2019s a complicated funding formula between the individual local authorities, the National Land Transport Fund, and the Crown, and very generous subsidies for people who use Total Mobility. It\u2019s a very worthwhile and valid scheme, which many people take advantage of.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000530\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s the first time in my life I have been likened to a member of the Degrowth Greens Network\u2014frankly, it\u2019s not an experience I particularly enjoyed, but thank you very much for that, to the member, and I\u2019ll come back to you\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000531\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef044682c0bd4c8885c626cbc9acb678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223ec4167ac8a2494ba71b7078ad157c0a\u0022\u003ETom Rutherford\u003C/span\u003E: Slander.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220adb4e74c4c24cf791b7b6c907504903\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, well. I\u2019ll come back to you on the climate impact policy assessment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002225f41afbd3704a77be3e16ea18a99f20\u0022 data-id=\u00221e4652f34fef4bdebc2a3be62e6624a7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f41afbd3704a77be3e16ea18a99f20\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221e4652f34fef4bdebc2a3be62e6624a7\u0022\u003ECELIA WADE-BROWN (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m interested in the Minister\u2019s analysis of the percentage of vehicles that would be likely to have mobility stickers. I think you were talking about the fact that surely we don\u2019t want 50 percent of vehicles going through these schemes to be let off, but surely if the proportion of people is somewhere between a quarter and a fifth, depending on whose figures you take, the likelihood of them travelling at congested times is not as high.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f41afbd3704a77be3e16ea18a99f20\u0022\u003EUnfortunately, the proportion of people with disabilities in work is lower than the average work participation, so I would like to know a little bit more about why he sees the mobility parking permit exemption as making a very significant difference. I\u2019m also interested in the fact that this scheme is meant to improve traffic flow\u2014improve times and reduce the number of vehicles. I wonder to what extent he\u2019s going to see this relatively cost-effective mechanism as an alternative to very large capital expenditures and how long he\u2019s likely to let a time of use charging scheme go for before potentially reviving some other travel plan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000535\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f41afbd3704a77be3e16ea18a99f20\u0022\u003EGoing back to the issue of this being a good idea that we shouldn\u2019t amend too much despite the other cities that my colleague referred to, there will be cities and there will be councillors who want to find any excuse not to do this. I wonder if the Minister would address the question of whether not allowing mobility exemptions could actually make a council less likely to proceed with the scheme. We\u2019ve seen people say that bike lanes are ablest, and I appreciate that the Minister has supported a number of cycling schemes, but there are genuine issues about ableism and there are ones that are just revved up to stop more sustainable transport options.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022 data-id=\u0022715dee085db24cdeb750f2e32a03d401\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000536\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022715dee085db24cdeb750f2e32a03d401\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Before I take another call, I\u2019m just going to point out that the last six calls have all related to the same topic. This is the first and probably last warning about repetition.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022 data-id=\u0022d9a42ecff2a0431fb7e996c956fe63e4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000537\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d9a42ecff2a0431fb7e996c956fe63e4\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport):\u003C/span\u003E No, a climate implications of policy assessment (CIPA) was not required, because the bill doesn\u2019t propose any particular scheme; it\u2019s a framework, so no CIPA was required.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000538\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003ESecondly, I think I\u2019ve dealt with the mobility issue at length. As I\u2019ve said, ad nauseam now, the moment you start exempting groups or people\u2014you could find any reason; there are any number of good arguments for it, which people would be very sympathetic to\u2014you diminish the utility of the scheme, and the next exemption becomes easier. I do not believe that schemes will fall over at a council level because people with disabilities will be subject to a congestion price. I just do not believe that will be the case. We could be wrong; if that\u2019s the case, we can come back and revisit it, but I find that highly unlikely in relation to deferred capital investment as a result of time of use pricing. Well, let\u2019s just wait and see. Let\u2019s get the bill in place and get a scheme in place and see how it goes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ea399a30464f434e93ae242bc766e499\u0022 data-id=\u0022f10f60d282514cc2ac3bd7ea860fbdf0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000539\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea399a30464f434e93ae242bc766e499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f10f60d282514cc2ac3bd7ea860fbdf0\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I am disappointed in the Minister\u2019s answer, but I accept it. The issue we haven\u2019t talked about, of course, are the buses, the rural school buses. There might not be many of them to be exempted, because the current Government seem to be cancelling all the rural school buses anyhow, so the narrow approach to the exemptions will be very narrow indeed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea399a30464f434e93ae242bc766e499\u0022\u003EI want to turn to new section 65C(4). Now, this is about the notice of the charging scheme. It talks about the need to identify the locations with poor traffic flow. We don\u2019t hear about congestion or anything like that; we hear about the poor traffic flow as the rationale for the notice of proposal. One of the issues, of course, that we are going to contend with is community interests will think that poor traffic flow will mean different things to different communities. Poor traffic flow in Auckland will have a particular experience or meaning, as opposed to poor traffic flow maybe in Levin. The issue there is how there will be a level of consistency around poor traffic flow and trying to understand that there is a minimum threshold or standard where a potential time of use charging scheme is warranted. That\u2019s the first question for the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea399a30464f434e93ae242bc766e499\u0022\u003EThe other is in relation to new section 65D. This is a little bit of the more nitty and gritty detail of what is expected to be in the proposed charging scheme. One of the things that\u2019s not identified there is whether or not the scheme proposal needs to include what some of the alternative options in terms of people being able to get where they need to go\u2014where that might lie.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000542\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea399a30464f434e93ae242bc766e499\u0022\u003EI appreciate that that might be very difficult in a scheme arrangement like Stockholm, where it\u2019s basically an in and out sort of environment, as opposed to maybe Gothenburg, where it\u2019s more a tennis racket or a stretch of road. It\u2019s much more easy to identify alternatives for traffic flow if it\u2019s a stretch of road, and saying, \u201CWell, users can use this alternative or that alternative.\u201D It\u2019s very, very difficult in an in and out, entry/exit sort of approach.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea399a30464f434e93ae242bc766e499\u0022\u003EThe question for the Minister is where he sees that being placed in a scheme proposal, if at all. This is not a toll road opportunity where you\u2019re required to identify alternatives, but it still, I think, would lend some weight as part of the proposal if there was some identification of what alternative routes could be used at a time\u2014I\u2019m not talking about the specific time of operation, but alternative routes that might be available.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022 data-id=\u002210054ce7cb784afc8db6b4b4ba00aff3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002210054ce7cb784afc8db6b4b4ba00aff3\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport):\u003C/span\u003E The member makes good points. In relation to traffic flow, this is ultimately going to be an issue for local authorities or, indeed, the Minister, depending on who initiates a time of use charging scheme. In reality, councils will judge for themselves traffic flow, and they\u2019ve got to identify the improvements that we made to traffic flow\u2014so traffic in and out of Auckland.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000545\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EThe Auckland CBD is very congested at peak times. Everyone knows that. It\u2019s partly why we\u2019re talking about this bill. There are other parts of Wellington and parts of Christchurch. Levin, and Masterton, and parts of Dunedin, perhaps not\u2014with the greatest respect to those wonderful towns and cities. They\u2019re wonderful places, but they don\u2019t necessarily have traffic issues that could be addressed through a time of use scheme. In reality, I think all members know this. We\u2019re talking about Auckland, Wellington, and maybe Christchurch. Let\u2019s wait and see where we get to. As I say, I\u2019m just keen to get the bill in place and get something up and running. We\u2019ve signalled, as a Government, that the starting point will be Auckland. We learn as we go. We learn as we go. Actually, because we\u2019re so far behind other places, we can pick up some of the lessons from Stockholm and other places that have done it. London\u2019s had it for 25 years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000546\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002244281fd7fc7b4e9dbceb6025f4551f2b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fec2393e1ba44646a2707b9c8f8d99c3\u0022\u003EShanan Halbert\u003C/span\u003E: You should do a post on it, Dan. You haven\u2019t posted on it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000547\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b6213b788466426fbad808004aea16df\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000548\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002244281fd7fc7b4e9dbceb6025f4551f2b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022496021c063c548bfbafe960aa8fce2aa\u0022\u003EShanan Halbert\u003C/span\u003E: Just encouraging my colleague to do a post on it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000549\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e388c33923c241a5897460ca4d5f1f02\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, we\u2019re looking forward to your posts. That\u2019ll be good too. Thank you. Thank you for your support, Mr Halbert.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000550\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EIn relation to new section 65D, a slightly facile answer to this is that the alternative is, by definition, not where the scheme is and not at the time the scheme applies. If you do a ring and you say, at a particular time in a particular place, the congestion charge is paid, well, the flip side of that is you don\u2019t pay if you travel outside those times, outside that area. That\u2019s the alternative. I think, in reality, what\u2019s likely to end up happening is that as councils and scheme boards develop proposals, they will publicise those options and those choices as part of the development of the scheme\u2014and, likewise, the public transport option and things like that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EThe bill, essentially, envisages revenue generated from the time of use being funnelled back into mechanisms in order to provide transport choices for people, which I think is appropriate, so that will be part of the development of the scheme as well. Is it perfect? Probably not, but we\u2019ve just got to crack on and get a scheme up and running. We can learn as we go, and we can iterate the legislation if, indeed, it needs changes as we go.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fdda043d491c47629c336b7aadb222fc\u0022 data-id=\u0022af79e15430164945ab3b06893904f88c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fdda043d491c47629c336b7aadb222fc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022af79e15430164945ab3b06893904f88c\u0022\u003EANDY FOSTER (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have a question, but I want to start off by saying, in relation to the suggestions that have been made that not including an exemption for members of the disability community would possibly lead to councils pulling the plug, that Auckland and Wellington have been pursuing the idea of a congestion charge or a time of use charge probably for a decade and a half, if not longer than that. This is something that, if they were to walk away from it, would be very, very foolish.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000553\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fdda043d491c47629c336b7aadb222fc\u0022\u003EI want to thank the Minister for the flexibility in responding to the issues that the select committee raised, and one of them was indeed that area of exemptions, because originally there was not going to be a provision for exempting public transport. There\u2019s scheduled public transport, and Tangi Utikere raised the issue of the Ministry of Education rural buses as well, and the whole purpose of this scheme was to encourage people to change their time of travel or their means of travel, and public transport obviously was a key means of travel that we wanted to encourage people towards.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000554\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fdda043d491c47629c336b7aadb222fc\u0022\u003EI wanted to thank the Minister again for responding to the issues. We had some quite good discussion around a number of issues that were raised by the select committee. That was one. Another one was the governance arrangements, and the third one was the way in which any revenue was going to be spent. The committee was quite strong on those, and the Minister responded to those, and I thank him for that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000555\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fdda043d491c47629c336b7aadb222fc\u0022\u003EThere is one question I\u2019ve been asked by a colleague. It\u2019s not a question that I\u2019m asking because I want to ask it, but a colleague has asked and, as a team, we said we want to get an answer on this. It is around the issue of privacy. It\u2019s making sure that we can give comfort to people that there is not going to be some massive collection of data that\u2019s going to be held over people about where they were travelling, how they were travelling, when they were travelling, and all those sorts of issues. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fdda043d491c47629c336b7aadb222fc\u0022\u003EIf you wanted a particular area in terms of the bill, section 65ZF, in clause 4, is probably the best place to look, as it talks about the potential impact on privacy. I\u2019d just like to ask the Minister if he can give the public some assurance that there are going to be no issues with privacy around this scheme and that people can rest easy on that score. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022 data-id=\u00225e980c0dd0144bff95ad09db145b7a07\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000557\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225e980c0dd0144bff95ad09db145b7a07\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport):\u003C/span\u003E Madam Chair, thank you, and thank you to the honourable member Andy Foster, as well, for his very diligent work in chairing the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. It was, from my understanding, a very well-chaired select committee, and we\u2019ve managed to achieve some unanimity, I think, which is really good, due in part to his very good chairing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EI think that the member makes a good point around privacy, and the member himself adverts to the relevant section, which is new section 65ZF in clause 4, which, rightly, says that \u201C(2) The enforcement authority and the Agency\u201D\u2014which is the Transport Agency\u2014\u201Cmust not use any personal information \u2026 except for\u2014(a) the purpose of collecting time of use charges (including billing);\u201D\u2014which I think is totally appropriate; obviously, members will be familiar with that now via tolling, the motor vehicle register, licences, etc.\u2014\u201Cor (b) the purpose of enforcing this subpart.\u201D Obviously, the Privacy Act applies to other information that is collected, which has been amended many times, and I think that it works quite well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bdb4120af127433fb9e705b5f479e453\u0022 data-id=\u002249cb3e3a52404d7ca1aace3dceeaaa7b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000559\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bdb4120af127433fb9e705b5f479e453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002249cb3e3a52404d7ca1aace3dceeaaa7b\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green\u2014Rongotai):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Madam Chair. I know that we\u2019ve well and truly covered the issue of disability vehicles, but could I put on the record of this debate that mobility parking permit holders are less than 5 percent of all driver licence holders\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c1f2649dd01b45e6833399bb8c7bf10b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, you can put that on the record, but I heard the previous Chair ask us to move on from that topic.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bdb4120af127433fb9e705b5f479e453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226a08f16c2ff74d9db49e57b42f2def93\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, yes. So now my topic\u2014moving quite on to my Amendment Paper 374, which is in clause 4 and proposes a new section 65A and 65B. The point of this Amendment Paper is to address the high cost of air pollution. The Minister, the Hon Chris Bishop, has referred to being a supporter of good public policy. The Minister has rightly noted the cost of congestion being in the order of a billion a year, maybe, for Auckland. The Minister might realise that the cost of harmful air pollution in Aotearoa is upwards of $10 billion a year. It kills more people than traffic crashes do\u2014car crashes\u2014and it has an enormous strain on our health system and productivity, because small children getting asthma\u2014we have one of the highest asthma rates in the world. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bdb4120af127433fb9e705b5f479e453\u0022\u003EThe reason why the Minister, as he was referring to earlier\u2014when we talk about emissions and low-emissions vehicles, there are carbon emissions and greenhouse gas emissions and then there are harmful air pollution emissions. The harmful air pollution is specifically what we are asking to be addressed. This comes out of the inquiry\u2014which the Minister, I believe, sat on the select committee when we had the inquiry into congestion charging, or maybe it was Christopher Luxon, actually. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000563\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bdb4120af127433fb9e705b5f479e453\u0022\u003EIn the previous term of Parliament, the Transport and Infrastructure Committee had an inquiry into the congestion question. During that process, we received numerous submissions from experts overseas who recommended that within our congestion charging legislation we allow some provision for scheme boards to apply additional charges to high-emissions vehicles. This is not in competition with congestion charge; it\u2019s complementary to a congestion charge, and it is very much something that would be useful to local councils, as they have some requirement under national environmental standards to guarantee air quality, yet they don\u2019t have any levers for the geographic containment of where air pollution tends to be worse. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000564\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bdb4120af127433fb9e705b5f479e453\u0022\u003EHence the reason why zones like a congestion pricing zone, if we\u2019re able to take into account high and low-emissions vehicles, are a very, very useful, sensible evidence-based policy tool for addressing the geographic location and constraint and giving local authorities some tool to address poor air quality. That\u2019s why low-emission zones, low-emission vehicle charging, in tandem with congestion charging, is quite a useful tool for concentrated air pollution\u2014areas of concentrated air pollution problem. It\u2019s the regional councils that are responsible for making sure the airshed meets a certain standard, right? Currently, they have no tools to address that. It\u2019s not something that we address through any other public policy mechanism that I\u2019m aware of, and the cost is five times higher than the cost of congestion to the public. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bdb4120af127433fb9e705b5f479e453\u0022\u003EIf you support good public policy in this House, we would love to see cross-party support for this Amendment Paper 374, which would simply enable scheme boards to take into account highemissions and low-emissions vehicles and apply not exemptions for low-emissions vehicles but higher charges for high-emissions vehicles that have harmful air pollution impacts in those parts of the city.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022 data-id=\u002200863cfbf75f43b698c0fca0ae51dc2d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002200863cfbf75f43b698c0fca0ae51dc2d\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport):\u003C/span\u003E Look, I\u2019ve dealt with this now a couple of times, I think. I\u2019ve dealt with it already, but I\u2019ll just repeat, very briefly: I\u2019m really keen not to confuse what we\u2019re trying to achieve here. What we\u2019re trying to achieve is addressing the congestion question in Auckland and to some extent Wellington, and maybe some other cities, OK? That is, as the member\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000567\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba79c9cbab554c389a55314c7574ad07\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229a5573b219ee402ca4bd4f8da24d28d7\u0022\u003EKahurangi Carter\u003C/span\u003E: Dream big.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000568\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b3225b3b4d7246cfa61a1192a52047ae\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Dream big. The member\u2019s colleague made a point, about half an hour ago, that we\u2019ve waited 20 years for this. I agree, so let\u2019s focus on getting it in place, focus on what congestion pricing schemes can do, which is reduce congestion. Is there a debate, is there an argument, around how we incentivise and reduce emissions? Absolutely, but that is a separate issue to this debate and this bill, which, if we can get it into place, will bring New Zealand into line with many other jurisdictions, and, frankly, most people would say it\u2019s taken way too long to do this. The member talked before around social licence and said the whole scheme is going to break down if we don\u2019t allow people with disability permits to be exempt from congestion prices. I disagree with her.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000569\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EThe easiest way to make sure that congestion pricing in every city in New Zealand never happens: say to people who drive gas guzzlers, \u201COh, by the way, you\u2019re now going to be lumped with an even higher price.\u201D I think we all know implementing congestion pricing is going to be bumpy, OK? It\u2019s going to be unpopular. Every jurisdiction that has implemented it, it\u2019s been wildly unpopular, and then the moment it starts and everyone experiences school holiday traffic, they go, \u201COh well, this is fantastic. We should have done this 20 years ago.\u201D It\u2019s like, \u201CAbsolutely\u201D. But it\u2019s going to be bumpy on the way through, and I think we all just have to recognise that. It\u2019s not going to be very popular. That\u2019s why I\u2019m really pleased that I think I\u2019m right in saying we have unanimous support for it across Parliament. That\u2019s really good; this is a ginormous step forward for good transport policy in New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EBut, respectfully, Ms Genter, the easiest way to destroy public support for congestion pricing would be to whack big new prices on people who happen to drive emissions-intensive cars. You would see public support that\u2019s going to be a bit tentative to start with utterly evaporate, so we\u2019re not in favour of that. It\u2019s a separate issue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221b25fe0aaf4a441c89618f1fa196cd1e\u0022 data-id=\u00223e70cdc3d5b644bb8b8ef0a82f336a0a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000571\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221b25fe0aaf4a441c89618f1fa196cd1e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223e70cdc3d5b644bb8b8ef0a82f336a0a\u0022\u003EDAN BIDOIS (National\u2014Northcote):\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u00229a213903ac6048f8ae10f0cdea14359f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000572\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229a213903ac6048f8ae10f0cdea14359f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m going to take a burning question from Tangi Utikere, and I\u2019m sure it\u2019s going to be a new issue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ea399a30464f434e93ae242bc766e499\u0022 data-id=\u0022913bc2df79c34109a324da596d211fa9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000573\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea399a30464f434e93ae242bc766e499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022913bc2df79c34109a324da596d211fa9\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North):\u003C/span\u003E Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. The Minister\u2019s talked about the support across the House, and that is certainly my perspective here, which is why I\u2019m working my way through different aspects that haven\u2019t been touched on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000574\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea399a30464f434e93ae242bc766e499\u0022\u003EI want to look at new section 65E. This is about the consultation process around the proposal. When it comes to new subsection (1)(a), it talks about the fact that before a scheme is even submitted to the Minister, the board needs to undertake public consultation. Now, this is very important, so my question to the Minister is around expectations around the minimum levels of engagement for that process. There is a process here, that was outlined previously, around whether a local authority or two or more local authorities that have come together want to pursue this or whether it\u2019s Minister initiated. If it\u2019s involving local government, rightly or wrongly, members will be familiar with the fact that that sector has a special consultative process that it\u2019s called upon to engage from time to time, where the potential outcome is of significance. This just talks about the fact that there needs to be public consultation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000575\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea399a30464f434e93ae242bc766e499\u0022\u003ENow, we all know that that could mean just putting a public notice in, getting some submissions, and then saying, \u201CYeah, OK. We\u2019ll go ahead\u201D\u2014or not. My question for the Minister is around expectations for the level of public consultation that a scheme board must undertake before they even submit that to the Minister. I want to, if I may, move on to a couple of other clauses as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eb0bdb743cba49778fc36128385b3cc1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Could you do it now?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000577\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea399a30464f434e93ae242bc766e499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ca93a6f235c2490aa66eb9886acb965c\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah. It\u2019s new section 65F\u2014this is about the actual submission of the scheme\u2014and, in particular, new subsection (2)(c). This is the information that might be accompanying a proposal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000578\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea399a30464f434e93ae242bc766e499\u0022\u003ENow, what\u2019s listed there in the bill at the moment is that they could provide any other information that the responsible Minister considers necessary. The problem is that there\u2019s nothing in the bill that identifies what process would be engaged or used to signify that the Minister might need that information. The question there is: is it just that there\u2019s going to be some ongoing communication and contact between the scheme board and the Minister? If so, can the Minister point out where that provision actually exists? If not, how is the board going to know that the Minister requires some information in order for him or her to exercise their thinking in that space?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022 data-id=\u0022ee673f83556a4272a7a48e0ef0e04ab1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ee673f83556a4272a7a48e0ef0e04ab1\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport):\u003C/span\u003E The member Tangi Utikere makes good points. In relation to public consultation, look, this is local government\u2019s bread and butter. This is what they do, I would argue, probably far too much. I think it\u2019s relatively straightforward. The scheme board, before they submit something to the responsible Minister, have to do public consultation. My expectation would be that they\u2019d be relatively comprehensive. The bill and I are not going to dictate the number of months and all the rest of it. Ultimately, this is what local authorities do, and they\u2019re actually pretty good at it, so I don\u2019t want to get too worked up about that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003EIn relation to section 65F, inserted by clause 4, I think (2)(c) is there as a bit of a catch-all, but it should be read in light of (2)(a) and (2)(b). The scheme proposal has to have the report of the consultation we\u2019ve just been talking about, a summary of the submissions, and the impact assessment. Having just gone through a bit of this with some councils in relation to a variety of things under the Resource Management Act, there is quite a lot of backwards and forwards between central government and councils as part of the formal exchange of documents and things like that. My expectation would be that it would work in a similar way, in which the scheme board might say to the officials, \u201CHere\u2019s what we\u2019re planning on submitting\u201D, and if there\u2019s some other information that the Government or the Minister might like that would encourage the scheme board in advance of the submission in order to help expedite the process, submit that as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d303d4c0d1724e369d7911fa0a861e7d\u0022\u003ENow, look, I can\u2019t imagine, off the top of my head, exactly what that information might be, but the point is it\u2019s there as a catch-all. In case the Minister needs more information, they can ask for it. My expectation would be that Ministers and local authorities would work in good faith around these things, and I\u2019m very confident that will be the case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022df23ed9a7102406f9899558fb3841582\u0022 data-id=\u0022b14a3ade7e9f4498813920db32add4d1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df23ed9a7102406f9899558fb3841582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b14a3ade7e9f4498813920db32add4d1\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=\u00226ec072476212459f8ad6fd2b76cb7c27\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022a609fd9186b742a0a3db96dc41a54c5c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000583\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a609fd9186b742a0a3db96dc41a54c5c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 400 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000584\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022b7cc188e7fed46b8ac89e2c377116432\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b7cc188e7fed46b8ac89e2c377116432\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Julie Anne Genter\u2019s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 374 are out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000586\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter\u2019s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 375 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022524af36b55b84e0280d4c081b0c8d98e\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 15\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 102\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First\u00A08.\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022e9f6b068a14b4b5992b1e2929e6b3c56\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000587\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e9f6b068a14b4b5992b1e2929e6b3c56\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter\u2019s amendment set out on Amendment Paper 376 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022923162569a6a4f569f9b24af28a593e7\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022fe5f73fe4e84448da347f89de175184c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fe5f73fe4e84448da347f89de175184c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter\u2019s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 377 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002267a6379ddcdf4e1890d50378ad17026c\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 15\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 102\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First\u00A08.\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u002250c37190634746a09f66624f606eb31e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000589\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002250c37190634746a09f66624f606eb31e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter\u2019s amendment set out on Amendment Paper 378 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022073836ba4f79464fb27820885b44e1f9\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 15\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 102\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; 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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u00222f6a561f6416405a8e8cd1423edc1a40\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222f6a561f6416405a8e8cd1423edc1a40\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter\u2019s amendment set out on Amendment Paper 379 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022348e14682b3f4ceca7edfc94e2c41ba9\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 15\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 102\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; 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=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000591\u0022\u003EPart 1 as amended agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u00225186718079774ff8ac047eb49649e9f9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000592\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225186718079774ff8ac047eb49649e9f9\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the time has come for the committee to break for dinner. I just did want to make a comment: in terms of committee stages, when a bill is largely agreed and it\u2019s been through a select committee\u2014I heard the previous speaker talking about things being stretched out around the same topics\u2014we would expect the questions to be really homed in in this situation. Under urgency or when a bill\u2019s just put before the committee, then we\u2019re quite happy to extend things out. In a situation like this, there was plenty of opportunity in the time frame to answer those questions. I just wanted to put that on the table. The House is suspended until after the dinner the break at 7.30 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000593\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00222d208db9c13148728baeedb1225e2528\u0022\u003EPart 2 Amendments to other enactments\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022 data-id=\u0022a18075cfc3e04c3d97ef4d5c6cd4e840\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a18075cfc3e04c3d97ef4d5c6cd4e840\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, welcome back. We come now to Part 2 of the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill. The debate is on clauses 5 to 10, \u201CAmendments to other enactments\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=\u00223fa71773cda24d3da2773c797fbba84e\u0022 data-id=\u002269ce7415627d49f383cbf0f386f179c4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223fa71773cda24d3da2773c797fbba84e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002269ce7415627d49f383cbf0f386f179c4\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. It\u2019s good to be in the chair for Part 2. Part 2 is the part which outlines the amendments to other enactments, and we\u2019ve got amendments to the Land Transport Act 1998 and amendments to the Legislation Act 2019. It\u2019s pretty straightforward. They are almost sort of your technical amendments that you need to make in order to enact the substantive policy within the bill itself. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000597\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223fa71773cda24d3da2773c797fbba84e\u0022\u003ELet\u2019s skip clause 5 and go straight to clause 6. That\u2019s amending the interpretation section of the Land Transport Act to define \u201Cenforcement authority\u201D and \u201Cmoving vehicle offence\u201D, and subclause\u00A0(3) inserts definitions of \u201Ctime of use charge\u201D and \u201Ctime of use charging offence\u201D to reflect, again, our policy intent. New clause 6A amends section 145 to provide for evidence of approved vehicle surveillance equipment. There\u2019s a small amendment under clause 7 which amends the regulations to allow the Minister to set regulations for the setting of infringement fees for the time of use charging offences. Clause 8 amends section 208 to update some numbering of some sections, and then clauses 9 and 10 make some small amendments to the Legislation Act 2019. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223fa71773cda24d3da2773c797fbba84e\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s a pretty straightforward summary of what the part does. It makes those consequential amendments to two other pieces of legislation in order to fulfil the policy intent of the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ea399a30464f434e93ae242bc766e499\u0022 data-id=\u00225c70019fef6e41ddbef9334c1a0df86e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000599\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea399a30464f434e93ae242bc766e499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225c70019fef6e41ddbef9334c1a0df86e\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North):\u003C/span\u003E Kia orana, Mr Chair. I thank the Minister for his comments on those sections. Obviously, you know, this is a bill that the Labour Party will continue to support.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000600\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea399a30464f434e93ae242bc766e499\u0022\u003EThe Minister does indicate that they are technical amendments, but none the less they are still important to ensure that whatever is transferred over to other pieces of legislation is consistent. Now, it\u2019s very clear that what the bill does provide for is an infringement fee for this type of offence rather than a conviction or anything like that, and it doesn\u2019t seem as though that\u2019s going to change.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000601\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea399a30464f434e93ae242bc766e499\u0022\u003EIf I can just pick up on clause 6 of this part, and it is in relation to the Land Transport Act and specifically the interpretation. What is proposed here is inserting a new section that, I guess, adds to the definition of an enforcement authority. Now, the interesting word that\u2019s used there in that definition is that of \u201Centity\u201D. Now, what this is doing is, basically, as we understand it, saying that the entity or organisation that would enforce the scheme would be able to do so by way of an infringement notice as a result of an offence, but they would be identified as an enforcement authority.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea399a30464f434e93ae242bc766e499\u0022\u003EThe question for the Minister is that when we look at the New Zealand Transport Agency or Waka Kotahi or indeed a local territorial authority, in many respects those entities already have enforcement powers and in legislation would be defined in some respects as an enforcement agency or enforcement authority. My question to the Minister is: is it actually required that they be identified or is there, effectively, a transfer or transference of that status if the entity themselves has that elsewhere in legislation? It would seem that it might be because maybe\u2014I\u2019m not sure\u2014local government doesn\u2019t have anything in terms of that definition in the Land Transport Act, although it may be the case that it could do as a local road controlling authority. So that\u2019s the first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea399a30464f434e93ae242bc766e499\u0022\u003EThe second question is in relation to what is clause 6A. This is section 145 amended, so still in relation to the principal Act, the Land Transport Act, but what this is doing is seeking to add in the reference to an infringement or a charge not being paid in respect of a scheme that is in place over a piece of road. Now, we understand that it\u2019s going to be inserted after the reference to a toll. So, on the one hand, you have the toll not being paid, and this would, basically, insert an additional add-on, so to speak, that this would be for a congestion charge not being paid. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea399a30464f434e93ae242bc766e499\u0022\u003EThe interesting thing, though, is that what is proposed to be inserted here is \u201Cthe fact that\u201D. Now, we don\u2019t have that for the toll. It doesn\u2019t say after \u201Cthe fact that a toll has not been paid\u201D, but for some reason we have \u201Cthe fact that a time of use charge has not been paid\u201D. Consistency is important. I take the Minister\u2019s earlier point that there\u2019s technical matters here, but why not just drop \u201Cthe fact that\u201D and just have \u201Ca time of use charge has not been paid in respect of the vehicle,\u201D? I know it might be about semantics, but semantics matter, and so that\u2019s really the crux of the question for the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022 data-id=\u0022a7ea33874def4bb7b5739d0bb4bf3b92\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000605\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a7ea33874def4bb7b5739d0bb4bf3b92\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I do want to pick up on what the previous member Tangi Utikere has mentioned in terms of clause 6A of this bill. I think it is important for the Minister to respond to the fact of what that implies in this particular instance, but I also want to check that this particular section is to do with when a car is travelling and potentially has an unpaid toll or unpaid time of use charge, using vehicle surveillance equipment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EIn conjunction with what has been discussed previously, I do want to check in terms of who would then be responsible. The reason I ask is that this is the only time in this bill that a toll has been mentioned. Usually, when we\u2019re looking at the circumstances around a toll, there\u2019s a very clear signal that you do need to pay a toll and it gives a very clear signal of when you need to pay that particular toll by. In this case, if we\u2019re using the same allowances, which allows approved vehicle surveillance equipment to be used not just simply for tolls but also for time of use charges, it also then raises the same question of whether the signifier of the time of use charge would be on the same level as what would be done with the toll when a person is travelling, so that way they know exactly when they have to pay things by. Potentially that\u2019s a very easy question that has been covered earlier.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000607\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EI do have two other questions, though, and the first question is around clause 8, \u201CSection 208 amended\u201D. Now, what\u2019s interesting is that over here it says, \u201CReplace section 208(3)(a)(ia) with: (ia)\u00A0subpart 3 of Part 2 of the Land Transport Management Act\u201D, but what I found within the legislation itself is that that part was originally repealed and is now sort of, I guess, in some ways reintroduced. Is this in reference to the time of use charge or is there something else that has happened that makes this particular repealed section\u2014now being reintroduced, as far as I can see, in terms of that particular section 208?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000608\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EMy final question is around clause 10, \u201CSchedule 4 amended\u201D. Now, understanding that previously we were looking at the amendment to the Land Transport Act 1998, but now we\u2019re looking at the Legislation Act 2019. This is an interesting section, because it does pertain to an earlier section of the bill, which is new section 65H(1), inserted by clause 4, but it is an important part, because it specifically talks about how the inclusion of this is by Order in Council. I wanted to check with the Minister in the chair that we were looking at changes to the Legislation Act 2019, and particularly in Schedule 4, Part 1. There are other things in that schedule of Part 1 that talks about \u201Cby Order in Council\u201D and \u201Csecondary legislation\u201D, but in many of those references in there, they\u2019ll also talk about, in the other legislation, the regulatory-making powers when you\u2019re looking at something that\u2019s introduced by Order in Council, particularly when it comes to any provisions around reviews.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EAgain, this might be something that may have been discussed in the relevant section, new section\u00A065H, in which case the Minister can just say that it has been covered. I\u2019ll be really interested to know from the Minister about what that particular regulatory-making power would look like so that we don\u2019t see an executive overreach.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EThose are my three questions. The first one is in terms of how a toll and the time of use charge would be examined or signalled before we get to the point that a person could be snapped, I guess, as part of the approved vehicle surveillance equipment. The second question is around the reintroduced section of the repealed section 208(3)(a)(ia). The third part is around Order in Council and regulatorymaking powers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223fa71773cda24d3da2773c797fbba84e\u0022 data-id=\u002270dd152ee02b4bbda103c3992d5d2da1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223fa71773cda24d3da2773c797fbba84e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002270dd152ee02b4bbda103c3992d5d2da1\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport):\u003C/span\u003E I\u2019ll have a crack at the last one first, because Schedule 4 of the Legislation Act lists those pieces of legislation that need to be confirmed by a deadline, which, I think, from memory, is clause 4 in that legislation confirmation. It\u2019s the idea that a regulation that is made must be confirmed by a deadline, otherwise it automatically expires. Now, that\u2019s my understanding, and so Schedule 4, amended by clause 10 of the bill, just lists the regulation-making power 65H(1) in the Land Transport Management Act in that list.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000612\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223fa71773cda24d3da2773c797fbba84e\u0022\u003EI will skip back to the questions from Mr Utikere. The question around the use of the terminology \u201Cthe fact that\u201D\u2014if Mr Utikere goes to the original provision in the Land Transport Act, section\u00A0145(1), ironically, before the phrase \u201Ca toll has not been paid\u201D is the phrase \u201Cthe fact that\u201D. It\u2019s a consistency between the two.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000613\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223fa71773cda24d3da2773c797fbba84e\u0022\u003EIn terms of the first question around \u201CDo identities need to be specifically identified?\u201D, local authorities and road-controlling authorities are already defined as\u2014what was the word I\u2019m looking for there?\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000614\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea399a30464f434e93ae242bc766e499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c76de99cd2fa47b8b3830f7c11ad0e7e\u0022\u003ETangi Utikere\u003C/span\u003E: Enforcement agencies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000615\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223fa71773cda24d3da2773c797fbba84e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fbe46aec7dda42acb5ab4d06ba50a595\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014enforcement agencies in that paragraph. This inclusion will include other entities that enforce time of use charging schemes in accordance with an order. They may well be local authorities or road-controlling authorities, but it does capture those entities that may fall outside of that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ea399a30464f434e93ae242bc766e499\u0022 data-id=\u002296f024dede0a4555a86852beff55fa54\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea399a30464f434e93ae242bc766e499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002296f024dede0a4555a86852beff55fa54\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the Minister for those responses and the clarification. I just have one further point on this section, and it\u2019s in relation to clause 7. This is about the regulations that would be amended, and it\u2019s right and proper that what is included in there is the reference to what the penalty provision would be for the offending, which would be failing to pay the charge. There is the possibility that the charge that would be payable in a particular region\u2014once the scheme board has gone through its process, the Minister has agreed, and a time of use charge is in place. In a circumstance where there is more than one location where a time of use charge is in place, it is possible that the actual fee that is paid could vary\u2014would be different in one particular city to another.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000617\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea399a30464f434e93ae242bc766e499\u0022\u003ENow, in a circumstance where someone does not pay that fee, what this provision does is it sets the infringement fee for failing to do that. Effectively, committing the offence will lead to a fee being charged. The issue as currently drafted with new section 167(l)(fb), inserted under clause 7, is that it relates to setting the infringement fee for a time of use charging offence. My question to the Minister is whether that limits the ability for the infringement fee to vary depending on the offence that is committed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000618\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea399a30464f434e93ae242bc766e499\u0022\u003EFor example, if someone fails to pay a fee in an area where it is a higher level, it could be likely that the infringement fee should be at a higher level than a time of use charge that is set elsewhere. The provision as drafted perhaps won\u2019t allow for variation in infringement fees, or perhaps it will. But the question really is the lack of it being a plural in that \u201Cinfringement fee\u201D, and stating the singular, means that there might be some limitation in circumstances where there is a variation of charge but an infringement fee with that provision couldn\u2019t be variable in itself.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223fa71773cda24d3da2773c797fbba84e\u0022 data-id=\u002265b2076a87664d748ef689c7e8e3848a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000619\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223fa71773cda24d3da2773c797fbba84e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002265b2076a87664d748ef689c7e8e3848a\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport):\u003C/span\u003E Section 167 provides the regulation-making power for the Governor-General, by Order in Council, to all intents and purposes at the advice of the Minister, to set those infringement fees. There\u2019s nothing in section 167 which would prevent variable fees from being set, but you would then be subject to, I guess, regular regulation-making constraints of fairness and adherence to rule of law and whether that\u2019s a proper imposition of the power. I can\u2019t think of examples where different infringement fees would be set, based on the nature of the particular ticket. I could think of a similar one where you might face an infringement fee for not paying a parking ticket, but I don\u2019t think it changes depending on whether your parking ticket is a $12 ticket or $20\u2014I\u2019m not too sure that\u2019s the case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000620\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea399a30464f434e93ae242bc766e499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e6b50162ec5d452a8dcae985c8660caf\u0022\u003ETangi Utikere\u003C/span\u003E: Depending on time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000621\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223fa71773cda24d3da2773c797fbba84e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002264c368ef39764ff18741e3c0395cfcea\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the infringement for not paying the ticket might be, but the offence of not paying the ticket itself would be an offence. That might not be the best example to use, but all I\u2019m saying is I think there\u2019s nothing in section 167 to prevent variable charging. It would just be whether or not that is an appropriate use of the regulation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000622\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223fa71773cda24d3da2773c797fbba84e\u0022\u003EPart 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000623\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00224cd221052aa647168fd5da8f17168f5f\u0022\u003EClauses 1 and 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022 data-id=\u00223f1353526f324dea970c0f6586aef169\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000624\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223f1353526f324dea970c0f6586aef169\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to our final debate\u2014clauses 1 and\u00A02, title and commencement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ea399a30464f434e93ae242bc766e499\u0022 data-id=\u0022a712127b736c472fa5f3aa95bcd54bde\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea399a30464f434e93ae242bc766e499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a712127b736c472fa5f3aa95bcd54bde\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. My questions relate to clause 2, which is in relation to the commencement. What is pretty clear here is that it is proposed that the Act would come into play on the first anniversary of it receiving Royal assent\u201412 months after that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea399a30464f434e93ae242bc766e499\u0022\u003ENow, my recollection from the select committee is that we didn\u2019t really have much conversation or discussion around this. I don\u2019t think there\u2019s much in the report around this. Obviously, there\u2019s a desire across the Parliament to have this legislation in place, but my question is around the timeliness and the suitability of having it as a 12-month, first anniversary kick-in. There is actually quite a lot of content in this bill that relates to some of the preparatory stuff and steps that would be undertaken. I guess there\u2019s nothing to informally prevent some local councils or others thinking about what might kick into play when this bill comes into place. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000627\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ea399a30464f434e93ae242bc766e499\u0022\u003EMy question to the Minister is very simply: does he believe that the 12-month provision, or the first anniversary of Royal assent, is appropriate? Usually that\u2019s the case when there are certain steps that need to be taken. A lot of the steps that are being outlined in the bill are steps that could be done as soon as Royal assent is actually given, rather than having a period of time before that, effectively, gets under way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022 data-id=\u0022ca3fb93ab3b74a83b854cbc16ed86fa9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000628\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ca3fb93ab3b74a83b854cbc16ed86fa9\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I do have a similar question to the previous speaker Tangi Utikere, but, I think, from a different perspective. In Part 1 of this bill, people have talked a lot in terms of the consultation mechanism, and so there is a pertinent question of whether 12 months is sufficient when we\u2019re looking at the ability to bring this bill into effect. I guess that the question, again, is: what happens if some of the regional authorities haven\u2019t quite managed to finish some of the processes and some of the consultation? Particularly, I\u2019m thinking of some of the areas that potentially have more challenging relationships with what is potentially the board, or the scheme, or the mechanism that is being defined here\u2014and I\u2019m thinking of some of the recent challenges we\u2019ve been seeing in terms of Auckland Transport. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000629\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s kind of my first question, I think, and another question, if the Minister wouldn\u2019t mind responding and just kind of indulging me a little bit, is this. I\u2019m curious to know why in some bills we see commencement dates coming into force one year after Royal assent, and, like in this case, it says that it\u2019s the \u201Cfirst anniversary\u201D. What is the difference between 12 months, or one year, and the first anniversary? That\u2019s just my own\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228bc352bdc9594287b3f185a4871549da\u0022\u003EHon David Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s about the same thing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000631\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c1f6372e42a84f25a55ee3ebaa85df92\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s the same, but why word it differently, then? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000632\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ea8d231f4e948c19f942d51a4ae19bf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022834df610a48a4b679bd41286ef6771bd\u0022\u003ELaura McClure\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, come on\u2014do better than that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000633\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221b90e14dbaf240f29c6f0521cbac13dd\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, I feel like, as lawmakers, we ought to care in terms of wording, and generally, I think, for many of us, we all should have a little bit of curiosity. Again, I will be taking that in mind the next time we have a members\u2019 day, because I feel that we do allow for a much broader conversation during the committee stage when you\u2019re looking at any bill, and I don\u2019t see why one side of the House should be treated differently from the other side of the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000634\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EIf the Minister wouldn\u2019t mind responding\u2014that wasn\u2019t the crux of my question. The crux of my question is whether 12 months is sufficient, but also what then happens if it\u2019s insufficient? At the same time, some of the mechanisms we see here in this bill\u2014it talks about reviews. I say to the Minister, thank you for answering my previous question around it being by Order in Council, but it also mentions that that particular thing would give a specific deadline as well. How, then, do those deadlines interact with the commencement date of one\u2014sorry, not one year, but the first anniversary of the Royal assent? Those are my three questions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022 data-id=\u0022d17502dd57d34faf8fdd6c49f6b7f953\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000635\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d17502dd57d34faf8fdd6c49f6b7f953\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Just before I call the Minister, I presume that the member wasn\u2019t accusing the Chair, or any Chair, of treating one side differently from the other. I presume that he was saying that members treat each other differently and expectations differently? I take\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000636\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f7007211a3ee45c9b679e3f989982664\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: I do agree. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000637\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ace227c753324c68a1962b6f1b2ac763\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014it that that\u2019s what he really meant. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000638\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d423d9a556d24d0b9da570084210afe7\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, thank you, Mr Chair. I wholeheartedly agree with you. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000639\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227864c0a564584a74b3ee47438038c4f8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you for clarifying that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223fa71773cda24d3da2773c797fbba84e\u0022 data-id=\u0022b08bbe0841cd43e4adbe7931bb952b32\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000640\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223fa71773cda24d3da2773c797fbba84e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b08bbe0841cd43e4adbe7931bb952b32\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport):\u003C/span\u003E Mr Chair, thank you. My understanding is that the particular phrasing used in the commencement date is the preferred phrasing provided by the drafters of the legislation to indicate a 12-month or a one-year or a first anniversary after the Royal assent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000641\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223fa71773cda24d3da2773c797fbba84e\u0022\u003ENow, the reason for that length of time, to Mr Utikere\u2019s question, is to allow for sufficient time both for, I guess, local authorities to prepare for what this might look like in their area but also to allow for a series of regulations to be developed and put into place prior to the commencement date. Then, of course, once the bill comes into force, that will trigger the ability for those entities, councils, and enforcement agencies to start thinking about how a particular scheme might come into place. Then there are consultation requirements and the establishment of boards and all those things that come into force after then. A year is a sufficient amount of time, we think, for people to prepare for the appropriate regulations to be passed. Then, once the bill is in force, there will be some time before a scheme is implemented, because there are those public consultation requirements and the actual practical implementation of it to go into place as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000642\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223fa71773cda24d3da2773c797fbba84e\u0022\u003EClause 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000643\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223fa71773cda24d3da2773c797fbba84e\u0022\u003EClause 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000644\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223fa71773cda24d3da2773c797fbba84e\u0022\u003EBill to be reported with amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000645\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002216b672fa3b1344d2beee023082bdaa7a\u0022\u003EReport of Committee of the Whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00220746a1c08426434b90a118efe0525bd0\u0022\u003EReport of Committee of the Whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022 data-id=\u00220653daa26aa54a619edaecf9a8ad7028\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000646\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220653daa26aa54a619edaecf9a8ad7028\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Speaker, the committee has further considered the Parliament Bill and reports it with amendment and divided into the following bills: the Parliament Bill; the Parliament (Repeals and Amendments) Bill. The committee has also considered the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000648\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000649\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022\u003EReport adopted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u002218221a8b4b8e4366a74891aa32ebd048\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000650\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002218221a8b4b8e4366a74891aa32ebd048\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Those bills are set down for third reading next sitting day. I call on Government order of the day No. 3.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000651\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00222908361a2edb42069aeff58281b2e0a7\u0022\u003EAppointments\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000652\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002242f7148c455d47808d4ba2deb0217d2a\u0022\u003EInspector-General of Defence and Deputy Inspector-General of Defence\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022625b767707f6446e8d6a0fe3b7de0c5a\u0022 data-id=\u00224c1127fdeb6d4cb1806da83b0eb04b32\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022625b767707f6446e8d6a0fe3b7de0c5a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224c1127fdeb6d4cb1806da83b0eb04b32\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) \u003C/span\u003Eon behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That, under section 7 of the Inspector-General of Defence Act 2023, this House recommend to Her Excellency the Governor-General the appointment of the Hon Justice Timothy Charles Brewer ONZM as the Inspector-General of Defence for a term of five years commencing on 1 December 2025, and that, under section 11 of the Inspector General of Defence Act 2023, this House recommend to Her Excellency the Governor-General the appointment of Natalie Ruth Pierce as the Deputy Inspector-General of Defence for a term of three years from 10 November 2025.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000654\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022625b767707f6446e8d6a0fe3b7de0c5a\u0022\u003EThe positions of Inspector-General of Defence and Deputy Inspector-General are statutory officers established to provide independent oversight of the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF). They are established by the Inspector-General of Defence Act 2023, which came into force on 26 January 2025. The functions of the Inspector-General of Defence are to investigate incidents that have occurred in the course of activities of the New Zealand Defence Force and any subsequent acts or omissions in the New Zealand Defence Force in relation to those incidents; to assess and identify potential improvements or additions to policies and procedures governing activities of the NZDF. The Inspector-General of Defence may carry out any such investigation or assessment on their own initiative or at the request of the Minister, the Secretary of Defence, or the Chief of Defence Force.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000655\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022625b767707f6446e8d6a0fe3b7de0c5a\u0022\u003EThese appointments are made by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the House of Representatives. The Act provides that the initial term for the Inspector-General of Defence may be up to five years and the initial term for the Deputy Inspector-General of Defence may be for up to three years. The Inspector-General can be reappointed for one further term of up to three years. The deputy may be reappointed for one or more further terms of up to three years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000656\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022625b767707f6446e8d6a0fe3b7de0c5a\u0022\u003EIn December 2024, Mr Brendan Horsley was appointed as interim Inspector-General. His term in that role expires on 30 November 2025. The intention has been for Mr Horsley to provide experienced and expert oversight for the role of Inspector-General until a longer-term appointment can be confirmed. The Minister is now proposing the Hon Justice Timothy Brewer for appointment as the Inspector-General of Defence, with effect from 1 December 2025.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000657\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022625b767707f6446e8d6a0fe3b7de0c5a\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s considered that he has impeccable qualifications for the role. Justice Brewer was appointed to the High Court in 2010. He will retire from the bench on 15 November 2025. He will bring to the role of Inspector-General a combination of judicial experience and extensive knowledge of the Defence Force. He joined the Territorial Force of the New Zealand Army in 1976. In 2000, he was promoted to brigadier and appointed Territorial Force Adviser to the Chief of Army. He has a long-held interest in military law, including the law of armed conflict. He was appointed as a member of the court martial panel of advocates in 2001, judge advocate from 2004 to 2009, and judge of the Court Martial of New Zealand in 2009. In 2009, as brigadier, he took a three-month contract and served in Afghanistan. His job was to evaluate the role of the NZDF in Afghanistan and report to Government on the options for withdrawal from that theatre of operations. He retired from the army in 2009, following his return from Afghanistan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000658\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022625b767707f6446e8d6a0fe3b7de0c5a\u0022\u003EThe Minister is also proposing the appointment of a Deputy Inspector-General of Defence. Over time, the appointee will assume responsibility for the day-to-day management of the office. The appointee must also, if required, be able to stand in for the Inspector-General in every aspect of the role. Ms Natalie Pierce is recommended for the Deputy Inspector-General of Defence position following a rigorous selection process. She has excellent credentials for the role. She has been in practice as a barrister since 2021 and specialises in domestic and international criminal law, human rights, and national defence and security. She has previously served as chief adviser to the Government inquiry into Operation Burnham and related matters, providing expert advice on detention and torture. As principal legal adviser and project lead, she was closely involved in the establishment of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions. Amongst other earlier career positions, Ms Pierce was a legal intern with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Ms Pierce has good knowledge of NZDF processes and policies through her current role as senior counsel on the NZDF panel of counsel and her extensive work with the Operation Burnham inquiry. Ms Pearce will bring to the deputy role a rounded legal and investigatory skill set, relevant international law experience, the ability to exercise sound judgment, and the ability to take an effective leadership role with a small team. Thank you, Madam Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022938d5640c8414d2986ee9014cd52d970\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000659\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022938d5640c8414d2986ee9014cd52d970\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=\u0022333cbe863aa64ae7816c10ddcdfe265e\u0022 data-id=\u002283c66d76480e4617aa66dde8aa9ba0ce\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000660\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022333cbe863aa64ae7816c10ddcdfe265e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002283c66d76480e4617aa66dde8aa9ba0ce\u0022\u003EHon PEENI HENARE (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand in support of the motion offered by the Government in the appointment of two very highly qualified and highly experienced members to these important statutory roles.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000661\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022333cbe863aa64ae7816c10ddcdfe265e\u0022\u003EFor context, Operation Burnham was an important piece of work undertaken by a very good and independent group of people that could allow a rare view for the public into the workings of the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF)\u2014the decision making, the chain of command, and where accountability sits. From Operation Burnham, there were a number of recommendations, of which this was one of them: the creation of the role of the Inspector-General of Defence (IGD), and the need to, in the words of the Operation Burnham report, \u201Cdemocratise Defence\u201D to make sure that there are processes in there that continue to uphold the expectations of the broader population\u2014not only of the Defence Force but, of course, the role the Minister of Defence and the Government plays in the way that operations are undertaken, in the way that the chain of command is given.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022333cbe863aa64ae7816c10ddcdfe265e\u0022\u003EThis is an important role. It\u2019s an important role that demands integrity. It\u2019s an important role that demands transparency to give the public the confidence that the operations that the New Zealand Defence Force embarks on or are deployed to are undertaken with the utmost integrity, transparency, and with clear chains of command to make sure that the operation is conducted appropriately according to international law and the standards\u2014the high standards, I should say\u2014that we all set as a country for our people who are deployed overseas.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000663\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022333cbe863aa64ae7816c10ddcdfe265e\u0022\u003EIn my time as the defence Minister, this particular piece of legislation was undertaken and then subsequently was made into law, and now we, as the Minister has rightly pointed out, have had somebody in a transition role or a caretaker role, so I think it\u2019s about time that we\u2019ve made a very clear statement in the appointment of these two very good candidates for the role.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000664\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022333cbe863aa64ae7816c10ddcdfe265e\u0022\u003EOf course, the support of the Hon Justice Timothy Charles Brewer to the Inspector-General of Defence is a good appointment. As the Minister pointed out, he brings together a good mix of legal experience while also the experience in the armed forces, in the New Zealand Defence Force, rising to the rank of brigadier. That isn\u2019t a very common skill set to have, which is why this person couldn\u2019t be more better suited to the role, to make sure that they bring that understanding and that knowledge to bear in any of the reviews that the IGD can be asked to undertake on behalf of New Zealand, but also the ones that the IGD office can undertake under their own power and of their own will to make sure that we continue to have, as I mentioned earlier, an NZDF that continues to conduct itself to the high standards we all expect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000665\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022333cbe863aa64ae7816c10ddcdfe265e\u0022\u003EThe appointment of the Deputy Inspector-General of Defence, I think, is a good move. The Minister made clear in her contribution before mine that the deputy role is not only just to support the Inspector-General of Defence role but also to have broader oversight over the actual workings of the office, which I think is an important thing to note. The Minister also pointed out that this particular candidate\u2014this particular person\u2014was involved in the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in State care, and my experience as a Minister and the undertaking of that particular royal commission of inquiry is that it did require a large amount of administration, a large amount of leadership, to ensure that the office actually performed to the expectations that we all have of the office. In the appointment of Natalie Ruth Pierce as the Deputy Inspector-General of Defence, the Minister rightly points out her expertise in this field, her strong legal mind, as well as her ongoing undertaking of education\u2014as I understand it, studying at Oxford at this point in time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000666\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022333cbe863aa64ae7816c10ddcdfe265e\u0022\u003EThe Labour Party stands to support these two appointments. We continue to support the office of the Inspector-General of Defence for the matters I\u2019ve raised earlier, and we look forward to working with the IGD moving forward.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000667\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022333cbe863aa64ae7816c10ddcdfe265e\u0022\u003EJust finally, can we thank the Minister of Defence, who I know reached out to the Leader of the Opposition early in the appointment process. That is, of course, a good show of bipartisan politics, and something that I believe, in particular in defence, belongs in that space, where the more support we can have across this House gives New Zealanders and the NZDF the confidence they need and the confidence they deserve from this House. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a5921c9f295441b0ba570475a71a860e\u0022 data-id=\u002268e40903f4544146acd7c8cb7bed188b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000668\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5921c9f295441b0ba570475a71a860e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002268e40903f4544146acd7c8cb7bed188b\u0022\u003ETEANAU TUIONO (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to support the motion by the Minister. These are important positions, and just to acknowledge the strong portfolios, the strong curricula vitae, the CVs, that the Minister read out as well, which points to their ability, I think, to be able to take on this very important role.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000669\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5921c9f295441b0ba570475a71a860e\u0022\u003EThe role of the Inspector-General of Defence is a very important role. The Defence Force is unlike any other organisation in Aotearoa, which involves significant authority but also deserves appropriate accountability. Where that authority is misused, especially where there are devastating consequences such as loss of life, it is critical that there is the opportunity for inquiry and for accountability.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000670\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5921c9f295441b0ba570475a71a860e\u0022\u003EThe office of the Inspector-General of Defence was established by the Inspector-General of Defence Act 2023, which came into force in January this year, so acknowledging the work done there as well. There is a long history behind the establishment of this office. The office of the InspectorGeneral of Defence was established in response to the findings of the inquiry into Operation Burnham. That inquiry found failures in process, accountability, and transparency that went right up to the ranks to three successive heads of our military. They were failures in process, transparency, and accountability that impacted the ability of successive Ministers, who were the only and the highest civilian accountability mechanism for our military to conduct their roles with integrity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000671\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5921c9f295441b0ba570475a71a860e\u0022\u003EThere always remains a risk of misconduct or fundamental failings, and that\u2019s especially as our military escalates. I note our participation in joint operations alongside the likes of the United States. It\u2019s important that we have adequate measures to ensure that our Defence Force adheres to the rule of law, adheres to human rights, and does not bring itself into fundamental disrepute. I do acknowledge the point made by the previous two speakers about the bringing on of a Deputy Inspector-General as well, noting that the Government has made a significant investment\u2014$12\u00A0billion and growing\u2014and our role in cooperation with the US will require there to be a greater level of scrutiny and a greater ability to hold the military to account. I think it\u2019s also important for us to make sure that there are sufficient resources as well, with a bigger investment of $12\u00A0billion and growing, a closer alignment with the United States\u2014which is not a problem for some people in this House, but it is a problem for the Greens, noting that issues around the independence of Aotearoa New Zealand are important for some in this House. Having the resources for the Inspector-General of Defence is incredibly important to make sure that it happens as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000672\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5921c9f295441b0ba570475a71a860e\u0022\u003EFor these reasons, it is critical for those who are appointed to the roles of the Inspector-General of Defence and Deputy Inspector-General of Defence to be well equipped to provide independent scrutiny of the New Zealand Defence Force and help to ensure that the New Zealand Defence Force always acts in compliance with international law. I think that\u2019s a pretty important point to make, given the state of the world at this particular point in time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000673\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5921c9f295441b0ba570475a71a860e\u0022\u003EThe office of the Inspector-General has two essential functions: an investigation function, with appropriate supporting powers to scrutinise in response to issues that have occurred, and an assessment function to assess processes, procedures, and policies and identify gaps to prevent issues from occurring in the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000674\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5921c9f295441b0ba570475a71a860e\u0022\u003EWe wish the new Inspector-General of Defence the best of success as he ensures that the Defence Force is subject to transparency and accountability, and extend those best wishes also to the Deputy Inspector-General. We support the motion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000675\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5921c9f295441b0ba570475a71a860e\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022459a53a8d7e5446a9dd084e2f4c33abc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022459a53a8d7e5446a9dd084e2f4c33abc\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Regulatory Standards Bill, the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill, the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill, and the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000677\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00223312767ad54b440e9e25712b2d0e85a1\u0022\u003EHouse in Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000679\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00221effe155c22446ebaa17b2bdd6c2dc5a\u0022\u003EHouse in Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022 data-id=\u0022cc65c0d802484be8bddadd628e9f5c8d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cc65c0d802484be8bddadd628e9f5c8d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the House is in committee for the Regulatory Standards Bill, the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill, the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill, and the Offshore Renewable Energy 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=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000680\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022090bf3f676894fb782b3f99faa60890b\u0022\u003ERegulatory Standards Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022784f0badbf7247aaa5c3900124392671\u0022\u003EIn Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000682\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c0c0d325fa1e4d19adb4134096cb868b\u0022\u003EPart 1  Preliminary provisions, and Schedules 1 and 1A\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022 data-id=\u0022f59f4a50615e4d74a9dab636b8d769e7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000683\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f59f4a50615e4d74a9dab636b8d769e7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: We come first to the Regulatory Standards Bill. We begin with Part 1, the debate on clauses 3 to 7, \u201CPreliminary provisions\u201D, and Schedules 1 and 1A. The question is that Part 1 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022 data-id=\u00224355536b8d6f40f58eb734055c179f0a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000684\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224355536b8d6f40f58eb734055c179f0a\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. This part sets out the purposes, overview, and interpretation, and also refers to certain legislation that is not considered by the Regulatory Standards Bill\u2014or Act, as it would be. I do not intend to adopt any of the Opposition amendments that I have seen on this part, although there is a single amendment in the name of the Minister, which makes some minor and technical changes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000685\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EThe purpose clause sets out the purpose of the bill, which is best expressed in clause 3(1), which says, \u201CThe [purpose] of this Act [is] to\u2014(a) promote the accountability of the Executive to Parliament for\u2014(i) the development of high-quality legislation; and (ii) the exercise of stewardship over regulatory systems;\u201D. It\u2019s also to \u201Csupport Parliament\u2019s ability to scrutinise Bills; and (c) support Parliament in overseeing and controlling the use of delegated powers to make legislation (see Part 5 of the Legislation Act 2019).\u201D It goes on to give a range of ways that those purposes are given effect to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000686\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EThe overview, which is the next clause, gives a summary of the clauses of the bill. I intend to answer questions on the substance of those clauses in Parts 2 and 3, where they are found. I don\u2019t intend to engage in any debate on those clauses through this part\u2014however, perhaps on the wording that describes those parts in Part 1, under that overview clause.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000687\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EThe interpretation gives a series of definitions, which I think most people would describe as selfexplanatory. This part finishes by referring to legislation that the Regulatory Standards Bill would not apply to, as I said at the outset.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022 data-id=\u00224ca486a607d14d44b09c4e0827f70acc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000688\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224ca486a607d14d44b09c4e0827f70acc\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Just mind, given what the Minister has said, it will still be up to the Chair to determine which questions will be accepted and how that will relate to closures, just to clarify that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022 data-id=\u0022bbc9a01c95d24efb8190e09dffb9be96\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000689\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bbc9a01c95d24efb8190e09dffb9be96\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central):\u003C/span\u003E Yes, thank you for that clarification, Mr Chair. I\u2019m sure the Minister wouldn\u2019t be so arrogant as to say he wouldn\u2019t answer questions on any given section, because every section, of course, is part of the legislation and properly appropriate for debate in this House and scrutiny in this committee of the whole House stage. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000690\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EOf course, the \u201CPurposes\u201D section is of critical importance because it is, in fact, the guiding light for the overarching bill. When anyone should come to look at the bill, whether it be a judge or a bureaucrat\u2014and there\u2019ll be plenty of them under this bill\u2014then that is what they will look to. I mean, I guess I would invite the Minister to be a bit more frank about the purposes of this bill, because, as the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee said, the principles\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000691\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002236afb36a63924f50af9cd252e197342c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, just before that, Minister, can I remind you that when you speak or answer a call, it\u2019s going through the microphone. I\u2019ll ask you, please, to be aware of that, because that means that your replies are going out across the House and also across the broadcast. Thank you, please.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000692\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002219c99e464fb54ba68f5cd0aa85de853f\u0022\u003EHon David Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s extremely useful to know. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000693\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b829ed37bfdf4aba85aef3821bfb3d10\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB\u003C/span\u003E: Well, and my point, Mr Chair and Minister, was that the \u201CPurposes\u201D section is the guiding light, and as the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee said, the principles found in I think it\u2019s clause 8 are contested and selective. In fact, for the purposes, I would put to you that if you\u2019d like to take a call and explain what the purpose of this bill is, given the fact that you\u2019ve got these property-tilted principles in the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000694\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EI put it to you that, in fact, if you look at the genealogy of this bill, the scholarship around it, and the work that you and your party have done across many bills, what this bill is, is it\u2019s trying to be a bill of rights for property. In fact, the purpose of this bill\u2014the real purpose of this bill\u2014is to put into our law the pre-eminence of two fundamental libertarian principles, which are the primacy of property and the primacy of individual liberty\u2014two foundation stones of libertarian ideology. I would suggest that if we were to actually be upfront, we would adopt one of my Amendment Papers which would actually articulate the genuine purpose of this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000695\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EMinister, you yourself have said that you think this bill should be like the Public Finance Act for legislation, and that is a constitutional piece of legislation. What we have here, then, is a piece of legislation of the same ilk. It sits alongside those other pieces of legislation about how Government and legislation works and imbues certain principles into our entire legislative framework, so that the work that we do in this House is no longer principle-neutral. It is no longer value-neutral. It\u2019s not up to any incoming Government to choose their value set. They get judged against a value set that you have put in this bill. The two headline values are private property, no confiscation without compensation\u2014that classic libertarian principle\u2014and the primacy of individual rights and liberties, and simplistic equality.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000696\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EWhy don\u2019t we just say in the purposes section that the purpose of this bill is to promote these principles which accord with your party\u2019s value set? That would be a lot more honest and upfront, rather than pretending, because we know all of the advice that your ministry has given you says this is a bad idea. This is not the way to go about good stewardship. We\u2019ve got the tools there. Let\u2019s bolster them. To say that this is about the exercise of stewardship over regulatory systems is duplicitous. In fact, it\u2019s the opposite. This is a way to clog up the system, to make it harder to pass laws that we like and you don\u2019t.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022 data-id=\u002212fe1e198660486494237c0b406a4190\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000697\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002212fe1e198660486494237c0b406a4190\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. As you can see, I am here with our full migrant caucus, standing for Te Tiriti. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000698\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022901ff9794a9945cb96db4aefffcc4f46\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: Where\u2019s Lan?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000699\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224b4d974271ff495695e7506699cd9482\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Good point. Where is Lan? I want to first just actually thank the Minister, in terms of outlining the purpose of this bill, because I think the Minister\u2019s right that the purpose of this bill does set out quite nicely in terms of what is expected of the executive and what is expected of Parliament\u2019s ability to scrutinise bills. I think that\u2019s incredibly important, and that I wholeheartedly agree with. I think the Minister then would appreciate that we don\u2019t want the Minister to inadvertently contradict his own bill by the Parliament\u2014i.e., this House\u2014providing a full scrutiny of this bill. I think the Minister will be also prudent to understand that, as legislators, it is our role to examine the Minister as part of the executive.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000700\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EBut in terms of my questions, my first question is something that was raised a number of times during the select committee process, which there wasn\u2019t a response for, which is: what does the Minister actually mean when we\u2019re talking about high-quality legislation? The definition of \u201Chighquality\u201D is not something that\u2014potentially it could be defined later. We want to go clause by clause, so I\u2019m not anticipating what\u2019s in a later section or later part at this stage. But, also, in terms of what we are seeing in clause 3(2) when we\u2019re looking at the purpose of this bill is to give effect \u201Cby setting out principles of responsible regulation\u201D. I think it\u2019s also important when we\u2019re looking at whose responsibilities we are referring to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000701\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EI think I will start with those two broader questions on the definition of \u201Chigh-quality\u201D and the definition of \u201Cresponsible\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228b7b671ebc6d45ae91350f8e13a7fb42\u0022 data-id=\u0022a3f83ba06dfd46329f45814cdef4ec17\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000702\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228b7b671ebc6d45ae91350f8e13a7fb42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a3f83ba06dfd46329f45814cdef4ec17\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you. Just following up on questions in relationship to clause 3(2), I\u2019ve noticed that there are some definitions in there, but it seems to me like \u201Chigh-quality\u201D wasn\u2019t defined in the bill, and so I\u2019m just wanting to get an explanation as to what definition the Minister would be using when it comes to high quality.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000703\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228b7b671ebc6d45ae91350f8e13a7fb42\u0022\u003EThe previous member from Labour, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, who spoke about being valuesneutral, raises a good point around the fact that in most of the legislation, this is clearly not values-neutral; there are clearly a set of values that are being pushed forward by the Minister. For example, in clause 3(1)(a)(i), \u201Chigh-quality legislation\u201D does not seem to be defined, and the concern that I have around that is clarity from the Minister as to why he didn\u2019t choose to actually put in a definition for what \u201Chigh-quality\u201D actually means. That could then be interpreted in different ways by other Governments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000704\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228b7b671ebc6d45ae91350f8e13a7fb42\u0022\u003EIf the Minister would like to elucidate\u2014I know that he made his initial remarks that he wouldn\u2019t really be participating in Part 1\u2014I would invite him to engage on the commentary from the Hon Duncan Webb, my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, and just on this, in relationship to some of the language that is used, particularly in clause 3, which lacks a definition. I wanted to ask why there are quite a few terms where it just seems like there is no sort of definition attached to them. Again, as Lawrence already noted, \u201Cresponsible regulation\u201D would be another one that just seems to be lacking a definition, and that\u2019s really concerning as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000705\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228b7b671ebc6d45ae91350f8e13a7fb42\u0022\u003EThe other part that I wanted to ask him about was whether, in the process of designing this bill, this was the whole range of purposes that he wanted to include in the bill; whether, initially, he may have thought of others and the process of the legislation meant that he had to trim it down, and that\u2019s why we\u2019ve ended up with this language, particularly in subclause (1), which doesn\u2019t seem to be defined. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000706\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228b7b671ebc6d45ae91350f8e13a7fb42\u0022\u003EJust to recap, I\u2019m really keen to get a sense of what he intends when he says \u201Chigh-quality legislation\u201D and whether he thinks that this should be defined in the section where some of this terminology later down the line is actually defined in the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002252fb8bf488eb4d8bb810d717a25a64a9\u0022 data-id=\u0022181ad5cf34054791b680ae6bd4579fd8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000707\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002252fb8bf488eb4d8bb810d717a25a64a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022181ad5cf34054791b680ae6bd4579fd8\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. Just a short contribution from me in relation to the clause 3, \u201CPurposes\u201D section, clause 3(1)(c). I just have a question for the Minister in relation to the intersection between this clause and the reference to Part 5 of the Legislation Act 2019 within that clause. I\u2019ve got a few questions for the Minister in relation to how he envisages, through the drafting of this legislation, that part of the Legislation Act impacting on the purpose clause of the bill. I\u2019ve had a look at Part 5 of the Legislation Act. It refers to secondary legislation. It\u2019s quite a substantive part of the Legislation Act, and it outlines quite clearly some significant powers in relation to delegated legislation and Parliament\u2019s role.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002252fb8bf488eb4d8bb810d717a25a64a9\u0022\u003EThe thing that I\u2019m not clear about is that this is the purpose of the bill. This should be setting out exactly what the bill intends to do throughout its operation, and the reference here to Part 5 of the Legislation Act is simply to see that. I want to know: is he intending for the entire of Part 5 to be upheld through the overseeing and control powers in other parts of this legislation, or is Part 5 in the reference there simply a definition of the overseeing and controlling use of delegated legislation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000709\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002252fb8bf488eb4d8bb810d717a25a64a9\u0022\u003EThe Minister will know from his experience in the House that\u2019s actually quite an unusual way of phrasing legislation, especially in a purpose clause. I think it is a valid and important question for the Minister to answer exactly what is the intention of paragraph (c) and how it relates to that Part 5 of the Legislation Act, which, as I said, is quite extensive.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000710\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002252fb8bf488eb4d8bb810d717a25a64a9\u0022\u003EIf the Minister could clarify what the intention is\u2014if it is consistency with that particular part, then perhaps there\u2019s a different word that could be used. If it\u2019s simply that that\u2019s the outline of what the current responsibilities for Parliament in relation to delegated powers are, then I also think that that could be more correctly defined. I invite the Minister to explain the intention, and then, if there\u2019s time, I wouldn\u2019t mind engaging with the Minister over whether there would be a clearer way to reflect that intention within what is quite an important section of this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223480570e0b704f789c79afacfdbe4533\u0022 data-id=\u002245fd8083a05744f3b983d2270e856073\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000711\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223480570e0b704f789c79afacfdbe4533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002245fd8083a05744f3b983d2270e856073\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chairman. My contribution and questions for the Minister for Regulation are also focused on clause 3, and they are building on an earlier contribution that we\u2019ve had from a Green member of Parliament. It is around this development of high-quality legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000712\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223480570e0b704f789c79afacfdbe4533\u0022\u003ESpecifically, I want to ask the Minister\u2014so this is in clause 3(1)(a)(i)\u2014in terms of some of his thinking behind this. I think the Law Society\u2019s very substantive submission made the very pertinent point that the word \u201Cquality\u201D is not defined in the bill, and this term is not used outside of clause 3. I think it makes it imperative that the Minister does spend some time on what is quite a central part and a word that has been used about the problem definition by the Minister throughout the development of this bill: \u201Chigh-quality legislation\u201D. It\u2019s not defined in the bill; it\u2019s the word that is not used beyond clause 3 of the bill, so this is the only chance that this House will have to understand from the Minister what is meant by this in the context of this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000713\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223480570e0b704f789c79afacfdbe4533\u0022\u003EThe Law Society make some very good comments about the ambiguity that this \u201Chigh-quality\u201D is going to introduce into our legal discourse\u2014that there will be disagreements between reasonable people, acting in good faith, about what social, economic, or environmental goals should be enacted in legislation. That\u2019s a central feature of democratic politics, and something that we all come to this House and we debate on a daily basis. The quality of a given legislative regulatory proposal, in this sense, is appropriately resolved through a fair and transparent process. The House needs to know what is meant in the context of this law that we are now debating in the committee by this \u201Chighquality\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000714\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223480570e0b704f789c79afacfdbe4533\u0022\u003EOne of the things that I would also be keen to understand from the Minister, given that we\u2019re not going to have this \u201Chigh-quality\u201D word occur in any other part of the legislation, is the problem definition that led to this. Of course, we already have mechanisms within our lawmaking processes around the quality of our lawmaking, whether that be our primary legislation or our regulatory regime specifically. We\u2019ve got the regulatory impact statements\u2014how the Minister envisions that this is going to differ or, as my colleague Camilla Belich has alluded to and talked about, in terms of the Legislation Act of 2019 and the provisions that exist within that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000715\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223480570e0b704f789c79afacfdbe4533\u0022\u003ETo understand from the Minister why it is that clause 3 has this term \u201Chigh-quality\u201D\u2014what does it mean? Why is it not contained in any other part of the bill? What was his thinking behind there not being a definition of it in this legislation? Did he consider putting a definition of it into the bill so that there could be that certainty and to provide that clarity when we came to statutory interpretations of this bill\u2014which undoubtedly there will be\u2014and what was his thinking for omitting it from this bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022 data-id=\u0022202d5dfa59b947f2bf8b3ef38af6544d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000716\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022202d5dfa59b947f2bf8b3ef38af6544d\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation):\u003C/span\u003E Mr Chair, I\u2019d first of all like to thank various members for their questions, some of which are quite similar, so I thought I would try to group them together in my answer. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000717\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EFirst of all, we were asked about the definition of \u201Chigh-quality\u201D by multiple members. I think Lawrence Xu-Nan asked that, Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March asked a near identical question, and then Megan Woods also asked that question, while also asking a question about the interplay with regulatory impact statements, not dissimilar to Camilla Belich\u2019s question. To address \u201Chighquality\u201D first: it, indeed, is defined in the Act. If you read a little bit further on, it goes on to say that \u201CThe purposes of this Act are given effect to only by\u2014(a) setting out principles of responsible regulation;\u201D. There\u2019s been an invitation to debate what the principles are, and, perhaps, the idea that the principles are the purpose\u2014that invitation came from Duncan Webb. As I\u2019ve indicated, I\u2019m very happy to talk about the purpose in the correct part, which is Part 2. But for now, we can say that clause\u00A03 refers to those principles, and it says that setting out those principles is one of the ways that we define high-quality legislation, which, in itself, is the purpose.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000718\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EIf you work that back the other way, the purpose is high-quality legislation; the purpose is given effect to by following the principles, as well as a series of other initiatives, such as providing for the review of consistency of existing legislation and also providing for a Regulatory Standards Board. You can find the answers to what high quality is later in the same clause\u2014it is legislation that follows the purposes and the way that it\u2019s given effect to\u2014in just the next subclause after \u201Chigh-quality\u201D is mentioned. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000719\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s also a question about how this law will interact with Part 5 of the Legislation Act\u2014what the relationship will be\u2014and that was Camilla Belich who asked that question. Clause 5 deals with how Parliament can scrutinise secondary legislation. This bill\u2014and, again, this comes in a later part\u2014provides for consistency assessment statements. Those, you could think of as being similar to regulatory impact statements but guided more strongly by the principles set out in statute by this bill. It may be that the Government, if this law passes, will actually change the regulatory impact statement regime in order to accommodate consistency assessment statements; however, that\u2019s not a matter for today. What will happen is that Parliament, in its role under Part 5 of the Legislation Act, will be more empowered by being able to access the consistency accountability statements.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022 data-id=\u0022532ff67ba04f4f59a297f030c2e83d81\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000720\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022532ff67ba04f4f59a297f030c2e83d81\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central):\u003C/span\u003E A couple of things, really. I just want to pick up that I was not informed by the Minister\u2019s response on the quality question, because he essentially said quality will be achieved if you do what is set out in clause 3(2). That just seems entirely circular, because there is no actual quality test in there. It might be that the Minister could elucidate, and it may be that\u2014I don\u2019t think it\u2019s quite accurate\u2014some of this bill is entirely procedural. So, did you consult? Was there a cost-benefit analysis undertaken? If we\u2019ve got a surrogate for quality and the surrogate is a procedure\u2014go through these various quality checks or procedural checks, better expressed as procedural checks\u2014then perhaps that\u2019s what we really mean.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EBut my concern there is that this isn\u2019t just procedural, because there are two kinds\u2014well, there\u2019s actually three kinds of principles that we\u2019ll get to later. One is procedural; one is value-based. You\u2019ve got to consult as widely as possible\u2014procedural. You\u2019ve got to respect individual liberty\u2014valuebased. Then you\u2019ve got an outlier in there, which is make sure it will operationally work, which is operational. So you\u2019ve got three kinds. Now, I could contemplate a piece of legislation or executive action\u2014Attorney-General\u2019s direction, Cabinet paper, which there exist already\u2014which says: do these procedural things to achieve good-quality legislation. But that\u2019s not what we\u2019ve got. When the Minister does talk about quality, I think, to be honest, he should stand up and say, \u201CIt should adhere to my principles, including my value-based principles.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000722\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EBut, at the end of the day, I mean, it\u2019s actually a really verbose purpose section. If it\u2019s just about quality, he could just say that. All this stewardship regulatory systems scrutiny\u2014it\u2019s actually just about improving the quality of Acts of Parliament and other kinds of legislation. One of the things that struck me, because this is such an offensive bill, is it\u2019s used obscure language to try and hide what it\u2019s doing. If it was doing something acceptable, you could adopt one of my Amendment Papers, which is to say the purpose of the bill is to improve the quality of Acts of Parliament and other kinds of legislation, or you could add, if you wanted to, some words on to the end of that and say, \u201Cand adhere to libertarian value principles\u201D. That would be another way to frame the actual purpose of this bill. But the drafting of this purpose section is verbose in the extreme.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EIn a lot of my Amendment Papers\u2014and I was really disappointed when the Minister, who clearly hasn\u2019t read the Amendment Papers that have been tabled, just stood up and said, \u201CI\u2019m not going to adopt any of them.\u201D I suspect, as we go through them one by one, we\u2019ll find some which are actually quite useful, and I\u2019d invite the Minister to bring an open mind. I know that it\u2019s traditional for Ministers to kind of put their own Amendment Papers in and steal our ideas, but that\u2019s OK by me if we improve, if it\u2019s possible, this piece of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000724\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EIn clause 3(2)(d), which talks about providing support to the regulatory standards ministry, I think we should actually give a bit more guidance and we could actually talk about the work of the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee. That\u2019s one of my Amendment Papers as well, because the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee actually gives substantive guidance as to what quality really is, and I think to use an external and objective measure of experts rather than kind of bringing this politically charged bill to the House, it would have been something we could quite possibly have agreed on. I would suggest we do look at including the advice of the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee in the purpose section.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022 data-id=\u0022852e279409c2451caa159fef8e2680be\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000725\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022852e279409c2451caa159fef8e2680be\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair, for allowing me to take my first call on this bill. My questions are around clauses 3(1)(a), (b), and (c), which are around the purpose of the Act. Just to check my understanding of the Minister\u2019s intention of the legislation, the Minister has said, in his second reading speech, that the purpose of the law is to promote accountability and transparency to the Parliament by the executive, and that\u2019s reflected in subclauses (1)(a), (b), and (c).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000726\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022\u003ENow, from this, we are to glean that the kind of idea of this bill, and maybe of the wider Regulatory Standards Board, is perhaps to see it as one of the Offices of Parliament. My question is: did the Minister look at alternative models for how the board could have been appointed and alternative models for how different functions and how different set-ups could have accommodated the function of this Act and the function of the Regulatory Standards Bill to support the task of Parliament in scrutinising legislation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000727\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022\u003EIf I look back to other potential precedents and other potential models that the Minister might follow, there is the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and, of course, the appointment process for that is that all the parties in the House are consulted on that and then the Governor-General makes an appointment based on the recommendation of the House, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is then appointed for a five-year term. That\u2019s one possible model. Did the Minister potentially look at that model when the legislation was being drafted, in terms of aligning the purpose of the Act with what actually ended up getting drafted? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000728\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022\u003EThe other potential model that the Minister could have looked at is the design of the Climate Change Commission\u2019s board, where the boards are appointed on a rotating basis by different Governments. I think it is something like two-on, and then two-on, across a three-year term. Their terms are staggered so that no Government is, essentially, able to dominate the make-up of the board. I appreciate that the board make-up is referred to later in the legislation, but I\u2019m asking in the context of the purpose of the Act and whether or not the form that ended up defining the board\u2019s make-up actually relates to the function as defined and articulated by the Minister in his various speeches through the readings and also through clauses 3(1)(a), (b), and (c) of the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223480570e0b704f789c79afacfdbe4533\u0022 data-id=\u00228b39f527de5e44e290c054f3edea762a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000729\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223480570e0b704f789c79afacfdbe4533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228b39f527de5e44e290c054f3edea762a\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019d just like to reiterate what my colleague the Hon Duncan Webb said in terms of the circular nature of the definition of \u201Chigh-quality\u201D that the Minister has given us, that hasn\u2019t really provided the House with that clarity. This is put out as one of the main purposes of the legislation. The Law Society put in a very substantive submission, particularly around this clause 3, and the fact that this is the only place in the legislation where we will have the opportunity to scrutinise that. To give us the circular argument that \u201CQuality legislation is one that follows the principles set out in this bill.\u201D doesn\u2019t give us any insight into what the Minister\u2019s policy thinking is around \u201Chigh-quality\u201D legislation. This is of course a subjective term, and the House needs to understand more about what the Minister was thinking.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000730\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223480570e0b704f789c79afacfdbe4533\u0022\u003EBut my questions now for the Minister are moving on to clause 4 of the bill. This is the review of new legislation\u2014the provisions that are provided in clause 4 around that. Clause 4(1)(b) \u201Cprovides for the explanatory note of a Government Bill, a Government amendment, or secondary legislation to include (or link to) the following \u2026 (i) a consistency accountability statement. This statement is made by the chief executive of the responsible agency for the legislation. It confirms that the agency has reviewed the legislation for consistency with the principles and summarises any inconsistency that is identified in the review.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000731\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223480570e0b704f789c79afacfdbe4533\u0022\u003ENow, we in this House know that it is not without precedent that bills come to this House for debate without a regulatory impact statement. What I would like to know from the Minister, in terms of the working of this legislation, is what if a bill comes to this House without a consistency accountability statement? For example, will we have consistency accountability statements for urgent legislation? Will all ministerial Amendment Papers be required to also have that? I know it says in clause 4(1)(b) that it would include amendments, but what happens if they don\u2019t? That\u2019s really what we need to understand in terms of the working of this legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000732\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223480570e0b704f789c79afacfdbe4533\u0022\u003EI think probably when we\u2019ve been, rightly, asking questions around what is the policy intent, the problem definition work that the Minister went through with his officials in terms of why not just fix the current system that we have, a big part of that is the regulatory impact statement (RIS). I think, on this side of the House, we\u2019d be the first to acknowledge that actually one of the problems with the regulatory impact statement system is that, actually, sometimes it\u2019s just not used, and we have bills landing here without the House having the ability to understand that work that has gone on within that RIS system that can already inform us how it interacts with other legislation, what officials have raised, what the regulatory impacts are going to be. Just on clause 4(1)(b)(i), the consistency accountability statement, I look forward to hearing from the Minister more around his thinking on that and what happens in its absence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000733\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223480570e0b704f789c79afacfdbe4533\u0022\u003EBut also, I do reiterate that I do not consider that this House is adequately informed about what the Minister\u2019s thinking is around \u201Chigh-quality\u201D legislation, and we will not have the opportunity to return to this question. It is only clause 3 of this bill that contains that word.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022 data-id=\u0022021d85fc234a44b7b22e60944ea6f4e2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000734\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022021d85fc234a44b7b22e60944ea6f4e2\u0022\u003EVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. Like other colleagues, I am also equally dismayed at the Minister\u2019s very quick dismal of some very excellent amendments proposed by my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, particularly so given the wave of opposition to this bill. If one were concerned with process, one ought to have had regard for the very comprehensive amendments proposed as a result of that process, and I am dismayed that that doesn\u2019t appear to be the case this evening.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000735\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003EMy question is also in regards to clause 3. This is setting out principles of responsible regulation. When I read this the first time, I think what stood out to me was the absence of the word \u201Cthe\u201D: setting out \u201Cprinciples\u201D of responsible regulation as opposed to setting out \u201Cthe principles\u201D of responsible regulation. The reason it stood out to me is that it leads you to question what the scope of those principles is and what the genesis of those principles is, and what\u2019s being actively excluded\u2014whether the Minister believes this to be an exclusive list of principles, or whether the Minister\u2019s view is that there are other principles and the Minister has cherry-picked the ones he wishes to include for this particular assessment. Of course, the question then begs: why these principles and not others?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000736\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003EThe link later in the bill, of course, cross-references the rule of law\u2014so it sits the principles as akin to principles of the rule of law\u2014but looking at the history of lawmaking and commentary on what the rule of law is, there is frequent reference to a set of human rights principles and human rights being integral to what the law is. Arguably, there are principles within the Minister\u2019s cherry-picked set that don\u2019t fall into what we accept as the rule of law, certainly in terms of the case of international law and the principles we have accepted in other guidelines that are applied to legislative drafting. They reference international conventions, they reference the declaration of human rights as well, and that is where the law is drawn down from.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000737\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003EIt would be useful to hear from the Minister why he chose not to include the word \u201Cthe\u201D; if there is a belief that there are other principles that sit outside the scope of these principles, why those other principles were excluded; and from what space he is drawing down, what the genesis is for, some of these principles that he\u2019s drawing down\u2014recognising that we have, for example, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, where it\u2019s very clear that those principles are drawn down from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and there are clear obligations that flow down through that. They could be seen to be affirmed as principles of the rule of law because of a process of affirmation that happened domestically as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000738\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003EThe Minister is laughing, but what I mean by that is that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was campaigned on by two Labour Governments. The public was very familiar with it, and understanding what the rule of law is\u2014it\u2019s not just substantive; it\u2019s also about the familiarity of your population with a set of principles. Again, I\u2019m asking the Minister what the narrative of that process is that makes him believe that the principles he has adopted have the same status as those within the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which had not only that linking to international law\u2014(a)\u2014but also had, (b), that process affirmation of having been socialised and familiarised with New Zealanders and New Zealand culture, having withstood two elections to get through to legislation. That gives them the legitimacy of being able to call those values part of our rule of law and part of good principles.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022 data-id=\u00227f5c0e6888a44d698a5b50ab4f7e8da4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000739\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227f5c0e6888a44d698a5b50ab4f7e8da4\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation):\u003C/span\u003E First of all, Duncan Webb and Megan Woods have argued that my definition of \u201Chigh-quality legislation\u201D is circular. That is a mistake. Actually, what I\u2019ve said is that high-quality legislation is, among other things, adherent to the principles, which can be found in Part 2. Vanushi Walters spent a lot of time debating the principles. As I\u2019ve indicated, I\u2019m very happy to do that in the appropriate part, which is Part 2. For our current purposes, in the preliminary provisions, there is a reference to the principles, but their content or definition is in another part, where I\u2019ll be really happy to debate it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000740\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EFernando Hernando asked me\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000741\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022126f3c6670fa47a58cd5601a80381d83\u0022\u003EHon Members\u003C/span\u003E: Francisco.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000742\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229a804667101f419eaf6b9c9ddad6ded2\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry. Francisco Hernandez\u2014sorry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000743\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022968a47d1a6794f2ab2ce771a32049e42\u0022\u003EFrancisco Hernandez\u003C/span\u003E: Everyone gets it wrong.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000744\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022841c4a09da204c84a2082afd48de6116\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I\u2019m sorry to be everyone. He asked had we considered other prospects for structuring the Regulatory Standards Bill. We might well have, but the purpose of this debate is to see whether the legislation, as written, accords with the principles and objects agreed at the second reading. Certainly, what we said at second reading is we would have a Regulatory Standards Board, and I believe that as it\u2019s written, it does comport with those principles and objects agreed at second reading, and I don\u2019t intend to make changes to that at this time. I also refer to Speakers\u2019 rulings which forbid members from speaking extensively about material that is not in the bill or hypothetically could have been.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022 data-id=\u0022456e402630764762929e4b362dbb6894\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000745\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022456e402630764762929e4b362dbb6894\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to touch on one thing. I won\u2019t spend much time on the overview section, which does seem a little excessive, given it\u2019s a relatively compact piece of legislation. But, anyway, it is there. One of the things it says in clause 4(1)(h) is that the \u201Cthe Act does not confer or impose legal rights or duties or affect the validity of any legislation\u201D. I must say that I find this, really, one of the oddest approaches. What this House does is pass law, right? And what law does is create, in some way, legal rights and obligations or duties. This bill has been compared, and its predecessors have been compared, to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Now, that legislation does not affect the validity of any other law. That is well established. I can understand why you would say we\u2019re going to have these principles and we\u2019re going to have these obligations and one of the obligations is follow the principles and do your consistency accountability statements, but it doesn\u2019t affect the validity of any other law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000746\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EI accept the Minister will no doubt explain in further detail, either now or later, that there is a small chunk of the Act which is about the work of the Regulatory Standards Board, essentially, asking for information and undertaking inquiries, for which they do have legal powers, but the important part of the Act is that you must provide these consistency and accountability statements, that you must consult, and that you must comply with these principles. To say that it doesn\u2019t create any obligation at all is to say we\u2019re passing a law which is in fact the opposite of a law. It\u2019s a suggestion, it\u2019s an exhortation, but it\u2019s not an obligation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000747\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003ETo be perfectly honest, either we have a framework where you are obliged to do things\u2014you can have obligations for which there is no consequence for a breach. It\u2019s well recognised in the law to say you have a legal obligation to do this, and if you don\u2019t do it, you are in breach of the law, and you can be declared to be in breach of the law, but there\u2019s no particular sanction or remedy. That often happens at a governmental and Crown level. Ministerial obligations probably fall within that category. Breach of the Cabinet Manual happens all the time. It\u2019s a breach of an obligation or a duty, but there are no particular consequences that flow from it in a legal sense of the word. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000748\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ll come and talk to this a bit more later, but this is a good way in which it\u2019s captured, because it captures the overall theme where you\u2019ve got a piece of not law. I would invite the Minister to explain how this not law is going to be effective when it doesn\u2019t actually do anything. It\u2019s just a vague way\u2014and this new wave of bureaucrats will be expected to run around complying with this\u2014to say, \u201CPlease do these consistency accountability statements, please run the regulatory standards principles ruler over every piece of legislation, but you don\u2019t have to; there is no legal obligation, there are no sanctions, and it doesn\u2019t affect the validity.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000749\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s it. I\u2019d just be really interested. My Amendment Paper actually says, \u201CGet rid of that.\u201D You\u2019re either going to write a law or you\u2019re not. If you want to get a law that does stuff, then don\u2019t say it\u2019s a law that\u2019s not a law, which is, again, classic humpty-dumpty language.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022 data-id=\u00225d0549ac8ad844e5b21ae695489aaed8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000750\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225d0549ac8ad844e5b21ae695489aaed8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll just note that I know the member did refer to his Amendment Paper. Can I say that we\u2019ve covered some pretty broad issues, and referring to an Amendment Paper is probably a pretty good idea at this stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228b7b671ebc6d45ae91350f8e13a7fb42\u0022 data-id=\u00227d093609d5734ae19b576b926f55616f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000751\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228b7b671ebc6d45ae91350f8e13a7fb42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227d093609d5734ae19b576b926f55616f\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. Speaking of amendments, I did want to canvass the Minister and seek his engagement on Chl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u2019s amendment. Normally, I would hope the Minister would know which one I\u2019m talking to, because I see Ministers engaged with amendments and reading them, but I agree that the vibe I got from his first contribution is one that doesn\u2019t fill me with confidence that the Minister has engaged with the amendments. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000752\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228b7b671ebc6d45ae91350f8e13a7fb42\u0022\u003EThis amendment specifically seeks to do the following\u2014and I do want to make it clear, because at the end of the day, these amendments are not voted on by the Minister, and I know he made an initial remark that he wouldn\u2019t be introducing any of the amendments, but it\u2019s actually up to other political parties, so allow me to make a plea to, for example, the National Party.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000753\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228b7b671ebc6d45ae91350f8e13a7fb42\u0022\u003EThe amendment would add to clause 3, \u201CPurposes\u201D, subclause (3), \u201CFor the purposes of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it must give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.\u201D The reason why I want to seek the engagement of the Minister in relationship to this amendment is because it\u2019s whether he thinks that such an amendment would be contrary to, for example, issues of high quality, or whether, for example, making sure that giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi would be contrary to what the Minister is seeking to do in this bill. If that is not the case, I don\u2019t see why the Minister wouldn\u2019t accept our amendment, because at the end of day, unless the Minister is actively trying to undermine Te Tiriti o Waitangi, I don\u2019t see why he would be afraid of or against having this amendment put in place\u2014unless, again, he\u2019s doing the exact opposite.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000754\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228b7b671ebc6d45ae91350f8e13a7fb42\u0022\u003EI also ask this because the Minister has talked about property rights, but Te Tiriti in some ways also could be perceived to be about property rights in some way or another. They\u2019re just not potentially the people that he may have been campaigning for. I\u2019m keen to get an understanding as to whether Chl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u2019s amendment would go contrary to the purposes of the bill, and if so, why, and, secondly\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000755\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022568f4fabdd774746971cec5089d31a09\u0022\u003EHon David Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. I hesitate to interrupt the member\u2019s speech, but what he appeared to just say is that I would not want property rights to apply to M\u0101ori. It\u2019s totally baseless and quite offensive. I think he should withdraw it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000756\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eac18ec052d442749b5bf5e9563f3e4b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Is that what the member did say?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000757\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228b7b671ebc6d45ae91350f8e13a7fb42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bd0fdad3d69d4c6382ec9c8a047f7bae\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH\u003C/span\u003E: I think the member is putting words in my mouth, so I\u2019m not going to indulge the member assuming what my intentions were when I did not say that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000758\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225f2b13cc1e2c4508a17ecba5578c3d27\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Carry on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000759\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228b7b671ebc6d45ae91350f8e13a7fb42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f3f1f93601941189e7f0733a1ab69aa\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH\u003C/span\u003E: All right. Anyway, I didn\u2019t assume such an amendment would rattle the Minister in such ways, but here we go.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000760\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228b7b671ebc6d45ae91350f8e13a7fb42\u0022\u003EAgain, my question is quite simple. Would putting Te Tiriti as part of the purposes of the legislation be contrary to what the Minister seeks to do, and if not, why wouldn\u2019t he support it? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000761\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228b7b671ebc6d45ae91350f8e13a7fb42\u0022\u003EThe other question I have is more broadly about his initial comments on amendments, and it is whether he actually sought to engage with the amendments at all or even read them. I think it\u2019s concerning to see a Minister just disregarding all amendments, including those that may have been lodged well in advance, without telling us that he engaged with them meaningfully. Otherwise, all I am hearing is a complete refusal to engage with the substance of what we\u2019re trying to do here, which is, in some ways, to bring to light whether the Minister is intending to actively trample over Te Tiriti, and if not, why he would not be supporting our amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223480570e0b704f789c79afacfdbe4533\u0022 data-id=\u0022fda7206b2c174eed9eb7f537e0f826c0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000762\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223480570e0b704f789c79afacfdbe4533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fda7206b2c174eed9eb7f537e0f826c0\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chairman. I specifically want to talk to two of the amendments to clause 3 of the legislation, put forward in the name of the Hon Duncan Webb\u2014in particular, the amendment to clause 3(2) replacing paragraph (d) with the following, which is: \u201Cproviding support to the Ministry for Regulation in its work to improve the quality of legislation\u201D. As the legislation is currently drafted, clause 3(2)(d) is \u201Cproviding support to the regulatory standards Ministry in its work to improve the quality of legislation\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000763\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223480570e0b704f789c79afacfdbe4533\u0022\u003EThe explanatory note that Dr Webb has put forward with this amendment, of course, is to say that the way that the Minister\u2019s legislation is currently drafted means that any ministry could theoretically be given responsibility for the Act. The amendment that Dr Webb has put up identifies the Ministry for Regulation as that responsible ministry. The current drafting could be interpreted very broadly: any ministry could say that they are a regulatory standards ministry if they are administering regulatory standards. I think it is very sensible, and the product of someone that has carefully scrutinised the legislation, to want to make sure that there is absolute clarity in that. Just for the Minister\u2019s reference, that was the amendment that was lodged at 8.30 and 15 seconds on the morning of 4 November.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000764\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223480570e0b704f789c79afacfdbe4533\u0022\u003EThe second of Dr Webb\u2019s amendments, which was lodged at 8.13 and 16 seconds on the morning of 4 November, is to clause 3(2)(c)(i): after the words \u201Cresponsible legislation\u201D, to insert the following clause as defined by the Legislative Design and Advisory Committee (LDAC). In some of his earlier contributions, Dr Webb went through in quite a substantive way the very compelling and detailed submission that the Legislative Design and Advisory Committee made on this piece of legislation. What this amendment that has been put up highlights is that there are already existing guidelines produced by LDAC regarding legislative quality, and that means that the principles of good legislation are determined by an independent body rather than politicians. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000765\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223480570e0b704f789c79afacfdbe4533\u0022\u003EThese are two very specific amendments that are sitting there. They are sensible amendments, ones in which we\u2019d like to understand whether, on these two particular amendments, the Minister will entertain them, and, if not, what his reasoning is for not\u2014for not wanting to clarify and make it crystal clear that it is the Ministry for Regulation that is the responsible ministry here, and whether or not we can clarify that interface.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002252fb8bf488eb4d8bb810d717a25a64a9\u0022 data-id=\u0022e031475c920b443e88604344ba4c68fa\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000766\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002252fb8bf488eb4d8bb810d717a25a64a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e031475c920b443e88604344ba4c68fa\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to briefly come back to the Minister\u2019s response to my question in relation to clause 3(1)(c). From his explanation to that, it appeared to me that the intention of that could be better articulated, instead of the word \u201Csee\u201D, as \u201Cas provided for or consistent with\u201D. After hearing the Minister\u2019s explanation, I wondered if he or his officials would consider a clearer word, as opposed to \u201Csee\u201D\u2014and by \u201Csee\u201D, I mean s-e-e, not the letter C. That\u2019s the response to the Minister\u2019s contribution before, which I did indicate I would like to come back to him on. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000767\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002252fb8bf488eb4d8bb810d717a25a64a9\u0022\u003EThe second part of my contribution is still in relation to the purposes clause but also the intersection with the interpretation clause, which was also part of Part 1. In the purposes clause, there are numerous examples and uses of the word \u201Clegislation\u201D, and, additionally, in clause\u00A03(2)(c)(ii), there is a reference to Government bills. Now, the reason I ask that is because this bill\u2014[Interruption]. The members opposite seem to have a lot of contributions to make, so I encourage them to take a call if they want to participate. This bill doesn\u2019t cover all pieces of legislation, as I understand, and I know that there\u2019s a schedule that we\u2019ll be discussing shortly which sets out excluded pieces of legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000768\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002252fb8bf488eb4d8bb810d717a25a64a9\u0022\u003EHowever, the question I had for the Minister is: when he says \u201Clegislation\u201D, does that mean that pieces of legislation that are not excluded\u2014like, for example, members\u2019 bills\u2014would or would not be covered by the purpose of this Act? I\u2019ve looked at the excluded sections for the purpose of relating it back to the purpose clause to see what is excluded. I\u2019ve seen local and private bills excluded; I couldn\u2019t see members\u2019 bills in that list. Of course, the Minister will know that a member\u2019s bill is not a Government bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000769\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002252fb8bf488eb4d8bb810d717a25a64a9\u0022\u003EMy question is, really: what is the intention of the purpose of this Act in relation to members\u2019 bills, which is a specific example that I found that I couldn\u2019t see referenced? If they are, indeed, included, does that mean that they are included in relation to existing legislation but not included in relation to accountability statements? That\u2019s a genuine question in relation to a specific example. Apologies if it is in the list and I missed it. I\u2019d appreciate a reference from the Minister in relation to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022 data-id=\u0022c445226c476d474497a32dff7ae06382\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000770\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c445226c476d474497a32dff7ae06382\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation):\u003C/span\u003E Madam Chair, I\u2019ll just address a number of questions that have arisen so far.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000771\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EDuncan Webb pointed out that the bill\u2014in a later section, not this section\u2014does not give any legal rights. As I\u2019ve been consistent, I\u2019m not going to debate the contents; that\u2019s summarised in the overview section. Now, I am happy to debate the substantive clauses in Part 2 and Part 3 where they lie. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000772\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003ERicardo Men\u00E9ndez March mentioned an amendment in the name of Chl\u00F6e Swarbrick. His logic was that if the bill was not inconsistent with the Treaty of Waitangi, then it should be added. I simply disagree. Just because something\u2019s not inconsistent doesn\u2019t mean you have to do it. That\u2019s a logical syllogism for him. I\u2019ll just point out the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the Constitution Act, and, I believe, the Human Rights Act do not contain a Treaty reference. Clearly, you don\u2019t have to do it all the time, so we\u2019re not going to entertain that Chl\u00F6e Swarbrick amendment or anything like it. Nor do we believe that it demonstrates inconsistency with the Treaty of Waitangi. We just have a different purpose here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000773\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EMegan Woods said that the Duncan Webb amendment would change clause 3(2)(d). The \u201CMinistry\u201D could be any ministry, he says, because it just defines \u201Cregulatory standards Ministry\u201D. I\u2019d like to draw both Ms Woods\u2019 and Dr Webb\u2019s attention to clause 5, which is just over the page, which gives a definition for \u201Cregulatory standards Ministry\u201D, as \u201Cthe department or Ministry that, with the authority of the Prime Minister, is responsible for the administration of this Act\u201D. It couldn\u2019t be \u201Cany ministry\u201D. You just had to turn two pages to see the answer to your question, then you could have saved time drafting that amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000774\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EThen there is the Duncan Webb amendment that says that the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee principles should supersede the Regulatory Standards Bill principles. Once again, if he wants to debate the merits of the principles, we\u2019re very happy to do that in Part 2, but actually the principles, the content of them, are not in Part 1 that we\u2019re currently debating. It may have been a clause 3 amendment, but the substance of it related to the content of the principles. The question he wanted addressed was why these principles and not those. As I said, I\u2019m happy to address those in the appropriate place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000775\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EFinally, Camilla Belich had a wording change. I\u2019m not entirely sure if I understood, but she wanted to say \u201Cas provided for\u201D rather than \u201Cconsistent with\u201D\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000776\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002252fb8bf488eb4d8bb810d717a25a64a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002246403fef46e34984881b70399080ff64\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich\u003C/span\u003E: No, \u201Csee\u201D\u2014instead of the word \u201Csee\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000777\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221c082ca4b9b14eafba8e03c8b8dd72e9\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, instead of the word \u201Csee\u201D, \u201Cinquire into whether\u201D\u2014this is clause\u00A03(2)(c)(i)?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000778\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002252fb8bf488eb4d8bb810d717a25a64a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db510be823914a4491b89e7b14366082\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich\u003C/span\u003E: Clause 3(1)(c).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000779\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228d87c1202388463b8009abcdacf506f9\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, 3(1)(c). That probably is \u201Coverseeing and controlling the use of delegated powers to make legislation\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000780\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002252fb8bf488eb4d8bb810d717a25a64a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220f81bf64dc4d41ddb5736fcc7a8302cf\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich\u003C/span\u003E: In the bracketed \u201Csee\u201D\u2014the word \u201Cs-e-e\u201D in brackets.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000781\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223f47ba37516d4810a1fa97b03a32a7f8\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: OK. Well, I mean, I think probably people can interpret the word \u201Csee\u201D. It\u2019s only three letters; two of them are the same. It\u2019s been around for a long time. I think we\u2019ll just keep it simple. But thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002281a465eb20294645bc63efa635c80cbf\u0022 data-id=\u00221b02fd4ee03343e8ae477eef77b07f29\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000782\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281a465eb20294645bc63efa635c80cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221b02fd4ee03343e8ae477eef77b07f29\u0022\u003ECAMERON LUXTON (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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u00229aa3c4f3be4d4533813911caddb2d826\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000783\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229aa3c4f3be4d4533813911caddb2d826\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m going to take another question from the Hon\u00A0Dr\u00A0Duncan Webb. I have been listening very carefully to this before I came to the Chamber, and I believe that the substance of the bill is in the next two parts and we\u2019re outlining it here. The Minister has been engaging in answering the questions. Have we got something that\u2019s specific and\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000784\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bfe2f52bdd7547b88707ec3a6f3d80aa\u0022\u003EHon Dr Duncan Webb\u003C/span\u003E: Oh yes\u2014oh yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000785\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022212e313524774dbc918493aae21ec7bb\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m sure you have\u2014I\u2019m sure you have\u2014Dr Webb. That\u2019s why I\u2019m taking a question from you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022 data-id=\u0022c74611c564c942ff896e7e2e52a0a8d9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000786\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c74611c564c942ff896e7e2e52a0a8d9\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central):\u003C/span\u003E Kia ora. Thank you, Madam Chair. We haven\u2019t really nutted out the definition section, which is the real nuts and bolts in this part. The other section that I\u2019m going to talk about in this contribution is actually really important, and it\u2019s what is excluded.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000787\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003ESchedule 7 comes under this part, and it was actually one of the things that consumed most of the time at the select committee. One of the overarching kind of themes of the exclusions was that we don\u2019t want to subject anything that is Treaty-related. Treaty settlement bills were out; some of the fisheries legislation was out. That was all good, and we actually made some really good improvements, but there are a few other things, and my Amendment Papers, to be very clear, make some other suggestions. My Amendment Papers are both related, and they suggest that our most important constitutional legislation should not be run through this particular filter. I am suggesting in my Amendment Papers, and I have a couple of other observations as well, that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act should not be subject to this legislation, and neither should the Constitution Act, because they\u2019re actually sitting at the same level, which is law about law. There is also a good argument that the Human Rights Act should not be subject to this legislation and should form part of the list of legislation that is excluded in Schedule 7.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000788\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EThere is another class of legislation that runs into real problems, and we haven\u2019t seen it recently in the House, but it\u2019s treaty validation legislation. It\u2019s legislation that we\u2019re obliged to pass by entering into international obligations. To then run a kind of domestic lens over it is to undermine, essentially, Sovereign power to enter into treaties. The job of this House is to approve that and to get on with it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000789\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281a465eb20294645bc63efa635c80cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bf810ccfc6e9464d80f27bd336950702\u0022\u003ECameron Luxton\u003C/span\u003E: If the executive says it, we just have to approve it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000790\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a2df4f62f2f24b9b9b596f0f5fa71e09\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB\u003C/span\u003E: No, no, you newbies haven\u2019t actually engaged in these treaty validation bills. It\u2019s a quite different exercise of this House\u2019s authority. One of the fundamental principles in it is that you can\u2019t rewrite the treaty obligations that the Crown has entered into; it\u2019s a yes/no question. That\u2019s why it shouldn\u2019t be subject to this framework.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000791\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EThere are two other classes of bill that we might consider to be inappropriate for being subject to this. One is legislation that is the product of a referendum. If we had succeeded in the cannabis referendum, we would have had a piece of legislation that had been approved by the whole of New Zealand by referendum, and there is a really good argument that it shouldn\u2019t then be subject to some quality check, because it\u2019s had the biggest quality check you can imagine. That\u2019s the last particular example. The examples were that class of legislation that is constitutional, which actually sits above\u2014we don\u2019t have supreme law in New Zealand, but there is a class of legislation that sits above other law and shouldn\u2019t be subject to executive scrutiny in this manner. The other one was referendums\u2014legislation which is the product of a referendum\u2014and then international treaty validation bills. I think that\u2019s pretty clear.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000792\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve got a couple of other things to say about it, but I haven\u2019t got enough\u2014well, 50 seconds, but I\u2019ll start it. The other one is this: the Minister can add to this list of legislation that is excluded. My other Amendment Paper says that it has to be confirmed by Parliament\u2014an exclusion has to be confirmed by Parliament\u2014and I would like us to think carefully about what that confirmation should look like. There is a strong argument in my Amendment Paper that it should not be 50 percent voting; it should be a higher threshold, because you are actually doing something quite important\u2014you are adjusting the scrutiny that legislation is subject to. If I could have another two minutes, Madam Chair, because I have got one more, and that is revision bills.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000793\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f96d399ccf0a479e910730ea25d2ebe2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000794\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002200ca88e1073846b9a33e6db5c0136993\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB\u003C/span\u003E: Now, revision bills are currently subject\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000795\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223590b041308241868a09b9ec8fda5803\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220049e9064ef341599fb4878db01859db\u0022\u003EHon Karen Chhour\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair? Madam Chair!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225af7f2970dd44cd4b9fd4751f8496aab\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: No, I\u2019ve already told the member he can keep going.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000797\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022022f04afddee4777939622f256cb636b\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB\u003C/span\u003E: The other is revision bills, because revision bills are currently being considered by this House under the Legislation Amendment Bill, and the suggestion is that what a revision bill is be expanded. A revision bill, in its current form, is simply a modernisation. You can do things like, say, get rid of \u201Cfaxes\u201D and say \u201Cemails\u201D, but what you can\u2019t do is change any of the substantive operations of the Act. The suggestion that we\u2019re getting in the Justice Committee right now is that revision bills can make operational changes to the Act to make them more effective. Now, that then would make them much more substantive, and they shouldn\u2019t be excluded from this, because all of a sudden, a revision bill becomes a substantial piece of legislation and not just a once over lightly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000798\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EMadam Chair, I won\u2019t abuse the privilege of the extra call you gave me, because I don\u2019t need it all, but they are the observations about the exclusions that I think the Minister should carefully consider in terms of how this Act operates.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022 data-id=\u0022d7966872c4c9447d99afd489b2ec3fa8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000799\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d7966872c4c9447d99afd489b2ec3fa8\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have a couple of questions for the Minister, following on. I think the first thing I want to mention to the Minister is whether the Minister would consider my amendment to clause 4, under \u201COverview\u201D. Now, I understand there are a number of overviews being laid out, but my clause takes place after clause 4(2), which suggests it\u2019s simply a guide. I would like to add another sort of guide to it, which is that no regulation should override, diminish, or reinterpret the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and all regulatory decisions must demonstrate active protection of M\u0101ori rights and tino rangatiratanga.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000800\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003ENow, I did hear the Minister\u2019s response previously, in terms of my colleague Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u2019s amendment, but I\u2019d also like to say that, yes, although the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Human Rights Act may not explicitly mention Te Tiriti o Waitangi, they do make references to our international obligations, which includes the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. If the Minister would also elevate this bill to the same sort of standard, those two bills also don\u2019t make specific references to taxes, levies, and fees under principles. I think that if we\u2019re going to be expanding the scope of what is considered under those bills, my tabled amendment should also be considered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000801\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EI do have two other questions for the Minister, and one of them is under clause 5, \u201CInterpretation\u201D. This is to do with \u201Cconsistency accountability statement\u201D (CAS). Now, I know that there are other things in terms of how\u2014let\u2019s say (a)(ii), \u201Csummarises any inconsistency\u201D. I know there are later sections that talk about what happens when there are inconsistencies, but what I haven\u2019t seen in later sections\u2014and that I want to see if the Minister wouldn\u2019t mind addressing now\u2014is what the degree is when something is too inconsistent that it needs to be brought back to be reviewed. That is something, for example, that isn\u2019t mentioned in later clauses, so I want to check with the Minister in terms of degree. I think it could be something as clear as there is actually no degree, as long as the inconsistency has been summarised within the CAS, in which case, fair enough.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000802\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EMy final two questions to the Minister are with regard to the same clause that the previous speaker, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, mentioned, in terms of clause 6A, regarding the excluded legislation. Now, I guess, the first question around that is in terms of the process for that, and I just want a clarification from the Minister\u2014it says in subclauses (2) and (3), \u201CThe regulatory standards Minister may issue a notice [\u2026] A notice may be issued \u2026 only after it has been approved by a resolution of the House of Representatives.\u201D I\u2019m guessing that is something that the House just needs to vote on, as in a motion, and then there would be, potentially, inclusions or exclusions to that particular Schedule\u00A01A as a result of that. I just want to check with the Minister if it\u2019s something like a motion to the House that needs to be voted on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000803\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EFinally, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb raised a few very important points in terms of what is included in the excluded legislation in Schedule 1A, but, while the Minister is considering it, I want to check two other things that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb didn\u2019t mention. Again, if the Minister is just like, \u201CThey have been considered, and they\u2019re not part of the list because they\u2019re not excluded.\u201D, I accept that. The first one is members\u2019 bills. Are members\u2019 bills considered excluded legislation, because I don\u2019t see it in Part 1 of Schedule 1A? The second one, which has been stated in Part 2 of Schedule\u00A01A, is private Acts or local Acts. As we know, the only way for you to make amendments to a local Act is with a local bill, but a local Act is excluded legislation in Part 2, but a local bill is an excluded bill under Part 1. Can I just check with the Minister: is it the intention of the Minister that only local Acts are excluded, but not local bills?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000804\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EThose are my four questions. The first one is around my amendment to clause 4. My second one is around CAS, on degrees of inconsistency before it needs to go back to the drawing board. The next two questions are around clause 6A, and the first one is around the resolution of the House and how that\u2019s going to work. The last question is around members\u2019 bills and local bills. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022 data-id=\u0022cb57037c828d41b885fd9bf0e8f92ba4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000805\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cb57037c828d41b885fd9bf0e8f92ba4\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation):\u003C/span\u003E First of all, I apologise to Camilla Belich. She asked earlier, \u201CAre members\u2019 bills in scope?\u201D. No, they\u2019re not. Clause 9 refers only to Government bills, and that also eliminates, for Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s purposes, local bills. Duncan Webb suggested a series of types of legislation that perhaps should be exempted from scrutiny by the Regulatory Standards Bill in Schedule 1\u2014the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, for example; the Constitution Act. He might have a point there, but even if they were to be reviewed, it\u2019s difficult to imagine that either of those would be inconsistent with the principles of the Regulatory Standards Bill, so it\u2019s probably unnecessary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000806\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EHe then asked if treaty validation legislation should be exempt, and his argument seemed to be that it might undermine representatives of a New Zealand Government going overseas, negotiating treaties with foreigners, if they felt they might face scrutiny by the people\u2019s Parliament when they got home. I can see why he would be concerned about that from the point of view of a Government representative negotiating overseas, but as a New Zealander back home, I kind of see it from the opposite perspective\u2014that, actually, it is important that if people are going to go overseas and sign up for things on behalf of all of us in our home in New Zealand, then they should be accountable to a set of principles that are designed to protect New Zealanders\u2019 rights.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000807\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EHe then said that a bill that is the product of a referendum should be exempt. I have to say, as far as I\u2019m aware, as the only member in this House in decades to have actually passed legislation confirmed by referendum\u2014and I thank Duncan Webb for his support of that bill back in the day\u2014I would not have minded if that bill had gone through the regulatory standard. I know it would have passed very easily, because it did not remove anyone\u2019s rights; in fact, it expanded people\u2019s rights and liberties in this country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000808\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EFinally, there was a proposed amendment by Lawrence Xu-Nan suggesting that the bill cannot override the Treaty of Waitangi or tino rangatiratanga. We have no intention of adopting an amendment like that. It is unclear what that would achieve. In fact, the Government currently has a lot of work under way to clarify what these Treaty principles, in various formats that have been sprinkled through legislation over the decades, actually mean. It certainly caused a lot of confusion for a lot of people trying to get on with their lives. Obviously, we have no intention of introducing something like that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000809\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EFinally, he asked about how inconsistent does a piece of legislation have to be with a consistency accountability statement. The law is very clear: a Minister is required to introduce either an explanation why not, or a consistency accountability statement. That\u2019s up to them to judge, and, ultimately, it\u2019s up to everyone else to judge them\u2014whether they are indeed lawmakers that respect the principles or if they are lawmakers who, perhaps, have other objectives.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002281a465eb20294645bc63efa635c80cbf\u0022 data-id=\u00224d2c5adeb3a4432790c6ca1d9984cf6b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000810\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281a465eb20294645bc63efa635c80cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224d2c5adeb3a4432790c6ca1d9984cf6b\u0022\u003ECAMERON LUXTON (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That debate on this question now close.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022f944990336c94f5188d732f878053d82\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022686c6dc5a84b460da19740e7dd18c91b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000811\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022686c6dc5a84b460da19740e7dd18c91b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 427 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002295fc677e6c4747e6976ae672a10eb9c7\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 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\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u00228e0b6189a1f24d01abb1d9c01b4dad3c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000812\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228e0b6189a1f24d01abb1d9c01b4dad3c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment replacing clause 3 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022863fff2185ff45178288bdd81e3f9c6d\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=\u00223cf52242f05e44edb5f7b35a1f6b1067\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 34, Noes 83.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022e5174cc30ff54c59bc492946ac6770f7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000813\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e5174cc30ff54c59bc492946ac6770f7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause\u00A03(1)(a), replacing subparagraph (i) is ruled out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003EThe question is that Francisco Hernandez\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 3(2)(c), amending subparagraph (i) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022081b0a09e55b4c98aea15d032a730d26\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022d9d5175dcee64e76aae4b7a4c9472d89\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000815\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d9d5175dcee64e76aae4b7a4c9472d89\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 3(2)(c), amending subparagraph (i) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022dadc157a35984b6b84691d859076173c\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u002204ede139cc644e819c4b16e1dcf84af8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000816\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002204ede139cc644e819c4b16e1dcf84af8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 3(2), replacing paragraph (d) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00222786df5ae21341eb9b01883b3a07bac0\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u00221018643456fe468499bc56ea49a1d048\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000817\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221018643456fe468499bc56ea49a1d048\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Chl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 3, inserting new subclause (3) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00223d85c9ebdcc242388f65b6e49191b692\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u002285455d37502c455bac9a4e98078dd81b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000818\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002285455d37502c455bac9a4e98078dd81b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 4(1), deleting paragraph (h) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022dd5a9dda85d64a80abae49db286d51d8\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022c9fa765ae0db4ce1a97cb1b80ebacfb6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000819\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c9fa765ae0db4ce1a97cb1b80ebacfb6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new subclause (3) is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000820\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003EFrancisco Hernandez\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 5, definition of \u201Cresponsible Minister\u201D, is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000821\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003EThe Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting new paragraph (e) is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000822\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003EThe Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting new paragraph (f) is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022db8491c54383438bbff369fc0cc76a18\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000823\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022db8491c54383438bbff369fc0cc76a18\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 5, deleting the definition of \u201Cnon-public service agency\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00229442da6470e74f478d08d19639a8bf78\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u002210f8305561794f7787337a055b895ab9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000824\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002210f8305561794f7787337a055b895ab9\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 6A, amending subclause (3) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022ab52996301dd47269f8bf3e975f78e11\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022128e690e7729404d8d1585c84177a705\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000825\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022128e690e7729404d8d1585c84177a705\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Francisco Hernandez\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 7 is ruled out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00226bd5da3914a143b0bc63494129ea5d80\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\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000826\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022aaa202052e8b4009a33d7506f81db624\u0022\u003EPart 2  Principles of responsible regulation and regulatory stewardship, and Schedule 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u00221180141faa394293b1c1d38a22c5bfa8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000827\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221180141faa394293b1c1d38a22c5bfa8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 8 to 40, \u201CPrinciples of responsible regulation and regulatory stewardship\u201D, and Schedule 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022 data-id=\u002202fb40a37bfc4aa6a51d7f9c460bcc80\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000828\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002202fb40a37bfc4aa6a51d7f9c460bcc80\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. Part 2 is divided into a series of subparts, and I will briefly describe each one of them, their purpose, what they do, and why they\u2019re in the law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000829\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003ESubpart 1 consists of clauses 8 and 8A. That is the principles of responsible regulation, and this is a key part of the legislation, setting out that responsible regulation should be consistent with the rule of law. It should not unduly diminish a person\u2019s liberty. It should not take or severely impair or authorise the taking or severe impairment of property without the consent of the owner, and it goes on to give some conditions for that. Taxes, fees, and levies should be consistent with the Constitution Act, but also there are a series of criteria for setting out taxes, fees, and levies, with the effect that the people who benefit are those who pay them, and people are not taxed or levied for things that they don\u2019t directly benefit from. The role of the courts is upheld and preserved as the arbiter of decision making, and there\u2019s also a section in the principles on good lawmaking, which involves consultation, problem definition, cost-benefit analysis, and consideration of other alternatives. There is, finally, the other principles, standards, or guidelines. There\u2019s a clarification that was added during the select committee process that says, \u201CThe principles \u2026 do not limit or affect any other principles, standards, or guidelines relating to the development of high-quality legislation.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000830\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EI will address one criticism of the principles that has been in the public domain, and that is that the principles are a limited or selective range of principles, and that a Government might pursue other objectives, such as upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi, equity, public health, or perhaps environmental protection. Those are generally goals that I would describe as collective action. In fact, I remember being here when Jacinda Ardern stood right there and said that we do together, as Government, things that we cannot achieve alone. When the Government is introducing legislation or making secondary legislation, it\u2019s reasonable to assume that they already have a collective objective, such as the ones that I just described. The purpose of these principles is to highlight and bring to the attention of the House, in line with the purpose of the bill, the impacts of that collective action initiative on the individual\u2014their rights, their property, their liberty\u2014and to check that the law has been made carefully and is consistent with the rule of law. I think that if that was better understood, a lot of the criticism that people have made of the bill might just dissipate a little. Hope springs eternal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003ESubpart 2 applies to how the principles apply when developing legislation, and it sets out that when a bill is introduced, it should have a consistency accountability statement. It talks about the consistency of a Government amendment of the principles and when that applies, and also, in clause\u00A012, when a Government amendment does not require a consistency accountability statement. It then goes on to talk about the application of the bill and the principles and the requirement for consistency accountability statements with secondary legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000832\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003ESubpart 3 relates to what you might call post hoc stewardship of the existing stock of legislation, as opposed to the flow of new laws and regulations. That requires Government departments to make a plan, which some people have said will add a lot of cost and is somehow radical, maybe forgetting that Government departments are already required to have these stewardship plans. Much like other regulatory initiatives, such as regulatory impact statements, they haven\u2019t been adhered to in the way that we hoped. What this law is really doing is highlighting and requiring Governments to do things that in theory they do, but in practice they have not been doing. I note that Megan Woods, a very experienced member, referred to that frustration in one of her earlier contributions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000833\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EWe then come to Subpart 5, which makes the point, as referred to by Dr Duncan Webb in Part 1, that the Act does not confer or impose legal rights or obligations. That is certainly true; however, Duncan Webb helpfully answered his own question in an earlier part when he said that there are sometimes laws that you are in breach of but you do not necessarily face a consequence. It\u2019s interesting that most New Zealanders actually don\u2019t follow the law because they think they\u2019ll be punished. Most people don\u2019t shoplift, and the reason is not that they think they\u2019ll be caught; it\u2019s that they actually think it\u2019s wrong to take other people\u2019s stuff. There is power in having laws that people will follow, even if they do not believe that they will face a consequence. None the less, there is some real power in Parliament requiring Government departments to do something. Generally, Government departments do try to follow the law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000834\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003ESubpart 6, in clause 27, sets out guidance and the criteria for the regulatory standards ministry, which, of course, at this point, is going to be the Ministry for Regulation, to set out guidance so that people completing consistency accountability statements\u2014that is, people within Government departments and Ministers\u2014know how and are able to produce these consistency accountability statements. There will be a lot of background to help them do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000835\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EFinally, Subpart 7, which I think is the last subpart in this section, sets out the role of the Regulatory Standards Board. Part of the history here is that the Regulatory Responsibility Bill and the Regulatory Standards Bill\u2014predecessors, if you like, of this piece of legislation\u2014envisaged a role for the courts where they would be able to judge whether a consistency accountability statement, as it\u2019s now called, had been correctly compiled in alignment with the principles. The Government has a view that in further empowering the courts to judge Parliament\u2019s Acts, and perhaps judge Parliament\u2019s Acts against each other, it may be unwise. That comes off the back of the declarations of inconsistency. That was made necessary, and Parliament agreed to that after, I think it was, the Make It 16 court case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000836\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EThe Regulatory Standards Board has two advantages: (1) it\u2019s not a court, and (2) it\u2019s more likely to have people appointed with expertise in regulatory economics. One of the criticisms of the bill was that judges aren\u2019t necessarily the best people to make these kinds of judgments, so you can get a broader skill set for assessing public policy work with the Regulatory Standards Board. Subpart 7 sets out the appointments, that the board must act independently, and how it\u2019s appointed. Of course, there have been changes made through the select committee process\u2014for example, saying that the Governor-General, on the recommendation of the Minister, must appoint members to the board. This kind of separation, also changing the way that they\u2019re appointed and the length of time they\u2019re appointed for, is designed to address criticisms that were made during the select committee stage that, perhaps, the Regulatory Standards Board would not act with enough independence. I welcome these changes, because I\u2019ve always wanted the Regulatory Standards Board to act independently.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000837\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EThat is a summary of the seven subparts of Part 2, their various purposes, setting out the principles, explaining when the principles apply to the requirement for a consistency accountability statement, explaining what the legal implications of the consistency accountability statement, and, indeed, the broader bill, are, and setting up the Regulatory Standards Board, which is there to judge the quality of work done on the consistency accountability statements in order to comply with the Act. I hope that is a helpful summary to the House, and, of course, I\u2019m very happy to address genuine questions and amendments that members may have.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022 data-id=\u0022d10906ea75914ea68b11042b4f71273e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000838\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d10906ea75914ea68b11042b4f71273e\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Point of order, Madam Chair. I seek leave to correct an earlier vote on the amendment by the Hon Dr Duncan Webb. I didn\u2019t want to stop the Minister when he was explaining Part 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u00220abcbc5247254afc91884eee090d488a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000839\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220abcbc5247254afc91884eee090d488a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? Yes, there is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022 data-id=\u0022fd3c9d6f223d4dbbb6b20043043b3199\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000840\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fd3c9d6f223d4dbbb6b20043043b3199\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, we\u2019re now on Part 2, and Part 2 starts with clause 8, which is the \u201CPrinciples of responsible regulation\u201D, which is the very heart\u2014the black heart\u2014of this bill, if you will. I think it\u2019s really important that we take this\u2014particularly clause 8\u2014very carefully.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000841\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EI want to start my contribution by suggesting that the Minister for Regulation adopt one of my amendments. Many of my amendments, because this will enter the statute book, aren\u2019t seeking to undermine this legislation but actually make it more workable. In clause 8\u2014and I want to talk about the rule of law\u2014one of the principles is \u201C(a) the importance of maintaining consistency with the following aspects of the rule of law:\u201D. Then it names them: \u201C(i) the law should be clear and accessible: (ii) the law should not adversely affect rights and liberties, or impose obligations, respectively: (iii) every person is equal before the law: (iv) there should be an independent, impartial judiciary:\u201D. Now, that\u2019s actually really selective, because the rule of law is a very open-textured kind of aspect or concept which underpins our constitutional framework. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000842\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EMy amendment suggests that you don\u2019t have the descriptors underneath, because they\u2019re not descriptors; they\u2019re limiters. It says, \u201Cthe following aspects of the rule of law:\u201D, and that\u2019s what philosophers would call a thin rule of law\u2014a rule of law which isn\u2019t expansive and only looks to a narrow and formal range of rights and obligations. Whereas my proposal is simply saying that if you\u2019re going to have a principle of the rule of law, say, \u201Cthe importance of maintaining consistency with the rule of law\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000843\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003ELook, I really respect the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee\u2019s submission to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, because they were very careful not to be dismissive of the bill, and to recognise it. But when they used the words \u201Cselective\u201D and \u201Ccontested\u201D\u2014many of the principles are selective and contested\u2014this is one of the ones that they were talking about. There is an aspect of the rule of law which says there should be equal access to the courts. That means you\u2019ve got to have some kind of legal aid framework, you\u2019ve got to have some kind of access to justice framework. There\u2019s an aspect of the rule of law which says you should redress inequalities in society, that there should be genuine and substantive equality of opportunity and not just formal equality of opportunity. Now, that\u2019s fallen off the end.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000844\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EOne of the challenges with trying to, kind of, legislate the rule of law is that it doesn\u2019t respond well to a bullet point list. It\u2019s a philosophical concept, not a legislative design principle. Whilst the rule of law is actually referred to in the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee\u2019s guidelines, they actually are very open about saying that the rule of law looks to these kind of values. It doesn\u2019t seek to dictate what the rule of law is but, rather, be a guiding set of values and concepts, not a bullet point list. I mean, \u201Cclear and accessible\u201D, yes. But, in fact, if you\u2019re going to say the law should be accessible, then it means much more than that. Accessibility isn\u2019t a simple concept. But it\u2019s not so much the principles that the Minister has included; it\u2019s the fact that it excludes anything that\u2019s not there. It\u2019s only the following aspects of the rule of law, not those broader aspects.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000845\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003ENow, I can hear the Minister is likely going to say it\u2019s OK, we all know that this is a non-exhaustive list of principles. But these are the principles\u2014the only principles\u2014by which the Regulatory Standards Board can measure the quality of legislation; they can\u2019t look to other principles. Using this impoverished, narrow, thin concept of the rule of law is actually going to test legislation against a very poor articulation of the rule of law. But there is a fix. The fix is not to try and capture the rule of law; just point to it as a value set. Say, \u201CLook, we want to have compliance with the rule of law\u2014and that\u2019s where we\u2019re going to leave it.\u201D It\u2019s for the scholars on your Regulatory Standards Board to articulate and investigate what that is. That\u2019s the first amendment that I would propose.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223480570e0b704f789c79afacfdbe4533\u0022 data-id=\u00220c3248b62d0943a99e6879f2c9181c6f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000846\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223480570e0b704f789c79afacfdbe4533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220c3248b62d0943a99e6879f2c9181c6f\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a very specific set of questions for the Minister for Regulation in regard to clause 8, specifically clause 8(c). These are the clauses of the taking of property. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000847\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223480570e0b704f789c79afacfdbe4533\u0022\u003ENow, there was a substantive and very interesting submission that the Finance and Expenditure Committee heard, and this was from Transpower. They expressed very articulately their concerns that clause 8(c) had the potential to raise electricity costs for New Zealand. This was largely due to the fact that 8(c) says, \u201Clegislation should not take or severely impair, or authorise the taking or severe impairment of, property without the consent of the owner\u201D. Then paragraph (c)(ii): \u201Cfair compensation for the taking or severe impairment is provided to the owner;\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000848\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223480570e0b704f789c79afacfdbe4533\u0022\u003ETheir concern was about the interception of these clauses with the Electricity Act 1992 and for the protections for the national grid that are already contained under the Resource Management Act. They were concerned that any updates to the Electricity Act could result in having to pay increased compensation payments for the laying out of national infrastructure, which is for the national benefit. Transpower laid out their concern, and it\u2019s not surprising they had these concerns, given that 93\u00A0percent of our overhead electricity infrastructure goes over private property\u2014and in terms of what would happen at subsequent revisions around that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000849\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223480570e0b704f789c79afacfdbe4533\u0022\u003EThis actually opened up a further discussion at select committee around infrastructure more generally, in terms of the Public Works Act; in terms of how we would balance the private property rights, which are given primacy under this legislation, against the national interests and the need for infrastructure. I think these are very big questions. The Government tells us that it is a Government that wants to advance the build-out of New Zealand\u2019s infrastructure, but we are in danger, in this bill, in clause 8(c), of actually imposing more cost, making it more difficult, and, indeed, imposing uncertainty in a number of those build projects. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000850\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223480570e0b704f789c79afacfdbe4533\u0022\u003EI\u2019d like to know from the Minister whether or not he has considered the changes and the amendments that Transpower suggested in their submission. Their submission was that they be explicitly excluded from this legislation, that there does have to be some national interest, and the national grid needs to be given some protection in that space. More broadly, has the Minister sought advice from officials around the interplay with infrastructure projects and how clause 8(c) may impact on that; how this may work with not only the Electricity Act 1992 but the Public Works Act and any land acquisitions that may occur under these pieces of legislation, which are all about putting the national interest at the fore; and whether or not the Minister has considered any other alternatives; whether officials provided him with any advice in regard to infrastructure, particularly, obviously, electricity infrastructure, but, more broadly, roading and other forms of infrastructure; and whether or not he has sought advice from his officials in light of these submissions that we heard at select committee?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022 data-id=\u0022f7eccaaa5cdb4ce39d4b36db31ec756f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000851\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f7eccaaa5cdb4ce39d4b36db31ec756f\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Point of order, Madam Chairperson. I seek leave to correct the vote on Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment replacing clause 3 in Part 1. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000852\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226d6b427f25fb43f592f6c3a6d5c07f87\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not. The member may correct the vote. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000853\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221d4c2946ca924430a6722059c7be84e4\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: For the tabled amendment, 15 in favour. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u002217e58aaaafd242fea9b00af7ed9135a3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000854\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002217e58aaaafd242fea9b00af7ed9135a3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022 data-id=\u0022ea534a29e4344bc6ba6ad928b091316c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000855\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ea534a29e4344bc6ba6ad928b091316c\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019ll just address the last two questions and, colleagues, try to finish before 10 p.m. so we\u2019re not putting any additional impost on you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EIn terms of Duncan Webb\u2019s question about the definition of the rule of law\u2014and there was quite lengthy philosophical treatise that, I\u2019m sure, must have impressed first-year law students back in the day. But here it\u2019s very simple: we have set out a series of criteria that define the rule of law and then said, in clause 8A, that other criteria can also be considered. This is not an exhaustive list; that\u2019s what the law says, if you read it. On the other hand, if you believe that the rule of law is some mythical, distant thing that the average person can\u2019t really understand and can\u2019t have written down for them, you can start to understand why the Reformation happened, because, actually, we live in a Protestant society where people like to be able to read and understand the law, even ordinary people who are not professors. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000857\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EMegan Woods asked about clause 8(c), property rights, and the requirement that severe impairment of property rights be compensated if a law takes away property. She then raised Transpower and their desire to build transmission lines, I assume, and I guess she referred to other infrastructure\u2014perhaps roads\u2014that might be built over other people\u2019s property. I think the Public Works Act was passed in 1981 or 1982. It\u2019s been a very long time, and the common law that that was based on\u2014that you can\u2019t just take people\u2019s stuff; if you\u2019re a citizen, you can\u2019t just steal people\u2019s stuff. If you\u2019re a Government, you can\u2019t just take people\u2019s land because it\u2019s politically popular to do so. You actually have to compensate them. These are very old common law principles, and when it comes to impairing people\u2019s property, there is already, in the Public Works Act, jurisprudence where, if you partially take someone\u2019s property, you have to compensate them for that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000858\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EWhat\u2019s really interesting is to draw out what Megan Woods is actually saying. She says that if people want stuff to be cheaper, it might be OK to make it cheaper by taking other people\u2019s property and not compensating them for it. This is quite an extraordinary proposition. It\u2019s actually a massive deviation from the Public Works Act, from our common law traditions, and from the way that most New Zealanders think. You shouldn\u2019t just take other people\u2019s stuff without compensating them for it. Most people who go into a shop pay for it, they don\u2019t just walk out with it. The idea that somebody comes to a select committee and says, \u201CWe\u2019d like to be exempt.\u201D\u2014what that really tells you is that their business model is to impair other people\u2019s property, to take value from other people and redistribute it to each other. In a civilised society with the rule of law, if you\u2019ve got a public purpose and you want to achieve it, you shouldn\u2019t achieve it by just putting all the costs on somebody who happens to be in the way. That\u2019s the opposite of a civilised society, and that\u2019s precisely why clause\u00A08(c), on the severe impairment of property needing compensation, is there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022d9fc21a5c059409f98f03670dff0ca5d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000859\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d9fc21a5c059409f98f03670dff0ca5d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, it is time for me to leave the Chair. The committee is suspended, and the Chair will resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000860\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 9.59 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id202511050c904beea72c4907bfef5986c78b8cd1000861\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cbr\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b901688803214887ac19d8a05566e09b\u0022\u003EWEDNESDAY, 5 NOVEMBER 2025\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000002\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00224656811662eb4c00abc8cf976bfaf017\u0022\u003E(continued on Thursday, 6 November 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=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022dd97081436ad4a03995e393faba32965\u0022\u003ERegulatory Standards Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002215c87095d2814e578e38db363669e1c4\u0022\u003EIn Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000005\u0022\u003EDebate resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022746377e574c44122a71488a0a680b1f0\u0022\u003EPart 2  Principles of responsible regulation and regulatory stewardship, and Schedule 2 (continued)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a5921c9f295441b0ba570475a71a860e\u0022 data-id=\u0022bd7dfe968cbe4299882556fe9ee28b89\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5921c9f295441b0ba570475a71a860e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bd7dfe968cbe4299882556fe9ee28b89\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the committee is resumed on the Regulatory Standards Bill. We were considering the bill last night and we were debating Part 2. This is the debate on clauses\u00A08\u00A0to\u00A040, \u201CPrinciples of responsible regulation and regulatory stewardship\u201D, and Schedule\u00A02. Once again, the question is that Part 2 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022 data-id=\u0022fdbf16dd827e493d91e9e57f2e6b8465\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fdbf16dd827e493d91e9e57f2e6b8465\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central):\u003C/span\u003E It\u2019s good to be back here going through the most substantive clause of this bill, which is clause 8, which sets out the Minister\u2019s views of what the principles of responsible regulation are. When we finished up last night, I was talking about the rule of law clause, and we\u2019re going to\u2014or at least I am going to\u2014propose to just go through this essentially in order. But, as has been noted, the Minister for Regulation, and certainly in committee, put it to us that we need not worry about the silence of this clause in many respects because it\u2019s not exhaustive.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EBut there are two things to say. If you have a list of principles of responsible regulation and something\u2019s not on it, it certainly puts that principle that\u2019s not on it in a kind of level of second-tier importance. Of course, the other thing is that in terms of the role of the Regulatory Standards Board, the Regulatory Standards Board actually can\u2019t look, when it\u2019s assessing regulatory quality, at principles that aren\u2019t there. It can\u2019t say, \u201CThere\u2019s another principle of good and responsible regulation and we think this bill fails on it, even though it\u2019s not one of the listed principles.\u201D So it\u2019s actually not helpful\u2014the idea that it\u2019s a non-exhaustive list.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EOn that note, I come to my next amendment, one that was lodged at 9.45 on 4\u00A0November, which is how we\u2019ll be able to identify them. It amends clause 8 and inserts a new provision, which is probably, when you think about it, the most fundamental principle of lawmaking in New Zealand, and that is to say that the law of New Zealand\u2014good regulation\u2014should be consistent with our founding document. This is a very important point and it\u2019s one that deserves articulation by other members as well. I\u2019m sure they have different perspectives on it, but from my perspective, if you think about the legitimacy of the Government of New Zealand, the authority of the New Zealand Government and Crown to govern all people in New Zealand, including M\u0101ori, it comes from the Treaty of Waitangi and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EThe Minister might want to put forward his own amendment which doesn\u2019t use the word \u201Cprinciples\u201D, because I know that there\u2019s a discussion around whether it should be \u201Cis consistent with the Treaty\u201D or \u201Cis consistent with the principles.\u201D Or one might want to say \u201Cis consistent with these principles, which are the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi\u201D, which is something else that he\u2019s tried to do here. It says that there\u2019s this framework of good regulation, but it\u2019s entirely silent on the obligations that the Crown have regarding the manner in which they govern, including respecting tino rangatiratanga, including respecting the rights of M\u0101ori to self-determination, including the obligation to consult not just generally but with M\u0101ori on things that affect M\u0101ori, to ensure that the treasures of M\u0101ori\u2014the \u201Ctaonga\u201D in the M\u0101ori version\u2014are preserved and protected, to ensure that in accordance with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, the Crown actively protects the interests of M\u0101ori. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EThe bill says this is how we make good law, and it is 100\u00A0percent silent on how good lawmakers adhere with the most fundamental principles of our country: the very founding document. I\u2019m sure the Minister will respond to this. It may be that my amendment is too simplistic and he would like to see it fleshed out somewhat, and I\u2019d encourage him to do that. Or he might like to make it shorter, but the law should take into account the Treaty of Waitangi. That would do. That would be a step in the right direction. But to be absolutely silent on it is to leave a gaping hole which actually shows that this piece of legislation makes no sense and can\u2019t be effective. Kia ora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002252fb8bf488eb4d8bb810d717a25a64a9\u0022 data-id=\u0022e0c446d777b54b4d9d6212a7bd8c5883\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002252fb8bf488eb4d8bb810d717a25a64a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e0c446d777b54b4d9d6212a7bd8c5883\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I, too, want to focus on clause 8, which is stated as the rule-of-law principle in this bill. I was listening carefully to the Minister for Regulation last night when he was talking about the reason that he decided to implement this bill. He said, from his perspective, this was simple. I thought about that, and I wanted to ask the Minister a few things around the particular provisions in this rule of law, proposed law, and this clause that he has proposed, because just by reading it and looking at it and analysing it last night, it appears that most of these particular aspects of the rule of law have not been ones that the Minister himself, and his Government, has been able to follow, in the way that they have enacted laws.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002252fb8bf488eb4d8bb810d717a25a64a9\u0022\u003EJust to be specific, with references to the clauses, clause 8(a)(i), \u201Cthe law should be clear and accessible:\u201D; of course, this Government has repealed the Plain Language Act, which was exactly for that purpose: making law clear and accessible. Clause 8(a)(ii), \u201Cthe law should not adversely affect rights and liberties, or impose obligations, retrospectively:\u201D; of course, we\u2019ve seen the Equal Pay Amendment Bill\u2014now an Act\u2014go through, taking away rights retrospectively from New Zealand women and changing the rights that they have under a retrospective law through urgency. Clause 8(a)(iii), \u201Cevery person is equal before the law:\u201D; we\u2019ve seen particular legislation go through this House last week on the marine and coastal area law, which particularly targets the property rights of a particular section of a population, indicating that under this Government, every person is not equal before the law. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002252fb8bf488eb4d8bb810d717a25a64a9\u0022\u003EThen we see clause 8(a)(iv), that \u201Cthere should be an independent, impartial judiciary:\u201D. We have heard comments from the Minister\u2019s own deputy leader, Brooke van Velden\u2014the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety\u2014questioning the impartiality of existing Employment Relations Authority members and saying that the Employment Relations Authority members\u2014that she, in fact, appointed\u2014would be more likely to give a favourable decision in relation to employees. Now, I\u2019m paraphrasing there. That\u2019s not a direct quote, but that is my recollection of what happened in that situation. Clause 8(a)(v), that \u201Cissues of legal right and liability should be resolved by the application of law, rather than the exercise of administrative discretion:\u201D; the fast-track legislation is an example of when you have an exercise of executive discretion in relation to the projects that are listed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002252fb8bf488eb4d8bb810d717a25a64a9\u0022\u003EI want to ask the Minister: in this particular clause, would this clause have stopped those few examples that I have listed from being enacted, and, if not, what is the point of this clause? How can New Zealanders trust this Government to uphold the rule of law when, just off the top of my head, it is so easy to find examples of where it appears that his definition of the rule of law, as he has put in this bill, has actually been broken?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022 data-id=\u00222b3cc6e5127f4ea1a8b53fa00ab5f4f1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222b3cc6e5127f4ea1a8b53fa00ab5f4f1\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to start today by discussing clause\u00A08(a), which is under the cross-heading \u201CRule of law\u201D. I just want to signal to the Chair as well that each of these sections under the cross-heading deserves its own individual attention, but I\u2019m going to focus on the \u201CRule of law\u201D first. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EIn terms of what the Minister for Regulation has put\u2014to the Minister: in terms of what we see here under \u201CRule of law\u201D, a lot of them, prima facie, make a lot of sense, but I want to pick up on a few points here. The first one is around \u201C(iii) every person is equal before the law:\u201D. Now, the idea of the rule of law, of course, goes back for a while, but what we\u2019re seeing now is that the expectation and reality are quite different in terms of everyone being equal under the law. For example, different people have a different ability to pay lawyers, and that is not equal. The other example, as we see with the most recent sentencing amendment bill, is that if you have more money or you can pay for reparation, you can go above the 40\u00A0percent cap in terms of the discount for sentencing, which is also, technically, not everyone being equal under the law, because everyone has a different ability to pay. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EIf we\u2019re looking at something where every person is equal before the law, then would the Minister consider, for example, that there be a cap to anything that is in front of the law, or that access to the law should just be free for everyone\u2014in which case, everyone then would be equal and would have free access to that. I mean, in that sense, I would agree that, yes, everyone is equal under the law. I guess my first question to the Minister is: how does the Minister reconcile the fact that equality before the law is an ideal, but not a reality, and how then would the Minister be hoping to address that reality through this particular section and through this particular legislation? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EThe second question I have on the \u201CRule of law\u201D section relates to clause 8(a)(iv), which says that \u201Cthere should be an independent, impartial judiciary:\u201D, and I agree with that. Everyone who has ever done any law would know about the separation of powers and the principle of comity, but what I wondered is that we have seen, in many ways, that the members of the judiciary do their thing. They make rulings, they make judgments, and they make interpretations, as it is right for the judiciary to do. Judges have not come out publicly to criticise Governments, to criticise Ministers, or to criticise the legislature, nor do they criticise the executive. They interpret the law through legislation. However, we have seen the executive and the legislature come out and openly criticise the judiciary, which violates the principle of comity. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003ESo I wanted to get the Minister\u2019s advice and opinion on this. If there should be an independent, impartial judiciary, how then do we also account for, I guess, in some ways the lack of an impartial executive? I know that a lot of this part of this bill focuses on\u2014and rightly\u2014the executive overreach in certain things. We want to have the ability for the legislature to be able to scrutinise the executive more, and also the ability for the judiciary to scrutinise the executive more, which would mean reversely, conversely, what then are we going to be doing about a lack of an independent or impartial\u2014well, independent, yes, but, particularly, an impartial executive. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EThose are my two questions. They are in terms of how, then, will the Minister address or consider or have thoughts on the lack of equality before the law currently\u2014particularly around how much people are able to pay to appear before a judge, using the example of the sentencing amendment bill\u2014and also in terms of the issue of having an impartial executive in some of the things that we have seen. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022528bff81a75942df8b97f66c623c8a91\u0022 data-id=\u0022082d5c783b7241a396e9e13708c3504e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022528bff81a75942df8b97f66c623c8a91\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022082d5c783b7241a396e9e13708c3504e\u0022\u003ETAMATHA PAUL (Green\u2014Wellington Central):\u003C/span\u003E Thanks, Mr Chair. My questions are also in clause\u00A08, \u201CPrinciples of responsible regulation\u201D, relating to the rule of law\u2014but from a slightly different angle.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022528bff81a75942df8b97f66c623c8a91\u0022\u003ESo, clause\u00A08(a)(iii), \u201Cevery person is equal before the law\u201D\u2014and we traversed the meaning of the word \u201Cequal\u201D or \u201Cequality\u201D in the Treaty principles bill discussion, but I want to bring it back today, because obviously there are different ways to interpret the word \u201Cequal\u201D. There is formal equality, which is the concept that everybody gets the same thing, and then there is substantive equality, which is the recognition that everybody doesn\u2019t start out on the same playing field and that, because of that, some people need more than others to bring everybody up to the same level. So what does the Minister for Regulation mean when he says \u201Cequal before the law\u201D? There are probably more interpretations to the word \u201Cequal\u201D than those two\u2014Dr Marilyn Waring had a really good explanation behind those two concepts\u2014but what do you mean by \u201Cequal\u201D? Because there\u2019s lots of different ways to interpret that one word. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022528bff81a75942df8b97f66c623c8a91\u0022\u003EI think my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan touched on some really good examples of inequality before the law, because this sentence, \u201Cevery person is equal before the law\u201D, is simply not true in our courts and the way that our law is applied. Dr Xu-Nan made some really good points around how much access you have to money can sometimes determine the way in which you are impacted by the law, which is a really great point. It made me think about even things like the removal of section\u00A027 reports, which allow for the courts and the judiciary to have a more fulsome understanding of who a person is, where they\u2019ve come from, what their challenges are in terms of their health, their upbringings, etc., etc. But if you can\u2019t afford to commission your own cultural report now, you don\u2019t have the same standing in front of the courts\u2014unlike if you have money and you\u2019re able to access or commission those reports, and the judiciary will have a better understanding of who you are and will be more forgiving and more compassionate towards your circumstances and will likely give you a more flexible or compassionate sentence, because you have been able to pay for that report. So everyone isn\u2019t equal under the law; it depends on how much money you have access to. Can you address those discrepancies?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022528bff81a75942df8b97f66c623c8a91\u0022\u003EBut let\u2019s also talk about race when it comes to everybody coming before the law, because here\u2019s another fact for you, Minister: M\u0101ori are 11 times more likely to be prosecuted for the same offence as non-M\u0101ori. I\u2019d love if the Minister could explain where that discrepancy comes from, because clearly, if you have a brown face and you appear before a judge or a lawyer, you are not going to be treated in the same way as somebody who appears before a judge with a white face. That might be uncomfortable to hear, but that is the truth, and it has been traversed by many courts, many judges, and many lawyers, who point out the institutional racism that exists within our criminal justice system. In terms of the rule of law, I\u2019d love for the Minister to answer some of those questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022528bff81a75942df8b97f66c623c8a91\u0022\u003EBut the kind of obvious glaring omission in this entire section around the rule of law is the complete absence of tikanga M\u0101ori\u2014the original law of this land, by the way. There is no provision whatsoever that recognises tikanga M\u0101ori, despite the fact that many rulings in the court have considered and applied tikanga M\u0101ori. If we want to be specific about what that is, that is the original law of this land and the way that decisions and justice was fulfilled for the indigenous people who were here in this country first. In this modern day in 2025, it\u2019s not extraordinary or spectacular to see tikanga M\u0101ori be written into and considered into a judgement. So why is it that this piece of legislation that attempts to be a modern piece of legislation completely ignores the very hard work of people like Justice Joe Williams who have incorporated tikanga into their rulings? This completely erases that and makes no mention whatsoever of tikanga M\u0101ori, which is why I\u2019ve drafted an amendment to amend this part to include the importance of maintaining consistency with the following aspects of the rule of law, noting that nothing below precludes tikanga M\u0101ori being recognised as the original law of this land.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022528bff81a75942df8b97f66c623c8a91\u0022\u003ESo I\u2019d love it if the Minister could start there, but I\u2019ve got more questions around Te Tiriti and tikanga M\u0101ori to follow.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022 data-id=\u00224e23de3e3f7a4fb6a7c8515fbaa9b311\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224e23de3e3f7a4fb6a7c8515fbaa9b311\u0022\u003EVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I also have questions in regards to clause\u00A08 of the bill. I indicated to the Minister for Regulation earlier during this committee stage that I had questions around the genesis of the principles chosen as compared to the rights that we have expressed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA). The point I\u2019m making is that, when you\u2019re setting something up as being aligned to the rule of law in terms of something that we should consider constitutional, what we\u2019ve done in the past is we\u2019ve developed rights that are based on international law. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is an example of that, drawing from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That\u2019s one element of legitimacy, if you like.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003EThe other limb of legitimacy is that it\u2019s well socialised with the people of New Zealand. The example I used was the same. The NZBORA in its day was socialised with the people of New Zealand through two political campaigns, and there was much discussion and deliberation across the House in terms of firming up those principles as rights in New Zealand. The first question is really: where is the genesis for the principles, particularly around the taking of property and the principles there that the Minister is drawing from, and how does that relate to that history of drawing from international laws\u2014covenants, as opposed to declarations; covenants, of course, have direct obligations on nation States\u2014but also the socialising with people to ensure that it is truly a norm, particularly in light of the massive opposition that we all heard not only in the select committee room but also on the streets of New Zealand across the country in relation to this bill? In many respects, it feels like the opposite evidence is available, and it demonstrates that the people of New Zealand do not want this to be a principle that is one which other pieces of legislation and regulation are marked against. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003EThe other question I would have for the Minister is where he considers these principles to sit in terms of their ranking against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act rights. In the first part of the reading, the Minister indicated\u2014I thought very helpfully\u2014in response to Dr Webb\u2019s proposal that certain things should be excluded from this analysis, including the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Constitution Act, that Dr Webb could be correct but that it\u2019s very likely that those Acts wouldn\u2019t be found to be in breach of these sets of principles anyway. My first question there is: is his view not that we should be clear in the law about what\u2019s included and what\u2019s excluded? The statement about the fact that Dr Webb could be correct, in my mind, is an indication that maybe an amendment is needed across this bill to make that very clear, given that we\u2019re talking about constitutional law as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003EThe second part to that is: in which case, do the rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act take precedence? I note here also that the Minister has chosen not to include clauses that we do have in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act\u2014sorry, these are sections 6 and 5\u2014which are the engagement sections. Those are, in many ways, the heart of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because they direct decision makers to turn their minds to consistency but also place reasonable limitations on rights. That\u2019s the active part of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, in my view. The Minister\u2019s chosen not to do that in this bill, which says to me that, clearly, the rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act take precedence. Although section 4 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act would point to other legislation if there were an inconsistency, this bill would seem to point back to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003EMy view on the read of the two is that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act would take priority when the two were pointing at each other in terms of an inconsistency. It would be useful to have the Minister\u2019s view on which takes precedence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022 data-id=\u00229ba2f97ca20c44299042346d19cff661\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229ba2f97ca20c44299042346d19cff661\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, members, for your questions and comments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EDuncan Webb said that the Regulatory Standards Board cannot consider principles under clause\u00A08(a). The Regulatory Standards Board would be considering the consistency of a consistency accountability statement. If a member or a Minister bringing a piece of legislation chose to consider those, then I don\u2019t see why the Regulatory Standards Board couldn\u2019t consider it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EHe went on to say that he has an amendment to insert a Treaty of Waitangi clause. The Government has no intention of doing that. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the Constitution Act, and a number of important Acts do not have Treaty clauses. There\u2019s also a practical reason for that. If you look at the principles in clause 8, they\u2019re all quite practical. They set out what a person can expect from the law in quite specific terms. If you had a Treaty clause, then it would open up a new debate about what that means, which members have already alluded to, so we have no intention of supporting amendments to expand the principles.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EI note that Standing Orders and Speakers\u2019 rulings are very clear that there\u2019s a limit to the extent that members can try to extend a debate by talking about what\u2019s not in the bill or hypothetically could be in the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich argued that\u2014[Interruption] I\u2019m sorry?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225d61c8acbc9a42b1975cef5cc203c1a0\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s not for the executive to determine; it\u2019s for the Chair to determine.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5921c9f295441b0ba570475a71a860e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002257edf31bb13449888c466c1fd2bb7ae1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Let\u2019s not have cross-Chamber chats.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228c4f9a5f44c0402099daf990450934d5\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, OK. I couldn\u2019t quite understand that. Camilla Belich argued that the Government hasn\u2019t followed the rule of law and, in my view, made a series of political attacks on the Government. But if she\u2019s right to lament that the Government has not followed the rule of law\u2014let\u2019s just imagine that for a moment that she was\u2014then, of course, she should welcome this initiative to put these rule-of-law principles in statute. In fact, she seemed quite eager for that, because she asked: would the statute stop the Government passing a law? I\u2019ve been quite clear in Part 1\u2014if you look at clause 25 of this part\u2014that the bill does not prevent Parliament passing a law. It does require the executive to be more accountable and transparent with Parliament. So it might mean that people are less willing to commit the various crimes that Camilla Belich accuses them of if there was more transparency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003ELawrence Xu-Nan and Tamatha Paul both raised a series of issues around the practical ability to access the law in their critique of the rule of law section, particularly the idea that every person is equal before the law. There are extensive political debates about equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. There are policies\u2014for example, legal aid\u2014that assist people to access the law. There has been, in the past, funding for section 27 reports. Those are all interesting and important areas of policy debate, but they actually don\u2019t concern us here. The statement that every person is equal before the law simply means that if there is adjudication of a matter, then people should not be treated differently based on their identity in the same circumstances. I\u2019m very happy to have a debate about access to law and legal aid and so on in another in another format, but it\u2019s not actually relevant to this part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EVanushi Walters raised questions about the role of international law. She raised questions about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act\u2014is there a precedence over the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act by this law, given that there might be, in theory, a review of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act against these principles. As I\u2019ve already stated in Part 1, I don\u2019t believe that would lead to a conflict. I don\u2019t believe that these laws are in competition. So we\u2019re not intending to make any change in that area.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EThere were also, I think, questions about international law. We\u2019ve got to be clear that signing a treaty with another foreign Government, for example, is an initiative that a Government might wish to take. It might wish to bring confirmation legislation to the House. The purpose of this legislation is simply to make sure that the impacts on New Zealanders of any Government initiative, including interacting with foreign Governments, are clear to Parliament and clear to the people who send us to this Parliament. It\u2019s not necessary to then put the driving force behind such an initiative in this bill. I hope that helps members with their questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022 data-id=\u0022a756ecf79c1e4914a7d393969b87b57f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a756ecf79c1e4914a7d393969b87b57f\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. Obviously, clause\u00A08 is the absolute work horse of this bill, and discussion as to how it might be improved is not really talking about what isn\u2019t in the bill; it\u2019s actually talking about very bricks and mortar of the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EMy amendment which was lodged at 9.45.03 on 4 November\u2014I see there are two; at three seconds because the next one\u2019s at four seconds\u2014rather just sort of alluding to the rule of law, is actually alluding to something which has echoes with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and that is that the law should reflect the fundamental values and principles of a democratic society. And, again, some of these suggestions have been drawn from the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee guidelines, and that is one of the guidelines or one of the principles in the guidelines. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EI do think that it\u2019s a better touchstone in some ways than the rule of law principle, because it really does talk about what gives a more expansive view of what a free and democratic society is. I wanted to touch on that briefly, but the one thing I really wanted to talk about a bit more was an amendment that talks about Parliament and the role of Parliament as opposed to delegates. One of the really important aspects of good lawmaking is to make sure that this House is the pre-eminent lawmaker. And whilst it\u2019s busy and it keeps us pretty well occupied, we\u2019ve got to be very cautious about over delegation. One of the dangers is that we give to other entities, whether it be Ministers or Government agencies or even non-government agencies, as is discussed later in this bill\u2014we\u2019ve got to be cautious that we don\u2019t accord them too much power.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EMy amendment lodged at 9.45.05 on 4 November\u2014and five seconds\u2014just identifies the principle that \u201CLegislative power resides in Parliament and delegation of legislative power should occur only: (a) when it\u2019s necessary to achieve the policy objective; (b) it\u2019s subject to appropriate oversight; (c) and provided that it is limited to legislating to implementing the policy in empowering legislation.\u201D That is to say it\u2019s really important\u2014and this goes to the arbitrary power point, and I know that arbitrary power and, of course, too many regulations is one of the things that\u2019s dear to the heart of the Minister. But that whole idea of limiting legislation to implementing policy rather than making policy, whilst it\u2019s a vague line\u2014and this is sometimes called a \u201CHenry VIII problem\u201D\u2014it is a meaningful distinction to make sure that we don\u2019t give Ministers\u2014importantly Ministers\u2014but especially bureaucrats, people who aren\u2019t elected, the power to make substantive legal change about the rights or entitlements or duties of citizens. Because that is at the heart of our democracy\u2014that we elect people to this place to make laws, laws that change rights and entitlements, and whilst an exemption power for a licensing regime might sit with a senior person in the Ministry of Transport, what shouldn\u2019t be there is what that licence looks like and what it entitles someone to do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003ESo I do think we need to be cautious about that. Whilst there is a huge amount of regulation and it is appropriate that some of it is delegated, I think it\u2019s an important principle of good lawmaking that substantive policy decisions, which allocate rights and benefits and those sorts of things, actually sit with this House, and that\u2019s why I put that amendment forward for clause\u00A08.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022 data-id=\u002262c2d0478d9145b4949f3ac920779800\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002262c2d0478d9145b4949f3ac920779800\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to follow up on what the previous speaker, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, said, but, actually, I want to move on from the rule of law and talk about a separate section in terms of the liberties part of this, because, again, this is a substantial section in terms of the principles, and I think each cross-heading deserves its own attention.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EJust before I start on the liberties, I want to check with the Chair, just a point of clarification, that the Minister before did say they were happy to have a debate on access to justice. I wondered if the Chair is allowing that to be a green light for a broader discussion on access to justice in relation to everyone is equal before the law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5921c9f295441b0ba570475a71a860e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226270cc2337214616a7ff637a59898ad7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll let you continue your discussion; I\u2019ll take some advice while you\u2019re doing that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d82d61494d6647b7b25529fac36601a1\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Cool, I will start with the liberties section and we can move back, depending on the Chair\u2019s ruling. Note that it is the Chair that rules on Standing Orders and Speakers\u2019 rulings.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EIn terms of the liberties, I agree that when we\u2019re looking at something like this, again, on the surface, it\u2019s reasonably\u2014you know, it is logical but I think I would like to sort of peel away the veneer of this particular section and look at specific wordings within this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EI guess the question here is, if we\u2019re looking at the original idea of freedom of choice of action, if you\u2019re looking at, you know, going back to fifth century BC, when we\u2019re in front of the agora and talking about the isegoria, which is the origin of freedom of expression vis-\u00E0-vis the freedom of debate in the market place. It was very clear back then\u2014and this is where we get our current idea of freedom of expression from\u2014that the idea of freedom of expression does not equal freedom of consequences. Clearly, in the fifth century, if you\u2019re looking at 480 BC, at the forum, everyone had the right to debate and everyone had the right to contribute to a discussion. A particular man in the Athenian forum back then says, \u201CHey, you know, we\u2019re facing a Persian invasion. Why don\u2019t we just surrender to the Persians?\u201D He was absolutely within his right to express that as a freedom of expression; however, it didn\u2019t stop wide outrage in the Athenian forum and for him to be drawn and quartered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003ESo the idea there is\u2014and I think the moral lesson over there is\u2014a freedom of choice and freedom of action does not equal a freedom from consequences. So when we are looking at the freedom of liberties and freedom of choice of action, I really want to get the Minister\u2019s advice on how does this\u2014and the Minister has referenced the Human Rights Act and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA) as other key constitutional documents here in Aotearoa. How, then, does the Minister balance the two of freedom of expression and freedom of consequences? Again, like the Minister is suggesting through here, in terms of liberties, that people have the right to express certain things. We\u2019ve seen that in the most recent Education and Training Amendment Bill, in terms of freedom of expression at universities. However, what happens, then, if those words or choices then harm other people either through NZBORA or through the Human Rights Act? Would that still be allowed within this particular legislation or within the drafting or within the approval or a consistency accountability statement of a particular bill? Because it does open up broader questions, then.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EAlternatively, if we\u2019re looking at freedom of choice or action, how does that reconcile with, like, say, the Crimes Act? Could one say, then, with any piece of legislation\u2014or if this is a core tenet that people can base things on as something that is of a constitutional nature\u2014\u201CI have the freedom of action to assault someone\u201D? Does that actually mean that when you are making verbal threats\u2014which we all agree, in this House, that verbal threats are illegal, and many of those things, verbal threats, are already covered in the Crimes Act\u2014those are then considered freedom of expression, or would that be captured, rightfully, under the Crimes Act?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003ESo this is my big question to the Minister under the liberties section: how, then, do we balance a social contract within our society and that kind of carte blanche freedom of expression or action? I\u2019m also waiting to hear feedback and advice from the Chair regarding my other question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a5921c9f295441b0ba570475a71a860e\u0022 data-id=\u0022fb2631aac83a455093424c585aa72945\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5921c9f295441b0ba570475a71a860e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fb2631aac83a455093424c585aa72945\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Just to clarify for the Chamber and clarify with the Minister as well: it wasn\u2019t an invitation from the Minister to debate that stuff right here, right now, but in another forum. So a broader debate can happen outside of these Chambers if you want to organise that. However, the green light is for people to focus on clauses and the sections. There is quite a bit there. I know this is a substantial part. So if members could keep their comments to that, that would be very helpful for the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022 data-id=\u002239d212f03bd54e209695eac77ea3c0b1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002239d212f03bd54e209695eac77ea3c0b1\u0022\u003EVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to ask the Minister for Regulation a question about his drafting choice in terms of looking at what I would call simple incompatibility with his principles, versus a potential drafting choice he could have made for justified incompatibility. I referenced this in my previous question, but I don\u2019t believe that the Minister has responded.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003EI referenced sections 6 and 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, as well as section\u00A04, and I called it the heart of engagement with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, because that\u2019s really where decision makers do engage. It must be read compatibly. You can have justified limitations. If that\u2019s not possible, then the other piece of legislation takes priority. Now, the Minister has made a drafting choice, in regard to this bill, not to include those engagement provisions, and I really am curious as to why.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003EI just note that Dean Knight made this observation in some of his commentary, and I believe in his submission as well, and suggested that there would be cases when you could have justifiable incompatibility or justifiable limitations. He also suggested some specific drafting in terms of clause\u00A08, which I will read out because I do think it\u2019s very helpful, and I think it\u2019s an important question in terms of understanding why the Minister hasn\u2019t made this choice. Dean Knight suggested that in principle 8, it could read: \u201CThe principles of responsible regulation are, except as provided in subsection\u00A0(2), as follows:\u201D, and subsection (2), he suggests, then, could read, \u201CAny incompatibility with the principles is justified to the extent that it is reasonable and can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.\u201D So it uses similar language to the language that we do have in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003EAgain, a question here about whether the Minister considered this, in terms of turning decision makers\u2019 minds directly to not only compliance or not but that middle ground, which is: where could you justifiably limit these principles, which, I think, is certainly part of our history in terms of encouraging decision makers to engage with constitutional principles, which, essentially, these purport to be. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003EThe other question I had for the Minister was around clause 8, the section that relates to the role of the courts. Dr Duncan Webb has some very useful proposed amendments here, which I\u2019ll refer to in a moment, but the current clause reads: \u201C(g) legislation should preserve the courts\u2019 constitutional role of ascertaining the meaning of legislation:\u201D; and by using the word \u201Cof\u201D the provision implies that the court\u2019s only role is to interpret Parliament\u2019s legislation, and that\u2019s simply not true. That\u2019s a fabrication. In fact, as long ago as 1972, the well-respected judge of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, Lord Reid, said that the idea that judges do not make law is a fairy tale. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003EYet I raise it here partially because of the way that the bill is worded, but also because we\u2019ve seen several instances of Government Ministers of late stepping into this space and claiming that there is judicial overreach. My view is that it\u2019s a misunderstanding of the nature of the role of the judiciary, which isn\u2019t just to interpret the law; it is also to develop the common law; and as the Minister would know from the last term in Parliament and the insertion of the declaration of inconsistency clauses into the now-updated New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and into our Standing Orders, it\u2019s also the role of the judiciary to hold this House to account, to return things to the House, to ensure that we look at them twice. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003ENow, Dr Webb\u2019s proposed amendment\u2014this one was submitted on 4 November at 9.20\u00A0a.m.\u2014proposes an amendment to clause 8(a) and replaces that flawed wording with, I think, much more sensible wording that sets out, in truth, what the role of the courts are. I\u2019d appreciate the Minister\u2019s comment about the proposed amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5921c9f295441b0ba570475a71a860e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ae9a1520715e4b7d93f1b03a28f3988b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Do you know what time or date that was? Because there\u2019s a lot that came in at 9:20 a.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d3adea32bce344ba9ff1cbe76f159737\u0022\u003EVANUSHI WALTERS\u003C/span\u003E: At 9.20.05 a.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022 data-id=\u0022695f0feb10a44b9f80435c145f806b62\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022695f0feb10a44b9f80435c145f806b62\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. Just in response to the last three speeches, Duncan Webb suggested that Parliament should pass a law asserting that it is the supreme lawmaker in the land. That would be to produce a piece of legislation that people could dispute. There\u2019s an old saying\u2014I think it was Margaret Thatcher who said\u2014if you have to say you\u2019re a lady, you\u2019re not. So it would be very unwise for Parliament to make that statement and actually call into question its sovereignty as the only lawmaker. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EDuncan Webb then went on to talk about paragraph 8(g), the idea that\u2014oh, he talked about delegation, that there shouldn\u2019t be too much delegation of other rules. Well, actually, I think paragraph\u00A0(g), which Vanushi Walters also mentioned, is quite helpful in that it says, ultimately, it\u2019s the courts\u2019 role to ascertain the meaning of legislation. It shouldn\u2019t be somebody in the bureaucracy making random calls, so I think that actually helps address his concern.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EVanushi Walters had a reading of paragraph (g), the role of courts, that could be interpreted as \u201Clegislation should preserve the courts\u2019 unique or exclusive constitutional role of ascertaining the meaning of legislation\u201D. We could have said that, but we didn\u2019t. We are saying that the legislation should preserve the courts\u2019 constitutional role. We don\u2019t comment on what other roles they have, or preclude them from having other roles, so the Government is quite comfortable with paragraph\u00A0(g) as it reads, and we\u2019re not likely to adopt any other amendments on that paragraph.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003ELawrence Xu-Nan\u2014I\u2019ve got to say, I really enjoy his speeches, but they don\u2019t have a huge amount to do with the legislation in front of us. Certainly, the Peloponnesian War is very interesting, but I thought his interpretation of \u201Cfree speech has consequences and you might be hung, drawn, and quartered for what you say\u201D\u2014I mean, most of us on this side of the House would say the point of free speech is you can say what you like without being hung, drawn, and quartered. But that, again, is a debate for another time. The relevant thing for Mr Xu-Nan is paragraph 8(b) sets out\u2014and he didn\u2019t really get into it, but I\u2019ll help\u2014that \u201Clegislation should not unduly diminish a person\u2019s liberty, personal security, freedom of choice or action, or rights to own, use, and dispose of property, except as is necessary to provide for, or protect, any such liberty, freedom, or right of another person:\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003ESo, for example, you could have noise restrictions perfectly consistent with these liberties. Does it diminish your ability to make noise after a certain time? Yes, but doing so also protects your peace and quiet after a certain time. In other words, the obligations are reciprocal and the benefits are mutual, and that argument could be extended to free speech or any other law that curtails liberty for reciprocal obligations and mutual benefits.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EVanushi Walters also raised a question of should we have drafted something like section\u00A05 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act that says there are\u2014I think she used a good term\u2014justified incompatibility versus simple incompatibility. Yes, we have thought about that, but I\u2019d draw her to paragraph\u00A011(b), which says that a Minister can actually issue a statement explaining why a law has not been made consistent with these principles, and it\u2019s up to the Parliament and the public to judge them on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5921c9f295441b0ba570475a71a860e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220469436a331a46c7a1bc4c21400723bc\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Before I take the next call, just to note that members are moving through the clauses and moving forward, so that is appreciated, and I would encourage members not to repeat previous sections as well. So I\u2019m not looking for closure motions at this particular time, if that\u2019s what\u2019s being asked.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002281a465eb20294645bc63efa635c80cbf\u0022 data-id=\u0022bbaf2796e02a4d24bea43055e4874b40\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281a465eb20294645bc63efa635c80cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bbaf2796e02a4d24bea43055e4874b40\u0022\u003ECAMERON LUXTON (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. It\u2019s not a closure motion. In the words of Lawrence Xu-Nan, you know, each part of the principles deserves proper attention, and I\u2019m hoping that\u2019s what we\u2019re doing, Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281a465eb20294645bc63efa635c80cbf\u0022\u003EI\u2019d like to move to the \u201CTaxes, fees, and levies\u201D section, clause 8(d) and (e). It talks about authorising imposition of a fee for a good or service \u201Conly \u2026 [as it] bears \u2026 proper relation to the cost\u201D. How would that function, do you think, Minister for Regulation? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281a465eb20294645bc63efa635c80cbf\u0022\u003EAlso, moving into paragraph (f), we\u2019ve got the tax, fee, or levy that \u201C(i) \u2026 benefits \u2026 [a] class of payers is likely to derive, or the risks attributable to the class, in connection with the objective or function; and (ii) the costs of efficiently achieving the objective or providing [that] function\u201D. How are groups defined in that role? The people who are benefiting mutually\u2014or not, in this case\u2014how is that defined, and how is \u201Cproper relation to the cost\u201D being imposed defined? Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022 data-id=\u0022d399d1eaab4844f6af0dadee8d89f750\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d399d1eaab4844f6af0dadee8d89f750\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. Firstly, just on the liberty clause\u2014and there\u2019s a tabled amendment of mine lodged 8.30.23\u00A0a.m.\u2014I\u2019m really just noting that the framing of liberty in this bill actually comes straight out of John Stuart Mill\u2019s On Liberty, in that it says the only constraint on liberty should be something to preserve someone else\u2019s liberty. That does what the ACT Party does, which is break everything down into individuals. The fact of the matter is that there might be values about the wider society, generally, which isn\u2019t so much about that person\u2019s liberty to go about their business but about building a strong and good society, for which it\u2019s reasonable to place limits on someone else\u2019s liberty. That\u2019s why my suggestion on that tabled amendment\u2014I\u2019m just going to be very brief with this one\u2014was that rather than saying \u201Clegislation should place constraints on a person\u2019s liberty only to protect someone else\u2019s liberty\u201D, it should be \u201Conly when it can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society\u201D, which captures the liberty/freedom point but also the wider democratic issues.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EWhat I actually wanted to do, though\u2014I do appreciate the guidance of the Chair\u2014is move along to what might be called the takings clause\u2014clause 8(c). Now, in my tabled amendment 8.30.24\u00A0a.m., I suggest that the whole clause be deleted. It\u2019s fundamentally not workable. It\u2019s well accepted that the whole idea of no confiscation without compensation is a thing, and it is a part of the rule of law that you just don\u2019t take people\u2019s stuff, which I think were the Minister\u2019s words last night. I agree with that, but we don\u2019t need that principle here. It\u2019s not a critical principle of good regulatory quality. It can fall off the end along with things like the Treaty of Waitangi and international obligations and human rights. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EOne of the problems is that, in the way it\u2019s framed with this severe impairment, it\u2019s actually quite obscure. I know at the Finance and Expenditure Committee\u2014and the Minister, I know, was consulted as to the select committee\u2019s view on this\u2014they took it from being just any impairment to a severe impairment to make sure we didn\u2019t have just trivial matters clogging up the wheels of lawmaking. The idea of impairment is difficult because an impairment can be simply through regulation. The Minister of Agriculture will be a good example of that. There might be an impairment when you might have had a right to take water but, to preserve that waterway, that is limited. You might have had a right to discharge into a waterway, but that right is now going to be limited. Now, that\u2019s not taking property, but it would fall within the impairment principle because it\u2019s changing a property right in a way that gives a less extensive ability to use that property. That\u2019s a very difficult area.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003ENow, if the Minister wasn\u2019t minded to accept that, I\u2019d suggest he accept my other amendment, which was lodged at 8.30.25 a.m., which actually just replaces it with a much broader framing of the taking principle. Sure, legislation shouldn\u2019t take or authorise the taking of property\u2014that\u2019s a genuine taking rule, which is actually the American framing\u2014without the consent of the owner unless there\u2019s good justification, fair compensation, and the compensation is provided by the persons who benefit from the taking. It\u2019s actually using a much more workable framing and one which has good jurisprudence in the United States. If you look at the explanatory note there, you\u2019ll see I\u2019ve cited Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Commission, which talks about that taking framing, or what amounts to a taking, because taking is a lot clearer concept than impairment, and it actually accords much more closely with the framing of our law in New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EI have two tabled amendments\u2014one to do away with it, and the other says if you\u2019re going to use it, use it in a way that is familiar around the world already, and it is, in fact, based on the United States Constitution approach.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022 data-id=\u0022dff847b65174461a84fc229c32455525\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dff847b65174461a84fc229c32455525\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair, for allowing me to take my first call of the morning. And good morning to all the members and the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Seymour. I wanted to also talk about clause 8(c), \u201CTaking of property\u201D, and ask about its interaction with the \u201CTaxes, fees, and levies\u201D paragraphs that subsequently follow. The fact that they\u2019re different kind of tells me that there\u2019s a difference that the Minister views between a tax and taking of property, for example, but, you know, as per the contribution of the previous speaker, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, why not just kind of merge the two clauses together?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022\u003EI wanted to ask about what the threshold was that the Minister considers for \u201Cseverely\u201D impaired versus merely impaired. Are there any case law examples he can give on what the difference of those two might be?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022\u003EI want to move to the other parts of this clause as well, around the \u201Cgood justification\u201D: is that defined somewhere in the Act along with the fair compensation for the taking and the compensation provided as well? So I\u2019m just taking a very short call to ask about this section\u2014I\u2019ll have some other calls as the principles develop, but thank you for the engagement so far.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002281a465eb20294645bc63efa635c80cbf\u0022 data-id=\u00221324eab11ed344fcb9cdd00cbc9394f6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281a465eb20294645bc63efa635c80cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221324eab11ed344fcb9cdd00cbc9394f6\u0022\u003ECAMERON LUXTON (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. In the spirit of the speaker who\u2019s just sat down, Francisco Hernandez, I\u2019d also like to move to the \u201CGood law-making\u201D cross-heading, and specifically clause 8(j): the importance of carefully evaluating the issue concerned and how that interacts with the effectiveness of any relevant existing legislation in common law\u2014as in, if there is an issue concerned, that there are already laws with it, is that going to the review? And new laws, where the public interest requires the issue be addressed\u2014how does that work? Is it saying, \u201CLook, this is maybe a storm in a teacup,\u201D or some such? How would that function? Any other options? I guess that feeds into clause\u00A08(j)(iii), which I\u2019ve just talked about, and clause\u00A08(j)(iv).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281a465eb20294645bc63efa635c80cbf\u0022\u003EAlso, the key part, I think, is who is likely to benefit and who is likely to suffer a detriment from the legislation. It\u2019d be interesting to hear how that would actually be communicated. So if you could speak to those, Minister, that\u2019d be helpful: the importance of the responsible agency identifying and developing effective arrangements. Again, the questions came up in Part 1 about the responsible agency, but also just clarifying which agency. I know it\u2019s in the definitions, but maybe this could be better clarified for the committee. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022 data-id=\u0022f656d26789e74a109b4218b7d5e12e24\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f656d26789e74a109b4218b7d5e12e24\u0022\u003EVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019m also looking at the \u201CGood law-making\u201D cross-heading, paragraphs (i) to (m) of clause 8. My first question is around the language that refers to consultation and \u201Cthe importance of consulting, to the extent that is reasonably practicable, the persons or representatives of the persons that the responsible agency considers will be directly and materially affected by the legislation:\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003E My first question is to what extent the Minister for Regulation envisages that this part applies to our parliamentary process. Are we talking about consultation in the early stages of the development of law, or are we also talking about the parliamentary process? The reason I think it is important, for the Minister, is that it refers to people who are directly and materially affected by the legislation, but, of course, in terms of the parliamentary process, everyone\u2014everyone\u2014in New Zealand has the ability and the right to submit their views to Parliament whether they\u2019re materially directly affected or not; whether they simply want to comment as part of that process. My view is that this clause would sit separately from what we understand to be good parliamentary process, but it would be useful to have the Minister comment on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003EMy second question is that, if it does apply more broadly to our parliamentary process as well, what he understands the \u201Creasonably practicable\u201D threshold to be and how that would operate. The examples we see in the House at present\u2014I found Camilla Belich\u2019s examples earlier really useful, just in terms of giving this kind of theory-based bill some flesh and bones in terms of what it would mean. The example I\u2019m thinking of is that we have a bill travelling through the House that would allow people to be automatically exempted from jury duty, but at a higher threshold than they currently are. It has gone out for consultation, and we have been talking to people and hearing their views. We\u2019ve also had, this year, changes to pay equity legislation that did not go through that process. If this was a bill that applied equally to our parliamentary processes, would that fall afoul of what the Minister would believe would be reasonably practicable, or not? That\u2019s my second question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003EThen I look towards the end of that part that outlines what is good lawmaking and just note an absence, which is the function of either the duration of the law itself\u2014the Minister will be aware that, from time to time, there are sunset clauses or provisions within bills that require a review or which reference reviewing legislation or identifying when active post-legislative scrutiny should occur. Of course, there is now the new clause\u00A08A, which says that other principles, standards, or guidelines are not limited or affected, which I do think is useful. However, again, it is a drafting choice not to include a reference to review, sunset clauses, or post-legislative scrutiny, and I wonder why the Minister has made that choice. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022 data-id=\u0022563d3aeff7264eb2b680f61a8695e632\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022563d3aeff7264eb2b680f61a8695e632\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for those good questions from Vanushi Walters. Can I just start with the question by Cameron Luxton about clause\u00A08(d), (e), and (f) around taxes, fees, and levies. The basic purpose of this is to reinforce the principle that, in theory, Governments should already be following, that if they raise a fee, you should get what you pay for, and you shouldn\u2019t pay for more than what you get.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003ECameron Luxton asked who might be a group that would benefit. I\u2019ll give you one example. The Government recently considered the fees that are levied on abattoirs to fund vets who then go and inspect the abattoir to check that the meat is being prepared in a hygienic way so it won\u2019t create reputational risk to New Zealand. In that case, it is primarily those in the meat industry who are paying the fee; they also get the benefit. Then there\u2019s a question of \u201CWhat is the true cost of doing this, and is it fair?\u201D The Government scrutinised a whole lot of that, whereas we wouldn\u2019t want to have a fee that was being levied on one group of people and then used to fund somebody else that didn\u2019t actually benefit that group directly. That should be done under general taxation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll just come back to something that, I think, Francisco Hernandez said\u2014\u201CWhy not merge the takings clause, clause 8(c), with \u2018Taxes, fees, and levies\u2019?\u201D Yes, a tax is different. In our tradition, there is fiscal policy where the Parliament votes to levy taxes and, usually, garnishes a percentage of somebody\u2019s transaction, whether it\u2019s earning income, buying something, owning property\u2014some would suggest\u2014and that is quite different from actually taking property directly, rather than taking some portion of money. They are different things. We have no intention of merging the two.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EThen there was a question from Duncan Webb about having, effectively, the same thing that Vanushi Walters has mentioned but in relation to clause 8(b), \u201CLiberties\u201D, that there should be a clause\u2014an out clause, if you like\u2014like section 5 in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I\u2019ve already said that we don\u2019t wish to do that. There is a mechanism in clause 11(b) that does that. That\u2019s been addressed. The Government has no intention of adopting that amendment. I think that was the end of that. If I\u2019ve missed anything, I apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f46a6b5aa1674a3488337864a9321efd\u0022\u003EHon Dr Duncan Webb\u003C/span\u003E: The takings. I did a whole lot on takings.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022850d0715b48247a28b13f1c3ff7ac647\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Pardon?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226a275d916cd04894b31cf0b515c9172b\u0022\u003EHon Dr Duncan Webb\u003C/span\u003E: We talked about the takings clause.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cd26ae463e32407491ab704ac582b396\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, the takings clause, yes. He said, \u201CWhy not remove impairment and have only takings?\u201D I guess the question is: what is the difference between taking someone\u2019s property and introducing a rule that reduces its value by a quarter or a half or three quarters? In my view, if a regulation deprives someone of the use and enjoyment and value of their property, then the percentage it takes is not really the point. For example, if you want to put a significant natural area on someone\u2019s land, that reduces the value of their property and their use of it. If the whole society wants to do that, then rather than putting the cost on the one poor person who happens to own that piece of land at the time, we should fund that collectively because it\u2019s a collective enterprise, even if it doesn\u2019t take all of their property. There\u2019s a purpose to this. It\u2019s been well-thought-out, well traversed, and we have no intention of changing that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EThen we had Cameron Luxton ask another question about \u201CGood law-making\u201D. These are the paragraphs\u00A0(i)\u00A0to (l)\u2014indigo to Lima\u2014of clause 8. These are a series of questions that are comparable to what, in theory, Governments do with a regulatory impact statement to show that consultation has been done. That\u2019s paragraph (i). I think that\u2019s fairly self-explanatory that you should try and consult the people who are concerned.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EVanushi Walters raised a question about that, where she said, \u201CIsn\u2019t that undermining Parliament where everyone has a right to submit to Parliament?\u201D I agree with her about that. But if you go back to the purpose statement of the law, which we traversed in Part 1 yesterday, this is designed to improve the quality of lawmaking by furnishing consistency accountability statements. It\u2019s for the purpose of those consistency accountability statements, not all of Parliament\u2019s lawmaking, that we are doing this. We go on to the importance of carefully evaluating the issue concerned, actually defining what problem we\u2019re trying to solve. Again, problem definitions in regulatory impact statements, I would argue, are not done very well, and some of my recent reports as Minister for Regulation, frankly, have shown that. And there\u2019s the effectiveness of other alternatives. Are there other things that we could be doing? We should have option analysis. Does the public interest require the issue to be addressed? Why are we actually doing this? Again, you have to have a good problem definition. Are there any other options that are reasonably available? Sometimes self-regulation is an option. We should put all the options on the table before we go to the big hammer of using the law to restrict people\u2019s rights to use and exchange their property. Who is likely to benefit and who\u2019s likely to suffer? Often people want to know who this is for. That is a very important thing that, again, the public should be able to see. If the Government\u2019s making a regulation, then cui bono? I\u2019m sure some of the learned people on the other side want to ask the question, \u201CWho benefits?\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EFinally, implementation. This is something added by the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and I welcome this suggestion because if you don\u2019t know how you\u2019re going to implement it, laws can go bad. I would say the Resource Management Act is a good example of that. The implementation in the early 1990s was never done as intended, and I believe that has caused huge problems and costs for New Zealanders. Benefits should exceed the costs. At a societal level, making this law should actually make us wealthier overall. By wealth, I don\u2019t just mean money; I mean general benefits that people might derive and enjoy. You should, at least, be able to say to the public, \u201CThis is why we think, overall, New Zealand will be better off with this law.\u201D If you can\u2019t do that, maybe you shouldn\u2019t make the law. It should be the most effective, efficient, and proportionate response to the issues concerned. Once we\u2019ve gone through all of that, we\u2019ve defined the problem, we\u2019ve analysed the options, we\u2019ve weighed up the costs and benefits, and we\u2019ve identified the winners and losers from the law, we should also be able to say we didn\u2019t do any more than we had to, given all of that analysis. That is good lawmaking. I think it\u2019s a very important part of the legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EThen Vanushi Walters asked about limits on parliamentary process. She also asked, \u201CIs it early or late in the process?\u201D Again, go back to the purpose. This is to furnish consistency accountability statements. It\u2019s not necessarily putting any restrictions on people early in the process. If you were a Minister making a law, then, of course, it would be smart to start early in defining a problem and doing your analysis and weighing up your costs and benefits so that when you come through to publish a consistency accountability statement on passing secondary legislation or introducing legislation to the House, then you\u2019ve done your work and you can show that your law makes sense in line with these principles. That would be the smart thing for Ministers to do, and I\u2019m sure the Government will be issuing internal guidance to do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f7e23d3e36441cbb5adcaca9866cbeb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002211e134083ac2416698f356d55c99af5b\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Do it now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224099b6fb193c4ae29e33e4813681e1e6\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: That is\u2014well, clause 27 requires the issuing of guidance. We can talk about that, too, if the member would like to, but I\u2019ve addressed, I think, all the questions today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022 data-id=\u002242dbbe01839440e8ab688bb49acdfe3e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002242dbbe01839440e8ab688bb49acdfe3e\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I really appreciate the Minister for Regulation responding to my previous questions. Now, I just want to kind of tie up a few things on the principles section, because we\u2019ve spent a little bit of time on this, and we\u2019re happy to move on soon to the subsequent clauses. I want to just touch on a few of the last things that various speakers have also mentioned but haven\u2019t actually mentioned in a specific way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EFirst of all, I think, in terms of \u201CTaking of property\u201D, it talks about good justification and impairment\u2014I think it was touched on before. I want to focus on the idea of \u201Cowner\u201D. I want to draw the Chair\u2019s attention and the Minister for Regulation\u2019s attention to my colleague Francisco Hernandez\u2019s amendment lodged on 5 November at 20.15.09, which is specifying that for the purpose of clause 8(c)(ii), \u201Cowner means an individual only and excludes [any] private company.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EThe reason for that is because I see where the Minister\u2019s coming from in terms of this idea of taking of property, but I feel like if we\u2019re expanding it to companies as well, that actually is countering to what we\u2019re trying to do here, because companies\u2014all those are defined as owner or person, you know, a legal person under this legislation. My understanding is it\u2019s not what the Minister\u2019s trying to aim for in this instance. If the Minister\u2019s like, \u201CActually, you know what, when I say owner, I meant private and not corporate\u201D, then that clarification is sufficient and we can just ignore the amendment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EIn terms of the \u201CTaxes, fees, and levies\u201D portion: now, I\u2019m reading this part, in particular I\u2019m looking at paragraph (e) and paragraph (f)(i) when it talks about \u201Cgoods or services \u2026 if the amount of the fee bears a proper relation to the cost of providing the good or service\u201D, and also if the \u201Clevy is reasonable in relation to \u2026 the benefits that the class of payers is likely to derive,\u201D. I want to check, because that sounds like, under this legislation, a capital gains tax, for example, is reasonably appropriate, because in one way you\u2019re looking at taxes, fees, or levies that are reasonable and proportional to the benefit that the class of payers is likely to derive. So something like a wealth tax, I feel like, would be considered\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221b25fe0aaf4a441c89618f1fa196cd1e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fd3636b473804406aa3b528afa599f31\u0022\u003EDan Bidois\u003C/span\u003E: Back to the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002219bbcdf997b049a6998b3a974beb6d19\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: This is part of the bill. If you have a question, please make a contribution as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EThe thing is, what we\u2019re doing here is getting a sense of the ministerial intent, because such statutory interpretation is much needed when we are looking the judiciary\u2019s ability to interpret such important legislation. So I do want to check with the Minister in terms of: does it actually mean that something like a wealth tax would actually be reasonable under paragraph (f)(i)?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003ELastly, we\u2019re looking at, in terms of the role of court under paragraph (j). My question to the Minister is around this idea of existing legislation. Now, we will see this sort of happening a little bit, and this was mentioned in the previous part as well. When we\u2019re looking at the evaluation\u2014and this might come up again when we\u2019re talking about the board\u2014there is a retrospective element to it, because existing legislation will also be reviewed as a part of this. So I want to check in with the Minister on, kind of, in that case, how long would it take for the board to actually go through and look at reviewing some of these, because, you know, there are\u2014I\u2019m sure the Minister is aware of a lot of not just existing legislation, both primary and also secondary. Is there a particular timeline that you are looking at in terms of existing legislation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EMy third question is kind of drawing on from both \u201CTaking of property\u201D, \u201CTaxes, fees, and levies\u201D, and also in terms of \u201CGood law-making\u201D. The Minister before talked about the fact that, you know, if there is a taking of a property and if the taking of that property needs to be, I guess, reimbursed, that it is everyone\u2019s objective to actually do that. If you\u2019re looking at the fact that we\u2019re looking retrospectively under good lawmaking\u2014so something like the Public Works Act surely is encompassed by this, in which case any taking of the private property of hap\u016B and iwi and M\u0101ori would naturally be reimbursed as a part of this by everybody\u2014i.e., the Crown. So would that actually, again, mean that we\u2019re going to retrospectively also be looking at a lot of, I guess, the reimbursement of all of the land that the Public Works Act had to take, maybe for good justification? So I wanted to, you know, check on a few of those scenarios. That\u2019s my final question for the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002281a465eb20294645bc63efa635c80cbf\u0022 data-id=\u0022c13bdf84ccb84c0293a63f30eb8b5ce6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281a465eb20294645bc63efa635c80cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c13bdf84ccb84c0293a63f30eb8b5ce6\u0022\u003ECAMERON LUXTON (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan just outlined, at the beginning of that input, that we have covered Subpart 1 quite substantially this morning, Madam Chair, and I\u2019m sure you have been paying very good attention to the committee stage of this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227b07e696f72e46989857b464ae69c1f0\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I have.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281a465eb20294645bc63efa635c80cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226c41a409108b4b1a9ffcda07a9defa6a\u0022\u003ECAMERON LUXTON\u003C/span\u003E: I was hoping, considering the Minister for Regulation\u2019s well-traversed explanations and answers to questions put by this committee this morning, we could move on to Subpart 2, as, after all, there are seven subparts in this part of the legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281a465eb20294645bc63efa635c80cbf\u0022\u003ESubpart 2 is regarding the reviews of Government bills in clause 9, and Government amendments in clause 11. They both are very similar subparts. I would just like to hear the Minister explain how the public should be able to interact with that. What methods are Ministers who are putting up amendments or bills required in this legislation to put forward so that New Zealanders can see how their property and their rights are being regulated? Will that include a Minister actually speaking to such a thing as a statement, or will it just be written in consistency accountability statements\u2014how will the public be able to interact with that? Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022 data-id=\u00228ab5fc150cf04fb2b4cc73ae7caedb27\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228ab5fc150cf04fb2b4cc73ae7caedb27\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the Minister for Regulation for addressing the questions that are put to him. I would like to talk about clause 8(d), which hasn\u2019t yet been addressed. This was one that the Finance and Expenditure Committee amended, but, to be perfectly honest, it\u2019s not an amendment which I was supportive of, because the bill as it now is before the House talks about \u201Cthe importance of maintaining consistency with section 22(a) of the Constitution Act 1986 (Parliamentary control of taxation)\u201D, whereas previously it talked about \u201CParliamentary control of public finance\u201D. It strikes me, if you\u2019re going to have a Regulatory Standards Bill, that peeling it back to not talk about public spending but only talk about public collection of money\u2014that doesn\u2019t make a lot of sense.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EI was actually really perplexed, because this was not a suggestion that came\u2014this was a suggestion, if I remember rightly, that came from officials. I\u2019m simply not clear as to why, if you\u2019re going to regulate or have a regulatory standard, why you wouldn\u2019t have a standard relating to public finances generally and only to taxation. If we\u2019re going to talk about taxation, then the principles of good taxation\u2014there\u2019s a good argument that they should be expressed, as well. So first of all, that\u2019s my tabled amendment of 8.30.28\u00A0a.m. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EThen the next tabled amendment actually skips\u2014I don\u2019t know what I was doing in the next hour\u2014to 9.45.06\u00A0a.m., which is actually about just having a framing of what good tax is, because I think it\u2019s important to identify that tax isn\u2019t just about getting money; it\u2019s also about correct behaviours. There\u2019s that whole idea that you don\u2019t want to have a tax system that perversely changes behaviours, but you can have a tax system that encourages good behaviour, whether it\u2019s an environmental tax or whether it\u2019s the way in which our income tax system works, or, indeed, the way in which a capital gains tax system might work. So my tabled amendment of 9.45.06\u00A0a.m. says that the purposes of a tax system are to raise revenue, to finance Government expenditure, and to correct behaviour or market failures\u2014I mean, cigarette excise tax would be a good example of that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EThere are a number of other suggested amendments, but I\u2019m actually not going to talk to them around the tax framing, because I know the Minister will have looked at them and I\u2019m sure he\u2019ll be able to do that. But in terms of taxes and levies, there is a good argument to say that, if we\u2019re going to talk about that here, we need\u2014and this is my 8.30.30\u00A0a.m. amendment\u2014a taxes and levies framing that says it\u2019s appropriate to have a levy across an industry where it\u2019s not appropriate or practicable to differentiate across all goods and services. This addresses the issue where you might have a licensing regime and there\u2019s different classes of licences, there might be different costs of testing, but in practical terms, whilst it\u2019s possible, it\u2019s not effective or efficient or practical to differentiate. That\u2019s why I would suggest we have a framing in terms of taxes and levies there. I don\u2019t need my full minute for those framings, so I\u2019ll let someone else have their call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022 data-id=\u00228f889cf52204460183d43c6eb60f59b1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228f889cf52204460183d43c6eb60f59b1\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. If I can quickly address Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s reference to clause\u00A08(c)(ii) and its definition of owner. He appears to want to amend that so that an owner can be an individual, not, for example, a trust or a company. I think sometimes people forget just how many New Zealanders actually use things like trusts and companies to hold their assets. It\u2019s actually not just big bad corporations that some people like to bedevil. Actually, it could be a tradie with a limited liability company. It could be the person at the corner dairy. It could be someone in your family who holds property in trust perhaps to protect themselves in relationship property. So, no, the owner should not be limited just to a person.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003ELawrence Xu-Nan asked, hopefully, would a capital gains tax be allowed under this legislation\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b29600a3afc1461f98c9eb98f0f78ba7\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: A wealth tax.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b5e9d200f048406ab483b491c1f4201e\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014or a wealth tax, he says. No, this bill wouldn\u2019t stop that if the Parliament wanted to pass such a law. The voters, on the other hand, might have something to say about it. He suggested that somehow doing reviews of existing laws was retrospective. It\u2019s actually not, because no review would change the law for prior cases. The review might lead to changing the law for future cases. But that is not retrospectivity as most people understand it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EHe asked if Public Works Act compensation would be paid to M\u0101ori who had had land taken under the Public Works Act. Actually, the whole point of the Public Works Act is that no matter what your background, you get compensation if your property is taken. So that wouldn\u2019t be necessary for M\u0101ori or any other person.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EWe had a question from Cameron Luxton, but that was about the next subsection, so I\u2019ll just go to Duncan Webb. He asked about the change that the select committee made to clause 8(d) to restrict it to section 22(a) of the Constitution Act 1986 so that it was parliamentary control of public finance rather than taxation. The reason for that is that the intention here was always taxation. It was a drafting error. The full section 22 of the Constitution Act also refers to Government borrowing and spending of public money and this is about taxation, not the other two things that Government can do with public money. So that restriction has been done deliberately and purposely. We have no intention to change it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EFinally, Dr Duncan Webb asked if we should put the principles of good taxation into the law. He may have forgotten, only two years ago, when his party was in Government they actually passed an entire piece of legislation called the Taxation Principles Reporting Act. So it would be strange to now want to put that same thing in this piece of legislation. The Government has no intention of doing that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003ECameron Luxton asked about Subpart 2 and, I believe, Subpart 3, which relate to how these principles are used in relation to consistency accountability statements and how the public can interact with that, should the Minister speak to it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EAs I\u2019ve said quite a few times now, the purpose of the bill is to support good quality lawmaking, and the main way it does that is by providing these consistency accountability statements to the House when a Government bill is introduced. The Minister must either link to a statement published on an internet site or make a statement briefly explaining the Government\u2019s reasons for inconsistency, which also answers the earlier question from Vanushi Walters about why we have a section 5 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act equivalent. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EThere are, of course, times when you don\u2019t have to have a consistency accountability statement. Those are times such as when the legislation is that listed in Schedule 1. That\u2019s derived from Part\u00A01, which we debated last night, so I won\u2019t go into the definition of that law. The committee has dealt with that already. However, the question around, \u201CWell, how will the public and the Parliament and the Minister interact with it?\u201D Once the public see the statement published under the authority of the House, then there is ample opportunity for public debate about, \u201CWell, do we like this law? Are we aware of all of the impacts that it will have on people, liberties, and their property rights? Was the law made well and did they consider all the options?\u201D So it\u2019s precisely to inform public debate. I think a lot of people will really welcome that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EAlso Subpart 3, he referred to responsibility to engage in regulatory stewardship. This is something that Lawrence Xu-Nan also got into tangentially. There\u2019s a requirement for chief executives to prepare a programme of retrospectively\u2014not in the sense they\u2019re going to change the law retrospectively\u2014going through the stock of existing legislation that that chief executive is responsible for under the Public Service Act, and going through and checking each of those pieces of law against consistency accountability statements and reporting on whether changes are required. There\u2019s no timeline on that, as there was in the bill as introduced. However, I believe that that will be a very useful way of applying the principles.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228b7b671ebc6d45ae91350f8e13a7fb42\u0022 data-id=\u00227b4e1208950f4184853637f3f36183d1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228b7b671ebc6d45ae91350f8e13a7fb42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227b4e1208950f4184853637f3f36183d1\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m just jumping to clause\u00A011. Some of my colleagues may still have questions on some of the previous clauses, and I think this is where this question best applies. The Minister for Regulation, in his previous remarks, made commentary around how a lot of these statements would be in relation to the introduction of bills. Clause\u00A011 talks about Government amendments. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228b7b671ebc6d45ae91350f8e13a7fb42\u0022\u003EOne of the recent examples we have seen over the term has been that the Government often introduces quite major amendments to bills at the committee of the whole House stage after the select committee period. Some of these amendments actually make substantive changes to bills, so I wanted to test with the Minister as to whether clause 11 is the place where that may capture, for example, Ministers throwing in amendments between the select committee stage and during the committee of the whole House stage that may actually substantially change the bill or add components to a bill that are quite significant. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228b7b671ebc6d45ae91350f8e13a7fb42\u0022\u003EThe reason for this is that because if we keep talking about, as we have referenced previously, high-quality lawmaking, does he think that such amendments would change a bill really substantially? For example, we had the medicines bill just recently, which the Minister was in charge of. It added a whole new part around medical conferences. And, for example, if I recall during that debate, the Minister kind of made an offhand remark around the revenue. He didn\u2019t have the figure at the top of his head and kind of just\u2014you know, we just had a revenue figure thrown at us at the time and without any substantiation or sort of corroboration of it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228b7b671ebc6d45ae91350f8e13a7fb42\u0022\u003EMy concern is, for example, would that have met the principles of good quality lawmaking? And would the provisions in clause 11 around Government amendments help mitigate any of that? If not, at which point does the Minister believe that the provisions of Part 2 of this bill would help create safeguards for Government Ministers\u2014such as himself\u2014introducing amendments during the committee of the whole House stage without any sort of information to substantiate the benefits or the merits of those very same amendments that would have not been discussed during the select committee stage?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228b7b671ebc6d45ae91350f8e13a7fb42\u0022\u003EI raised the recent example of the medicines bill, but actually throughout this term we have seen quite a few significant amendments making major changes to bills. I can see my colleagues on my right, I think, have some examples. My reason for that question, again, is: if clause 11 isn\u2019t where that would create a level of safeguards against Ministers substantially making changes to bills at the committee of the whole House stage without select committee scrutiny, where would he ensure that there are protections in place so that Ministers cannot bypass these principles by simply just putting a bunch of amendments in at the committee of the whole House stage, way after it\u2019s been introduced and way after the bill has had select committee scrutiny? Otherwise, I can see a really easy bypass for a lot of these tests for the Minister to just add a bunch of amendments later down the line at the committee of the whole House stage without adequate scrutiny, without this testing applied. So I\u2019m really\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227a702af484384980aa6acac2d7a1102f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I think your question is well understood\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228b7b671ebc6d45ae91350f8e13a7fb42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002263a11ef0107d4c838e65577a0bf0ca83\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222d0e9a942a444665bfbaf8213eced1f4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014and you\u2019ve repeated it twice. So is there anything else you\u2019d like to add?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228b7b671ebc6d45ae91350f8e13a7fb42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ec3155fb48514b0caf8342d9ea6f1f3b\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, if the Minister doesn\u2019t have an explanation, does he think\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f7c57bef870d4556baba207b61672206\u0022\u003EHon David Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228b7b671ebc6d45ae91350f8e13a7fb42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e32838805fa74d3dbaf137f15bcfa58b\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. There we go.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022 data-id=\u002282e06e5e0704480299da2673dd68990e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002282e06e5e0704480299da2673dd68990e\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation):\u003C/span\u003E If he\u2019s that eager, I usually answer\u2014you know, I wait for three or four and then answer them. But I\u2019d invite the Minister to read a bit further down\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dc1a6fe06c114b6d83b8c1f36bf15fca\u0022\u003EHon Members\u003C/span\u003E: Member.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022df645c6786d1473faffc39d01f8b032a\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry\u2014member. Yes, I apologise. I\u2019d invite the member Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March to read a bit further down to clause 12, which sets out, under paragraphs\u00A0(a), (b), and (c) of subclause (1), three circumstances where a consistency accountability statement is not required. That is, if it is a kind of bill that is exempt from the law generally\u2014that\u2019s in Schedule\u00A01, which we\u2019ve discussed\u2014if it\u2019s not reasonably practicable to comply with clause 11 before the scrutiny occurs\u2014so there will be people who will argue whether they\u2019ve met that criteria, but it still puts an onus on them to meet it\u2014or if in the opinion of the regulatory standards Minister, the Government amendment would not materially change the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003ENow, if he goes a bit further down, the responsible Minister must ensure the statements required are presented to the House as soon as possible. If they have used the exemption under clause\u00A012(1)(a) or (b), they still have to present it as soon as practicable after the bill is introduced to the House. So they don\u2019t actually get out of producing it; they just won\u2019t produce it in time. The law is clearly designed that that should be in very limited circumstances.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022 data-id=\u002275e78d0193684ff5a2cfaf9d63215f70\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002275e78d0193684ff5a2cfaf9d63215f70\u0022\u003EVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister for Regulation for some of those answers thus far. Before I leave clause 8 of the bill, I just did want to ask the Minister one question about substantive versus procedural checks\u2014so substantive rights versus procedural rights\u2014and his view on that, and then I\u2019ll move on to clause 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003EI know that when the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was debated and then agreed, there was an active drafting choice not to include a right to property. Sir Kenneth Keith wrote about this in an article in 2013 as well, where he talked about the difficulties that the US have faced in terms of understanding the scope of the right but then also balancing that right in terms of their rights space. The lien in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was a procedural set of rights, essentially, and the understanding behind that was that it was for Parliament to decide the scope of substantive rights and how they might play out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003EMy question to the Minister asks whether he believes that constitutional checks such as this should include substantive rights. I understand that he says that what this bill is doing is looking at how the Government\u2019s action is impacting people in terms of particular areas. That still does create an effect, almost a ghost or a shadow property right. So is it the Minister\u2019s view that those substantive rights ought to be part of constitutional checks?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003ENow, the reason I ask that is that if his view is yes, then it wouldn\u2019t make sense to discriminate against which set of rights could potentially be in that space, and potentially at some stage in the future, in the same way, we could see economic, social, and cultural rights or environmental considerations also part of an assessment of the sort. Or is it his view that no, that is a realm only for the procedural, as was the view taken by our predecessors when they negotiated and passed the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? So that\u2019s my first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003EI move now to clause 9, the review of consistency of the bill with the principles. The language that is used in the bill echoes the language of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It says that if a Government bill is introduced into the House of Representatives, then these checks should be made. Now, similarly in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, we have section 7, where if a bill is introduced to the House, the Attorney-General then has the responsibility to conduct a check against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. An issue that has become clear as we\u2019ve seen bills travel through the House is sometimes you can have rather substantive amendments to bills as they travel through the House that potentially prima facie do engage the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and should have had a second vet if we believe in the idea that the House should, with eyes wide open, assess compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003ENow, in a similar way, one could argue that if one was encouraging best-practice lawmaking processes, this set of principles should also have a second review should substantive amendments be made to legislation as it travels through the House. Now, this isn\u2019t something that I\u2019m making up. We\u2019ve seen it come through the House this term of Parliament. When I left the Parliament in the last term, there was a bill travelling through the House relating to consent law and ensuring that consent provisions and how the police charge were consistent in terms of what we believe consent law to be. As I came back into the House in this Parliament, there was a significant substantive amendment that talked about name suppression and how name suppression would be handled in criminal cases. There was no second New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet in that case, so the House did not have eyes wide open as it travelled through the House. I believe the gang patches legislation is another example of where there were substantive amendments that the House should have turned its mind to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003EI have a particular interest in this as I have a member\u2019s bill currently in the tin relating to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and ensuring that the House has eyes wide open in relation to amendments made there. So what is the Minister\u2019s view? Is it intentional that it was only at introduction or potentially something that the Minister thinks may be a flaw or something that could be amended in the bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223590b041308241868a09b9ec8fda5803\u0022 data-id=\u00228a5e0a67b61c45d384e645a08c21e35c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223590b041308241868a09b9ec8fda5803\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228a5e0a67b61c45d384e645a08c21e35c\u0022\u003EHon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m just reflecting on a topic that was raised by the previous Greens member to speak, Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u2014that was around amendments tabled in the committee of the whole House stage and the conversation around how we have a select committee process, where members can talk out a bill and come together with a finalised bill to bring to the House, where they\u2019ve had opportunities to have discussions around changes that may be made to the bill, and they come to a conclusion that this is the bill we\u2019re going to bring to the House. I\u2019d like to draw the attention to the 85 amendments that were tabled on 4\u00A0November by the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, and I\u2019d just like to ask the Minister for Regulation: are there any of those amendments that the Minister will be considering today to accept? To make this a better process, some of these amendments could have been spoken to in the committee stage. Does the Minister feel that any of those 85 tabled amendments for Part 2 from 4 November are actually worth traversing over again; and will the Minister be accepting those amendments?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022 data-id=\u0022c8d3b3d08a8f4df5bcaeab4a715e3c4d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c8d3b3d08a8f4df5bcaeab4a715e3c4d\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. The member Karen Chhour needs to count. I think it was 131 amendments, actually, and every single one of them would improve this bill. Had the member been in the Chamber at the outset, she would have heard the Minister say that he doesn\u2019t propose at the present time to support them, but that\u2019s why we\u2019re here: so that we can talk about them and persuade the Minister that, in fact, these are great ideas.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EOne of the ones I\u2019m interested in\u2014and it\u2019s another one that came out of the departmental advice\u2014is clause 8(ja), and it\u2019s an outlier because this is the clause that says a principle of good regulation is \u201Cthe importance of the responsible agency identifying and developing effective arrangements for implementing the legislation:\u201D. The Minister himself has sort of brushed aside some suggestions on the basis that, \u201CNo, these are all principles of a particular nature.\u201D\u2014essentially, a checklist for when you go through legislation, to say, \u201CYes, it meets this quality standard.\u201D\u2014whereas this here is actually highly operational. It kind of sits really oddly. I guess my two tabled amendments, and they are clearly alternatives, suggest either that we just do away with it, because it\u2019s not actually a principle of good legislation\u2014it\u2019s a principle of good government or good bureaucracy to make sure you\u2019ve got the resources, you\u2019ve got the people, you\u2019ve got the education, and you\u2019ve got all of those procedures in place to implement your legislation effectively. It\u2019s not about the rules; it\u2019s about the operation of Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EIf you are going to do it, the other way to do it would be to actually explain exactly what you mean, rather than just saying, \u201Cidentifying and developing effective arrangements for implementing the legislation:\u201D\u2014not only do that but also ensure that appropriate resources are devoted to implementing the legislation. This is my tabled amendment filed at 9.20.13\u00A0a.m. Ensuring that people affected by the legislation are aware of its import and how to comply with the provisions, as required\u2014that\u2019s the educative piece. I don\u2019t think anyone has spoken to this particular subclause of clause 8, but I am interested to know why it is in there. It\u2019s an outlier clause talking about how Government should operate rather than how it should legislate. What exactly does it mean? Does it mean, for example, that you have got to have enough money to do the job that you\u2019ve been asked to do and that you need to get out and educate, and so on and so forth?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EI\u2019m going to skip over a couple of tabled amendments, because I know the Minister has read them and he\u2019ll have thought very carefully about them, but there is one thing in terms of costs and benefits. That\u2019s my tabled amendment filed at 9.20.15\u00A0a.m. Whilst economists will understand what\u2019s meant by \u201Ccost\u201D, most people think it means only fiscal costs. Another way to express that, and this is my suggestion, is to replace \u201Ccosts\u201D with \u201Cdetriments\u201D, because the downside is what we\u2019re interested in. Whilst some economists would frame costs by taking a detriment and putting it into a number\u2014a money number\u2014another way of accounting is simply to look at them and balance them in the round, including all downsides. Some of those downsides that are hard to measure are loss of social cohesion, or loss of enjoyment of life, and things like that. I\u2019d be interested in those two things: why have we got this outlying clause about effective implementation, and then, in terms of costs, would it not be better to have a slightly more expansive kind of term so that people coming to this legislation will understand that any downside is a cost, not just monetary or fiscal or other easily measurable downsides?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022 data-id=\u00227e8909689eef4de5a88f123f5c8819e1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227e8909689eef4de5a88f123f5c8819e1\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to move on to clause\u00A013, accepting, of course, that, you know, my colleague Duncan and others around the Chamber still have some stuff from previous sections. But, you know, I\u2019ve learnt from previous sections of the committee of the whole House that if you don\u2019t ask the question you want to ask when you get the time, you might not get the chance to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022\u003ESo I want to ask a question about the secondary legislation section, particularly clause 13, \u201CReview of consistency of secondary legislation with principles\u201D\u2014this is clause 13(1)(a), 13(1)(b), and 13(2)\u2014and I want to ask, first of all, whether there is a working definition that the Minister is using for secondary legislation, and, number two, is there is a materiality threshold in which secondary legislation is captured under this?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022\u003ESecondary legislation can apply to all sorts of things. It can apply to regulations, it can apply to Orders in Council, it can apply to rules, notices, and local authority by-laws. Does the Minister anticipate that everything in that bucket will be captured? I\u2019ve just checked the secondary legislation website. I was doing some research earlier, and in 2024, 307 pieces of secondary legislation were made and were uploaded just on the New Zealand Legislation website. I know that that doesn\u2019t encompass all the secondary legislation that gets developed, including local authority by-laws, crucially.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022\u003EI know that in 2025\u2014and there\u2019s still two more months left of the year\u2014259 pieces of secondary legislation were made. So is the Minister\u2019s intention with this legislation to capture every single piece of secondary legislation that gets developed and proposed, or is there more of a materiality threshold? Is there any expectation of adjusting the consistency accountability statement depending on, I guess, the length of the secondary legislation at hand? Is there any expectation that, you know, if there\u2019s just a council by-law, for example, if council by-laws are even captured in this, that regulates walking your dog in the park, for example, it will have an assured consistency accountability statement versus a more complex set of regulations\u2014for example, emissions trading scheme regulations that might govern some more fundamental and wide-reaching things?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022\u003ESo just to recap my question: what is the working definition of secondary legislation, is there a materiality threshold, which secondary legislation is captured, and does that include all local government by-laws, for example? I know that if we check Schedule 1, it does refer to local Acts, but I don\u2019t believe it captures\u2014I think it just captures when you make a local Act in Parliament and then, like the one we had with the Auckland Future Fund, it doesn\u2019t actually include local government Acts. My third and final question was around whether there is an expectation that the consistency accountability standards are proportionate to the secondary legislation that\u2019s being reviewed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022 data-id=\u00226adfadc6341843738ecffb6bdf60eae1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226adfadc6341843738ecffb6bdf60eae1\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation):\u003C/span\u003E If I could just address these questions. Vanushi Walters asked, \u201CIs this the substantive or procedural rights that are set out?\u201D She was arguing that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act has procedural rather than substantive rights, but the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act actually does set out a number of what I would regard as quite substantive rights\u2014freedom of expression, association, and so on\u2014along with procedural rights if you\u2019re to be arrested. I think, in this case, we are setting out rights that a consistency accountability statement (CAS) should take account of. That, as I\u2019ve said a number of times now, is the purpose of the Act\u2014to produce those CASs. She can argue that it\u2019s a procedural right to have a CAS and that the rights within it are substantive, but I\u2019d also remind her of clause 24, which says that this doesn\u2019t create justiciable rights that can be upheld in a court by an individual. I hope that addresses her question. The answer is: both, at different times.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EShe also asked, \u201CIs there a second vet on an amendment introduced by a Government bill?\u201D\u2014as, I understand it, she is attempting to do with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, so there would be secondary New Zealand Bill of Rights Act opinions on amendments to Government bills that are introduced later in the lawmaking process. Well, the intention here is that, certainly, there will be a second vet, if you\u2019d like to call it that. This bill comports with what she\u2019s trying to do with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, so I hope that she\u2019s pleased to hear that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EKaren Chhour asked: will the Minister accept any of, I think she said, 85 amendments? Duncan Webb boasted that there are actually 131, and I think that, in itself, probably tells you something. Certainly, I haven\u2019t seen any I\u2019d like to adopt yet, and, for each one that Dr Webb has raised, I have been able to give a reason why the Government doesn\u2019t intend to adopt it. So, in answer to Karen Chhour\u2019s question: no, there are no more that we want to adopt, and, for every one that has been brought up, I have been able to explain why not, and that will continue. It\u2019s just a question of how much time people want to spend on it, and I think when someone produces 131 amendments\u2014many of which I\u2019ve been able to show are quite misguided\u2014people will make their own judgment of that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EThen, funnily enough, the next question was Duncan Webb asking about an amendment. He said that he wanted the implementation clause removed because he felt that it was more procedural than to do with resourcing of Government departments. No, as I explained in my previous answer, the Resource Management Act (RMA) is a very good example of what happens when there\u2019s not a clear plan. It doesn\u2019t mean the plan has to be resourced at the time\u2014that\u2019s a separate funding decision for a Government and its Budgets\u2014but you have to at least have a plan of how you would implement it, and, if we\u2019d done that with the RMA, I suspect New Zealand would be a significantly wealthier place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EThen there is the question of whether the word \u201Ccosts\u201D should be replaced with \u201Cdetriments\u201D. I just would refer the member to George Orwell, who said to never use a foreign phrase such as the French-derived \u201Cdetriment\u201D when an everyday Saxon equivalent such as \u201Ccosts\u201D is available\u2014it\u2019s much easier to understand, and it saves a few letters, and, in a funny way, demonstrates a certain amount of class. So we won\u2019t be adopting that on the basis of good style and taste, and I highly recommend the essay \u201CPolitics and the English Language\u201D to Dr Webb so that he doesn\u2019t fall down the rabbit hole of using increasingly verbose diction. Fernando Hernan\u2014sorry, Francisco Hernandez\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228b7b671ebc6d45ae91350f8e13a7fb42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226b4f8cffad0f408d8a8f238d5130391c\u0022\u003ERicardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u003C/span\u003E: How many times will you get it wrong?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bfc86c16041340a0a5cac65560723a94\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014I apologise to the member\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002207112ead127f4324bc7373f4ac99997d\u0022\u003EFrancisco Hernandez\u003C/span\u003E: We need to set up a tip jug.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ecefc56907044722babf8a4cb3903881\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: I really like his name. He asked if secondary legislation is included and how it is defined. First of all, he referred, I think, to clause\u2014I don\u2019t have the clause number in front of me, but the subclause after that refers to the Legislation Act, and that is indeed where the definition of secondary legislation can be found. It\u2019s also useful to see that it\u2019s the maker of legislation\u2014that may be a new term to some people; it was to me when I first got involved with this\u2014but the maker can include a council. People who are worried about councils making by-laws that violate their rights or are not well made can be assured that that could be counted as secondary legislation. The council will be required to publish a consistency accountability statement when publishing the by-law, just as you would be required to do when publishing secondary legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb2929110b9e4de593f6e50397159f32\u0022 data-id=\u00229ea053b1ad4c4d868c6de0192c7deaa5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb2929110b9e4de593f6e50397159f32\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229ea053b1ad4c4d868c6de0192c7deaa5\u0022\u003ENANCY LU (National):\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=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022 data-id=\u0022ac16faee9ee14311a26f186f142485fb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ac16faee9ee14311a26f186f142485fb\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m starting to lean that way. I\u2019ve been in the Chair for 45 minutes, and we\u2019ve made very little progress, and we\u2019ve traversed, as I can see, many of the topics more than once, so I\u2019ll be looking for very new material, please.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022 data-id=\u0022b3bcc13acee84650bdbc5bdb0d86b364\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b3bcc13acee84650bdbc5bdb0d86b364\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a very important bill. Clause 8 is the most substantive clause, and we have taken some time on it as we\u2019ve gone through it subclause by subclause, but I think that\u2019s entirely appropriate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EI want to talk about some tabled amendments that I have which suggest giving some kind of navigation lights, if you will, identifying what the kind of hierarchy of principles is. So these tabled amendments were lodged at 9.45.10 a.m. through to 9.45.12. One of the things is kind of the primacy question that you\u2019ve got these principles of good regulation but they don\u2019t necessarily override other principles of good regulation. Whilst clause 8A says \u201CThe principles set out in section 8 do not limit or affect any other principles,\u201D, my suggestion is that you should actually say in a proposed clause\u00A08B, \u201CNone of the principles expressed in section 8 supersede the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.\u201D So that would essentially be saying that the Treaty is at least on par. You could say that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are more important but at least they do not supersede.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EThe next proposed amendment would actually say\u2014and this is the point made by the Commissioner for the Environment, which would insert a new clause 8C\u2014\u201CNothing expressed in section\u00A08 confers a right to pollute water or air or to contaminate soil or destroy significant biodiversity, including indigenous biodiversity.\u201D So, again, essentially, you could just say that environmental sustainability is a preeminent principle.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EThen, the next one is a tabled amendment filed at 10.25 a.m.: \u201CNone of the principles expressed in section\u00A08 supersede New Zealand\u2019s duties or commitments under international treaties or agreement.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003ESo I do think there is a lack of signposting. This clause 8A is good in as far as it goes, in that it says that there are other principles of responsible regulations or guidelines, or whatever, but there is no saying \u201CAnd these ones are really important, and these ones aren\u2019t as important.\u201D Clearly, you can consult and then absolutely run roughshod over the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and that would not be good regulation; you could run roughshod over international human rights obligations, and that would not be good regulation. So what we don\u2019t have is, essentially, a system to say \u201CWell, these things are really important, these things are fundamental, and these things are, essentially, procedural and operational.\u201D Yes, consult, but don\u2019t consult and then, on the basis of that consultation, go and do something which is really bad lawmaking. Go and talk about your takings principle, but don\u2019t prioritise your taking principles over fundamental human rights. That\u2019s the risk that we have here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003ESo that\u2019s why, in talking about clause 8A moving along, I have proposed not only 8A but also some additional clauses which would show those hierarchies. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022 data-id=\u0022f3b6be7398c14cd8a2956a7783888708\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f3b6be7398c14cd8a2956a7783888708\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation):\u003C/span\u003E These matters raised by Dr Duncan Webb have all been traversed extensively. There\u2019s been a number of members who have raised the prospect that there should be some form of clause referring to the Treaty of Waitangi as a lawmaking principle. I\u2019ve explained at length why the Government doesn\u2019t have an intention to do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EHe\u2019s certainly correct that clause 8A allows a consistency accountability statement to be prepared with other criteria if a Minister or a department wanted to do that. The suggestion that there should be a hierarchy of principles is not something the Government is willing to accept. In our view, it\u2019s equally important that a person\u2019s property and liberties are taken account of and that the law is made properly and that, if a fee or levy is raised, then it\u2019s actually used for the purpose that it was advertised for. We don\u2019t see a criteria for making a hierarchy amongst those objectives.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002281a465eb20294645bc63efa635c80cbf\u0022 data-id=\u0022f67d592e40664e92b4d43e15a4e94ff8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281a465eb20294645bc63efa635c80cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f67d592e40664e92b4d43e15a4e94ff8\u0022\u003ECAMERON LUXTON (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=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022 data-id=\u0022dfbf9cb81a504425a8f0a62610ea343c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dfbf9cb81a504425a8f0a62610ea343c\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Point of order. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I just wanted to note that Subparts 3, 4\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b48439c38bf84076b9db030490a79498\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: What is the point of order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002258cb1cee9ee143f6983b4b0e83ebde85\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ\u003C/span\u003E: \u20145, 6, and substantial pieces of this legislation still have not been covered yet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002299fd0e97379043f18d4b2a009033d3c5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: What is your point of order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002237e20be19c3a414da5b9c232b6d8a14f\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ\u003C/span\u003E: That is my point of order. To take a closure motion at a time when substantive\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222094c7ac8b6049d9873824534a05f423\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Excuse me! Who took a closure motion?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cfa38d5c8b414cf5b8e8980b3ed4cfd4\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry\u2014to raise a closure motion, as the member\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022 data-id=\u0022d307d3e822f3413fb7df9e0c33eee4b7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d307d3e822f3413fb7df9e0c33eee4b7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: That is entirely the member\u2019s prerogative, and it\u2019s my choice whether I accept it and put it. I don\u2019t need your guidance on that, thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022 data-id=\u00228270584f39144d8ca32386178b9f118c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228270584f39144d8ca32386178b9f118c\u0022\u003EVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to speak and ask the Minister for Regulation a question about clause 13, \u201CReview of consistency of secondary legislation with principles\u201D. We had a number\u2014a wave, a landslide\u2014of submissions, of course, in relation to this bill, in opposition of this bill. One that stood out for me was not in the primary hearings on this. It was actually Geoffrey Palmer, who spoke to the Regulations Review Committee in public session, and I sat in on part of that session. He raised the very serious issue of the lack of clarity for the public because of this duplication and roles between the work that would happen that\u2019s described in clause\u00A013 and the functions of the Regulations Review Committee, whose job it is, also, to scrutinise regulatory making powers but also draft regulation, as well, and then regulation, once it\u2019s made, against a set of criteria that are set out in our Standing Orders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003EThis is where the rubber hits the road, really, is people being able to\u2014or not understanding\u2014what\u2019s going on; whether something is good legislation\u2014whether something is good regulation or not. We have a set of cherry-picked principles, on the one side, where a report will be produced or regulators will turn their minds towards those principles as they\u2019re making regulations. We have a second set of principles that the Regulations Review Committee will be looking at, and these are contained in Standing Order 327, where they pay attention to grounds such as whether secondary legislation is \u201Cin accordance with the general objects and intentions of the enactment under which it is made\u201D\u2014so that\u2019s whether it\u2019s vires or ultra vires, outside the power\u2014but, also, whether it \u201Ctrespasses unduly on personal rights and liberties\u201D, and then a number of other criteria, as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003EThe public could, essentially, be faced with a situation where you have an opinion from the Regulations Review Committee that makes one statement about whether the regulations are lawful within the context of the parameters of Standing Order 327, and a very separate report that comes out as a result of clause 13. The two, quite possibly, could be contradictory or could rub up against each other. So, firstly, just wanting the Minister\u2019s acknowledgment that, yes, that plausibly could occur. If that were to occur, what is the Minister\u2019s view about which should prevail; what the public\u2014or the judiciary, as well\u2014should read into that in terms of the lawfulness of the regulation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003ENow, Geoffrey Palmer\u2019s suggestion here was that this could be fixed by a simple direction that the Regulations Review Committee\u2019s role was the primary role in this space\u2014as it should be, as a committee of Parliament comprised of parliamentarians. However, I note that\u2014again, a drafting choice\u2014the Minister has decided not to include that direction or that clarity within the bill, and the question is, really, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221b25fe0aaf4a441c89618f1fa196cd1e\u0022 data-id=\u0022a0075da70e89403db03f5ef3f039505c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221b25fe0aaf4a441c89618f1fa196cd1e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a0075da70e89403db03f5ef3f039505c\u0022\u003EDAN BIDOIS (National\u2014Northcote):\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=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022 data-id=\u0022d1c7274a9af1499e86a352a5ff9b748f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d1c7274a9af1499e86a352a5ff9b748f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The only reason I\u2019m not going to take that closure motion is because there is some scope towards the end of Part 2 that hasn\u2019t been covered. I invite members to focus there. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022 data-id=\u0022146497a99e5d4c259faa91d8ac3614a4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022146497a99e5d4c259faa91d8ac3614a4\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to move to clause 15. Clause 15 talks about regulatory stewardship and the responsibility of chief executives. The funny thing about this bill is that a whole lot of what it does is done in the Legislation Act, and that\u2019s going to be cut out, and a whole lot of what it does is actually done in the Public Service Act as well, so you\u2019ve got this kind of overlapping sense of obligations. I mean, that\u2019s why the advice the Minister for Regulation got was that this bill\u2019s not really needed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EBut one of the interesting things is in clause 15(2), it says that the obligations of regulatory stewardship apply in relation to a chief executive if they\u2019re a Public Service chief executive, and a responsible agency\u2014which is kind of non-departmental\u2014only if it\u2019s a Public Service agency. What this effectively does is carve-out legislators who are not Public Service agencies. You don\u2019t necessarily think about it, but there\u2019s quite a lot of NGOs\u2014it was a funny way to put it, but people like the Law Society; the Plumbers, Gas Fitters and Drainlayers Board; and various other industry bodies, in particular, who get to set their own rules. You\u2019ve got this delegation to make rules, but the quality standards set out in this bill appear only to apply to Public Service agency delegates, people who are within that kind of loose circle, sometimes a little bit vague, but can be described as in the Public Service.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003ESo in terms of the obligations of a chief executive to engage in stewardship\u2014that\u2019s clause\u00A015(1)(a)\u2014and to ensure that the responsible agency does all these things, why is it that the Law Society, which actually has several rules, lawyers and conveyancers conduct rules, solicitors, nominee mortgage company rules, and various other rules\u2014that\u2019s just the example I know best. Why is it that they seem to fall outside of the stewardship obligation? So that\u2019s why, in my tabled amendment 10.45.05 a.m., I\u2019ve suggested why not just say \u201Ca responsible agency\u201D, whether it\u2019s a Public Service agency or not, because that would seem to be a sensible thing to do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EThe other thing is this: the second tabled amendment suggests that we delete clause 15(3), which says, \u201Cthe chief executive is responsible only to the Public Service Commissioner for carrying out the responsibility under subsection (1).\u201D Well, firstly, this isn\u2019t part of the legally binding clauses, so that means nothing, and the other thing is it\u2019s entirely duplicative of the provisions about chief executives in the Public Service Act, which already say chief executives are responsible to the Public Service Commissioner for stewardship obligations. So this is another example where, in fact, it\u2019s muddying the waters, because you\u2019ve got this statement about responsibility in a part of the bill which creates no legal obligations, and it overlaps with an existing statement in the Public Service Act. So my suggestion is not only is that duplicative; it\u2019s actually dangerous, because it confuses what the obligations are by putting it in two places which seem to have two separate obligations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022 data-id=\u0022ff44a9fa5eb64309b28f0838dcfe0971\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ff44a9fa5eb64309b28f0838dcfe0971\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to discuss with the Minister for Regulation and seek the Minister\u2019s advice on a section that hasn\u2019t been covered, and we are moving through the parts. I have a few questions on Subpart 2 before moving on to Subpart 3. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EIn terms of clause 9, the Minister has very helpfully reminded the committee before that the key purpose of this bill is to hold the executive accountable. I wanted to check: when it comes to \u201C(b) a statement from the responsible Minister that briefly explains the Government\u2019s reasons for any inconsistency\u201D, mainly because we\u2019re also currently going through the Standing Orders review, I ask whether the Minister would consider that a debatable motion on what that inconsistency could imply is a way of holding the executive accountable for any inconsistencies. I ask whether that\u2019s something that the Minister has considered, and whether, for example, that is something that what is currently being undertaken in terms of the Standing Orders review should also consider. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EI want to pick up, again, on one of the things that was mentioned in terms of clause 12, when it comes to what is meant by \u201Creasonably practicable\u201D. This is further on from a response that the Minister gave before where the Minister said that if it\u2019s reasonably practicable that a Government or a Minister has not had a chance to produce a consistency accountability statement (CAS) before an amendment has been released, it sounds in clause 12(1)(b) like that is OK. But I ask then whether the Minister has considered what \u201Creasonably practicable\u201D in this case means, or how often is it being used? For example, we\u2019ve seen certain conventions in the rules within our own Standing Orders, but we have seen that being stretched in terms of the number of urgent sittings that could be considered, or it is about how we interpret the rules around urgency. What sort of safeguards would the Minister have in terms of that, and what\u2019s to stop everything from coming through? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EWhile I think that it was not reasonably practicable for us to produce a CAS before we released that particular amendment, was it then, again\u2014you know, combining it with the Standing Orders review that\u2019s currently happening. If a Minister could not reasonably practicably produce a CAS as part of a Government amendment\u2014because, again, I think that one of the things that we have heard from a previous speaker was that there was a clear difference between what is a Government amendment, which is covered by this bill, and members\u2019 amendments. That, I think, has been addressed in terms of the amendments by the Hon Dr Duncan Webb. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EAgain, in those cases, I ask whether it is something for the Standing Orders Committee to be aware of, which is that if that reasonable practicability test is not met, then it, potentially, will need to require a debatable motion. So I\u2019m curious to hear on that from the Minister, and I think that how it relates to our Standing Orders is not something that has currently been touched on. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EMoving on to Subpart 3, I\u2019m looking at clauses 16 and 17, and this is all to do with some of the cycles that have been introduced. I think we haven\u2019t at this stage moved this far into Part 1, and so I\u2019m quite happy to continue moving on through the bill. In this case, it talks about having four-yearly briefings on the state of the regulatory management system, and I think that the fact that there is a review clause in there is really encouraging to see. But I wanted to check this idea of \u201Cat least\u201D, and ask if the Minister wouldn\u2019t mind providing some examples or circumstances. Under what circumstances would the regulatory standards Minister require the chief executive of the regulatory standards ministry to, potentially, give a briefing before the four years are up? Is there something that is quite egregious and that might happen that would mean that a briefing wouldn\u2019t be taking place earlier? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EFinally, in terms of clause 17, we\u2019re looking at the term \u201Cresponsible agency\u201D, and there were definitions of \u201Cresponsible agency\u201D earlier, but I won\u2019t touch on that. For the regular reviewing of the legislation, again, I ask has the Minister considered what that period for regular reviewing is. Are we expecting the responsible agency to do it annually, quarterly, or, at some point, can it be flexible? There isn\u2019t a fixed term because there is flexibility that\u2019s required, depending on the size of the particular responsible agency. We know that some agencies\u2014oh sorry, that\u2019s me. [Time expired]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002281a465eb20294645bc63efa635c80cbf\u0022 data-id=\u00225f40a308ce4c4fd69a8ab9c61628a85b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281a465eb20294645bc63efa635c80cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225f40a308ce4c4fd69a8ab9c61628a85b\u0022\u003ECAMERON LUXTON (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019m just going to take the advice from the Chair earlier in this committee to move this debate along a bit, because we have rehashed a few topics, and the Minister has been incredibly responsive to those rehashings.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281a465eb20294645bc63efa635c80cbf\u0022\u003EI specifically would like to know about Subpart 5 and how the Minister sees clause 24 operating: the Act does not confer or impose legal rights or obligations. Could the Minister speak about why he thinks that is a clause that needs to be included in this bill\u2014also, the fact that, as it says here in clause\u00A026, the \u201CAct does not regulate reasons\u201D, and how that interacts with statements that Ministers need to publish or give to the public about the reason, or not, for regulations, in regards to a regulatory statement, enacted in this bill from earlier parts, which we have traversed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281a465eb20294645bc63efa635c80cbf\u0022\u003EAlso, Subpart 6, \u201CGuidance\u201D, \u201CThe regulatory standards Minister and the Attorney-General may jointly issue guidance that sets out recommended best practice\u201D\u2014the Minister has touched on this earlier, but I just think it would assist the committee if we could have an expansion on what that would look like, going forward. Thank you, Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022 data-id=\u0022b1e47fef23114a98b9fd1642af5302c1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b1e47fef23114a98b9fd1642af5302c1\u0022\u003EVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I actually just had a brief follow-up question for the Minister about clause 13. He answered my previous question in relation to this clause, but I had a follow-up in terms of the role of the Regulations Review Committee and their work and their interaction with the statements that will be produced under clause 13.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003EAs the Minister will know, the committee receive complaints from time to time, and they have direction in the Standing Orders in terms of what the grounds of complaint can be. The Minister referred to the fact that the committee could view the statement as part of their consideration when making decisions in regard to a complaint. I\u2019m interested to know whether the Minister\u2019s view is that that is required or that it\u2019s purely a relevant consideration and the committee has complete discretion as to whether they consider it or not. It is important, in my view, because much of New Zealanders\u2019 lives are governed by regulation as opposed to primary legislation, and it is very, very relevant what the Regulations Review Committee determines because, as we know, there is a power of disallowance. The House has done it before, and it can have quite far reaching implications when the House decides to disallow a regulation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003EAt present, we have Standing Order 327(2)(a) to (i), which set out the grounds that the committee considers. The committee receives advice and legal advice in terms of determining whether those grounds have been made out. If I were a complainant to the committee, I would want to know whether the committee were required to turn their minds to the substantive shadow rights that are included or, again, whether that is for the committee to determine.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022 data-id=\u002203fb38d6666b46a2a241e7b83b32dce0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002203fb38d6666b46a2a241e7b83b32dce0\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation):\u003C/span\u003E I\u2019d like to address the last four contributions. I\u2019ll start with Vanushi Walters and also Lawrence Xu, both of whom asked very similar questions. Lawrence Xu-Nan asked will we require debate in the House on whether a consistency assessment statement is appropriate or whether not presenting one due to it being impractical is appropriate. The answer to that is no. This bill does not interfere in the workings of the House. The House is sovereign. It makes its own rules. No legislation can tell the House what to do, including this legislation, which, as I\u2019ve now said quite a number of times, is designed to improve accountability of the executive to the House and, therefore, not to tell the House what to do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003ESimilarly, the procedures of the Regulations Review Committee\u2014that\u2019s not something this legislation can change. So, no, they would not be required to consider a consistency accountability statement, unless, of course, the Standing Orders Committee decided to make that a requirement for them under Standing Orders, which could happen but not under this bill. Indeed, consistency accountability statements will still be very helpful, I would think.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EDuncan Webb asked about why this requirement to review legislation only applies to Public Service agencies. That\u2019s because they are the stewards of the vast amount of the legislation. It\u2019s true there\u2019s a lot of other people that make rules, from the Law Society to the Hora Hora rugby club. However, this is focused on the executive reviewing its stock of legislation. It might also interest the member to see that it\u2019s a maker, as I\u2019ve previously mentioned. He mentions that it\u2019s required to produce consistency accountability statements at the beginning of the process, and the Law Society that he referred to is indeed a maker under the Legislation Act and, therefore, would be in scope for new rules.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022 data-id=\u002254af8c63454f4b7abe037d0d6073b992\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002254af8c63454f4b7abe037d0d6073b992\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Just before I go on\u2014I have been watching this debate for the last hour. I\u2019m well aware of the rulings and the warnings of the previous Chair. There\u2019s a lot of material that has been covered. Standing and asking a question for five minutes and asking the same question many times is getting a little bit repetitive. What I\u2019d ask of members now is some genuine new material which is identified at the start of the question as being an area that hasn\u2019t been previously covered. That will be a consideration for any closure motions which are coming from my right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022 data-id=\u00225cbdb21c0f6e4a27967269deb095d683\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225cbdb21c0f6e4a27967269deb095d683\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you for that guidance, Mr Chair. I want to talk about clause 16, which hasn\u2019t been talked about yet, and I want to talk about the cycle of briefings, and a number of other things.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EClause 16 talks about four-yearly briefings, and this is that the chief executive of the regulatory standards ministry essentially must take an overview of the regulatory system and provide a briefing to the regulatory standards Minister on how we\u2019re doing every four years. My tabled amendment of 10.45.07 a.m. actually just makes a pretty simple suggestion, and that is that this be a three-yearly cycle. The reason for that is you\u2019re out of kilter with the electoral cycle, and whilst I don\u2019t think it probably is a briefing that you want to have to the incoming Minister, to have it every four years means every so often you\u2019d be having it in an election year as well. Whilst we\u2019ve got a four-year term bill before the House, which might mean we look at all kinds of cycles, the fact here is that this would create a degree of awkwardness, because it is a briefing to the Minister\u2014it\u2019s not just the long-term insights stuff, which is more something for the record.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003ESo that\u2019s my first point. The second is that my other tabled amendment from 10.45.08 a.m. suggests that the Minister should respond, because if this is about executive accountability, there is a really good argument to say the Minister should get the chief executive\u2019s briefing, which no doubt will say, \u201CWe need to do better here, there, and over there, but we\u2019re OK over there.\u201D, and say, \u201CI accept this but I don\u2019t accept that.\u201D My suggestion in the tabled amendment is that such a response should do things like provide a work plan in respect of addressing those shortcomings. So that\u2019s in respect of clause\u00A016, which hasn\u2019t been talked about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EThe other clause I\u2019d like briefly to talk about is clause 17. One of the things about clause 17 is it\u2019s actually not particularly clear, and so I think the title of the clause itself should probably be addressed, and it should be that \u201CThe responsible agency must regularly review legislation and report on progress.\u201D This is one of the ones where it\u2019s a soft obligation, and even though we\u2019ll get to the clause that says that this part of the Act isn\u2019t legally binding, it doesn\u2019t give any time frames. In my experience, when there are no time frames for an obligation, Public Service agencies put it at the bottom of the jobs list. So one of my tabled amendments is that this should probably be\u2014the tabled amendment filed at 10.45 and 11 a.m.\u2014on a six-yearly cycle. Now, to be perfectly honest, I\u2019m pretty agnostic as to what the cycle should be\u2014six years is every two election cycles\u2014but what it would be saying is \u201CLook, you should do this. This isn\u2019t just at some stage in the imaginary future. There\u2019s actually an obligation to do it.\u201D Then they should be reporting on it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003ESo my other tabled amendment at 11.01 a.m. adds a clause there which says, \u201CThe agency must provide a report stating the outcomes of the review and any actions or proposed actions as a result of the review.\u201D At the moment, these are all kind of aspirational things, and, you know, when you\u2019ve got a busy executive and department, then we see those things fall off the edge.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003ESo I\u2019ve whipped through the amendments\u2014all new material\u2014and I hope the Minister will respond to those.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022 data-id=\u0022ce6161be91984ddcaf5fb6453f2684dc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ce6161be91984ddcaf5fb6453f2684dc\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation):\u003C/span\u003E Yes, I can very quickly respond to those. I mentioned earlier that the Government has no intention of adopting any of the 131 amendments that Dr Webb has tabled\u2014apparently his latest at 11 past one in the morning. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EHowever, to address these latest ones, amending clause 16 to have a three-yearly cycle of reporting in order not to interfere with an electoral cycle. Two things about that. We don\u2019t actually have a three-year electoral cycle legally. We have a requirement to have an election within three years and three months of the last one, but sometimes in our history we\u2019ve actually broken that cycle and we may well do again, or we may move to a four-year cycle, although that\u2019s not currently the law. The reason it\u2019s four years is precisely so that there is flexibility within the four-year cycle not to have the reporting or the briefing coincide with the election if that\u2019s what the Government of the day wants. His amendment might actually defeat the very purpose that he is trying to achieve, so we certainly won\u2019t be adopting that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EHe then asked if the Minister should be compelled to respond to the briefing. That\u2019s a very interesting constitutional idea, because it effectively means that an unelected person can force a Minister to publicly respond to their ideas, which is the opposite of how it should work in a democracy where the elected person has the choice about how they respond or not. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EHe then said that he\u2019d like a six-yearly cycle for the reviews. That certainly would strengthen the bill and put a lot more impost on departments to review their stock of legislation. However, I note that the same member proposing this has been quite vocal in public about the costs of doing these reviews. I welcome that he now wants to strengthen the bill. However, the Government has come to a conclusion that by not setting a time frame, different departments, which might have different numbers of legislative responsibilities, can set their pace, of course, according to the expectations of the Government of the day rather than a hardwired annual amount, as I mentioned earlier. Previously, we had 10 years, now we don\u2019t, so that\u2019s actually a matter that I have already addressed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225f111048ae5a4b77b2be86987bd8aafb\u0022 data-id=\u002254817bdf332542fca93b8a32df13571b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f111048ae5a4b77b2be86987bd8aafb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002254817bdf332542fca93b8a32df13571b\u0022\u003EJOSEPH MOONEY (National\u2014Southland):\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=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022 data-id=\u00221af35ad5be424ea8badce633d64f212d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221af35ad5be424ea8badce633d64f212d\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a short question, and as I indicated to the Chair before, I am moving on in Part 2\u2014I\u2019m now talking about Subpart 4, clause\u00A023. This is around \u201Ca chief executive must act independently\u201D. This is a really interesting clause, because it does say in subclause (2) \u201CThis section applies despite section 52 of the Public Service Act\u201D. Section\u00A052 of the Public Service Act specifically says the chief executive is responsible to a Minister, but subclause (1) says \u201Cmust act independently (and is not responsible to a Minister)\u201D, which I think is actually good to see in terms of the independence of a chief executive. But I want to check with the Minister on how the Minister envisaged this part to be enforced, because, again, this steps outside of some of the aspects.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s mainly about enforceability\u2014how then, for example, as a House, if we do a consistency accountability report, are we under the assumption that the chief executive has acted independently, or is it more meaning that we need to dial a bit deeper to ensure that a chief executive was acting independently when releasing to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022 data-id=\u0022d056214e1ccc42478f5f03715c095241\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d056214e1ccc42478f5f03715c095241\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Dr Duncan Webb.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b1455fb56c2449029093540af7300084\u0022\u003EHon Dr Duncan Webb\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c6d940a204e2401e811f4f9c6d97475f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, I didn\u2019t realise\u2014the honourable Minister for Regulation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022 data-id=\u0022f042d4e0b7b041ddb0aff9c280c6baf3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f042d4e0b7b041ddb0aff9c280c6baf3\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation):\u003C/span\u003E He\u2019s resumed his seat, so I\u2019ve been called. Thank you. The answer to Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s question is just below the part that he read out. \u201CA chief executive must act independently \u2026 in relation to\u2014\u201D two purposes: one is making a consistency accountability statement; the other is giving a briefing. Of course, you would assume that the Public Service Act prevails in all other purposes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022 data-id=\u0022f23c62dcc82046e9a00b89e3686fa521\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f23c62dcc82046e9a00b89e3686fa521\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to talk about one of the most unusual parts of this legislation, and that is clause 24 in Subpart 5, and that is the provision in subclause (1) that says, \u201CThis Act does not confer a legal right or impose a legal obligation on any person that is enforceable in a court of law.\u201D It is interesting that the debate over the past 30 or 40 minutes has all been on obligations on chief executives, obligations on departments, but they\u2019re in fact not obligations because they\u2019re all in this part and this does not impose a legal obligation. So it\u2019s an obligation of some other nature, some sort of moral or administrative obligation but not a legal obligation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003ENow, one of the things that came out of the select committee\u2014and I think it was from the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee\u2014was a concern that the courts would look to this legislation notwithstanding this section and see it akin to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and give it some force in some way, and there\u2019s two ways the courts might do that. One would be as an interpretive principle to say, \u201CWell, we\u2019re assuming that the legislation we\u2019re looking at has been designed with the intention of being consistent with these principles.\u201D Now, that is a little problematic, and I\u2019d just be interested in the Minister\u2019s comments on that. Is that the intention? Because it\u2019s a quite likely outcome. And, of course, under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the New Zealand courts adopted an overseas practice of granting a remedy of a declaration to say the rights set out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act might not be enforceable in and of themselves as against legislation\u2014so they can\u2019t strike down legislation but they can say, \u201CThat legislation infringes on your rights in a way that\u2019s in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EThere was a concern that a remedy of that nature might be developed, and, of course, you can never quite know how these things will go. That\u2019s the thing about the common law\u2014that it kind of develops organically and it\u2019s not in some kind of linear fashion. I don\u2019t think that\u2019s what the Minister suggested, but my amendment of 11 minutes and 7 seconds a.m. inserts new subclause (1A) in clause\u00A024 and simply says that \u201Cno declarations of inconsistency with this Act may be made by any court\u201D, and that would simply clarify that status.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003ESo that\u2019s that bit. I\u2019m also interested in the Minister\u2019s observations as to what all of this stuff means. Is it really just a legislative Cabinet guideline? Because a Cabinet guideline is a classic example when it\u2019s essentially a direction of the Prime Minister to his colleagues as to how they should behave, but if you don\u2019t do it, it\u2019s political only and it has no legal force. We talk about breach of Cabinet guidelines and Cabinet directions and so on. I think it\u2019s really important: why have we got this section which says that none of this creates legal obligations and in fact the only legal obligations in the entire Act come later in the Act and are about the powers of our Regulatory Standards Board, which we\u2019ll look at later. I\u2019d be interested in the Minister\u2019s comment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022 data-id=\u002215ac55b1824e4ae3a6173054b216368d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002215ac55b1824e4ae3a6173054b216368d\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation):\u003C/span\u003E I can answer the question again. There\u2019s been a question about does this have any \u201Clegal right or impose a legal obligation\u201D, and he\u2019s right about that, but the second half of the sentence is \u201Cthat is enforceable in a court of law.\u201D Indeed, I forgot to address questions by Cameron Luxton earlier about sections 25 and 26. If you follow them through, they are all designed to ensure that the courts do not have their role in New Zealand expanded by this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EThat turns me back to the amendments suggesting that declarations of inconsistency be outlawed. I don\u2019t think that that is necessary, and I was thinking about something that Vanushi Walters said: that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was campaigned on through two elections. It finally became law in 1990, and it was another 25 years or so before the courts made declarations of the type that Dr Duncan Webb has referred to. It may well be that in 25 years\u2019 time, these ideas will be socialised sufficiently to the point that courts might start making such declarations. If that leaves us with a country where the executive is more accountable to Parliament, makes more laws more carefully, and is aware of the importance of people\u2019s liberties and property rights and doesn\u2019t charge fees for things people don\u2019t actually get, that would be no bad thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002281a465eb20294645bc63efa635c80cbf\u0022 data-id=\u0022a19a1a1f80a843b6a064e082988937ec\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281a465eb20294645bc63efa635c80cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a19a1a1f80a843b6a064e082988937ec\u0022\u003ECAMERON LUXTON (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=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022 data-id=\u00222bd782698f754f80882b32344cf1d095\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222bd782698f754f80882b32344cf1d095\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I am moving on in terms of Part 1\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002251c6961fce5e499e954b9a3a603efe54\u0022\u003EFrancisco Hernandez\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019re on Part 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002266be8dfa55c44c92889dbfb0608329ea\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, sorry, Part 2, I meant\u2014Part 2. Thank you. I\u2019m moving on to Subpart 7, which is actually a very important part of this particular section on the Regulatory Standards Board. We haven\u2019t quite covered the Regulatory Standards Board yet. I know that other people have questions, but I think I want to start by asking some questions around clause 29 in terms of the functions of the board. I think, in terms of the board, this is something that I think requires some attention and just some elucidation from the Minister on the independence of this board in order to provide information.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EWe know that, from a secondary legislation perspective, we have the Regulatory Standards Board, and the Minister for Regulation has already mentioned that, and that is something that is bipartisan. I think there is also another possibility, which was raised by my colleague Francisco Hernandez, when it comes to the Regulatory Standards Board. To start with, I think, a broader question: in order to maintain their independence, rather than reporting to the Minister for Regulation, has the Minister considered, for example, having that as an Office of Parliament, and having something like that being incorporated in the Parliament system, much like the Ombudsman and the Controller and Auditor-General? So, yes, I\u2019m going to start with that very broad kind of question, and I will have some specific ones on Subpart 7.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022 data-id=\u0022705fc0befaa041df92fe0762c9e429a6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022705fc0befaa041df92fe0762c9e429a6\u0022\u003EVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a few questions on different clauses which I\u2019ll go through quite quickly for clarification. Clause 19, inserting new section\u00A017(1)(b), refers to secondary legislation, which could be \u201Cof a class specified in a notice issued under this section\u201D. So this is just framing up which secondary legislation could be reviewed against the set of principles. I imagine that the Minister for Regulation\u2019s referring to regulations that have been made before the bill passes, but are there other classes of legislation that the Minister is referring to? If so, I was just wanting those specified, but clearly that may not be the case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003EClause 20, which sets out the good lawmaking principles\u2014they don\u2019t seem to neatly mirror the clause that sets out good lawmaking principles. In particular, I was thinking about the need to review implementation and issues that had occurred with implementation. Again, it could be that the Minister believes the language encompasses that. I just noticed it wasn\u2019t a direct mirror of the good lawmaking principles that the Minister had set out earlier in the legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003EThen I had a question on clause 22, \u201CStatements on review of secondary legislation\u201D. This is where an agency who has reviewed the secondary legislation is directed to publish that review on an internet site and explain the maker\u2019s reasonings for the inconsistency if there is an inconsistency, but also set out the proposed actions, if any, to remedy that inconsistency. Now, I go back to the Regulations Review Committee (Regs Review), because I sat on the committee and I tend to think through practically what is going to happen once this comes out. It feels to me that this would be a nice place for a trigger of interaction between the committee and the publishing agency, as it would be problematic if you had action that was being taken or proposed without Regs Review potentially having its view on consistency with other principles that sit outside the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022157391dc1d004f11a47abde46bc77fec\u0022\u003EThe Minister mentioned the Standing Orders earlier, and I\u2019m just wondering whether it\u2019s the Minister\u2019s intention to take proposals to the Standing Orders Committee\u2014of course, they\u2019re sitting at the moment\u2014in terms of ensuring there\u2019s clarity about the interaction between this process and the role of Regs Review.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ef044682c0bd4c8885c626cbc9acb678\u0022 data-id=\u002218beac6e2d97459aa2d0bae83cb0c5f7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ef044682c0bd4c8885c626cbc9acb678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002218beac6e2d97459aa2d0bae83cb0c5f7\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\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002264a10cba578d4f53813e38d8890a120b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Fernando Hernandez.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226571e4710a7c4e09ba21269da7e62de6\u0022\u003EFrancisco Hernandez\u003C/span\u003E: Francisco Hernandez, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002222ee3d956f6d41378a226e1f283359cc\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Francisco Hernandez. Sorry, I\u2019m catching it from the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022 data-id=\u00223dc0bbfcff754977b2047d37ed86f117\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223dc0bbfcff754977b2047d37ed86f117\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you. It\u2019s all good. Thank you, Mr Chair. It\u2019s catching. It\u2019s contagious\u2014it\u2019s catching today. My question is based on clause 35 around the final report that the board must give. I\u2019m just checking my understanding of the answer that the Minister for Regulation gave earlier when I asked whether\u2014and we do know that the board has powers to make inquiries into secondary legislation. Earlier during the debate, I asked the Minister whether the secondary legislation included council bylaws, for example, and I believe that the Minister replied in the affirmative.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022\u003EIn the case of the final report relating to an inquiry on secondary legislation that\u2019s been created by a local council, in the context of clause 35(1)(d), who\u2019s the responsible Minister in the case of a local council bylaw, for example? That\u2019s my first question that relates to the board and the final report.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022\u003EMy other question relates to the board itself, and I note that the details on where the board sits in terms of the Crown fee schedule isn\u2019t in this legislation. So I\u2019m just asking the Minister, in terms of the classification of the framework for Crown remuneration, whether the Minister anticipates that the Regulatory Standards Board sits in Group 1, that\u2019s royal commission, public inquiries, Government inquiries, and Minister inquiries; Group 2, statutory tribunals and authorities; Group 3, governance boards, with Group 3a being general governance boards, including tertiary education institutions; Group 3b, subsidiary boards of statutory entities of Crown Agents, ACEs, ICEs; or Group 4 of all other committees and other boards. Under the kind of Crown governance fees framework, which group does the Regulatory Standards Board sit in at the moment?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022\u003ESo just to recap my questions, my question was around, if there was a local bylaw, which responsible Minister would receive the report under clause 35(1)(d)? My other question was, which group does the Regulatory Standards Board sit in, in terms of that Crown framework for remuneration?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022 data-id=\u00227ab5e1cdc59545b09dff12e3a6bbfc9d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227ab5e1cdc59545b09dff12e3a6bbfc9d\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation):\u003C/span\u003E I\u2019m happy to address these questions. First of all, Lawrence Xu-Nan took us to Subpart 7, and his question was written down by me, but not very legibly, so apologies for that. It was about the Regulatory Standards Board. I might just go to Vanushi Walters\u2019 question and come back to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EShe asked about clause 19: what is the class of secondary legislation reviewed under this law? Basically, new secondary legislation is in, old secondary legislation is out, and both of them can be changed by exception. The backward-looking reviews do not apply to old secondary legislation unless they are explicitly ruled in or they\u2019re the product of secondary legislation that did have its own consistency accountability statement when it was first introduced.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EShe says that clause 20 doesn\u2019t map to section 8 very well. I would contest that. It says that section\u00A08 applies, but two sections are ruled out\u2014consultation and implementation\u2014because, if you\u2019re reviewing something that is already done, then you can\u2019t really review the consultation that was done at the beginning. The implementation has already been done, so you\u2019re really reviewing the law as it stands today, not the process that it went through to be made. I think that actually does line up quite well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EVanushi Walters also asked if I intended to take recommendations to the Regulations Review Committee so that the bill and the committee could interact. I\u2019m open to doing that, but I think it would be presumptuous to do that before Parliament actually passes this legislation, but I have presented personally to the committee and said that I hope that, at some future time, they will actually interact, because I think there is a lot of scope for that. Then Francisco Hernandez\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229e993a4a461347e9bc28e6c1bb3bae63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228791ef6c4fc544f69904a631490fbf2e\u0022\u003EFrancisco Hernandez\u003C/span\u003E: Yay!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f0d2bbc15ae44b9ea69a21dfba487b81\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014yes, thank you; I\u2019m getting there. He asked a couple of questions about the Regulatory Standards Board\u2014mainly, where it fits in the fees framework. That\u2019s not actually something addressed in this legislation. Obviously, it\u2019s something the Government will have to consider before it appoints the board, but it\u2019s not something that\u2019s legislated that\u2019s up for debate here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EThen I think the question that, if I remember, Lawrence Xu-Nan, in his question about the Regulatory Standards Board, was asking was: what is the role of this board? As I\u2019ve laid out previously, it is to, first of all, carry out inquiries, and, second of all, to review consistency accountability statements and the quality of those. There is a series of criteria around how those are made, but the point is that it\u2019s an independent board of people who have expertise in law and regulatory economics that can consider the quality of consistency accountability statements and carry out other inquiries into regulatory quality from time to time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f90d584ff41345418dbdfacdb6f36a11\u0022 data-id=\u002203ae953b4aa944528b2d9adf6746d927\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f90d584ff41345418dbdfacdb6f36a11\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002203ae953b4aa944528b2d9adf6746d927\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=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022 data-id=\u0022eeeaf3ce645f4782a7eca2647f8a51b3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022eeeaf3ce645f4782a7eca2647f8a51b3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Dr Duncan Webb\u2014but I warn that short, sharp, and specific is what is required. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022 data-id=\u0022a75f8c84ccb34494bd42922a28dd3096\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a75f8c84ccb34494bd42922a28dd3096\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair, because I wanted to talk about\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022af2b88065a9d4b439dac821f06b70f17\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: And new. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f18e1240105849efa9c4b399239b2f5a\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, it is\u2014Mr Chair, your tone! \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022510a0576b4d74947a2ca1f1192372f6f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: I want to leave you in no doubt, Dr Webb. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002267440032897c47a490a71117ebd4a572\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it\u2019s about inquiries because we haven\u2019t really talked about this function of the board. It\u2019s interesting, because the Act talks about inquiries in clause 30, which is what I mainly want to talk about, but then it talks about a complaints system. So it\u2019s really unusual to have a complaints-driven inquiries system. Complaints, generally, drive disputes. Inquiries are, generally, seeing a problem and going for it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EOne of my concerns is that if we\u2019ve got a complaints-driven inquiry system, then it\u2019s going to be, kind of, infected with a dispute\u2019s flavour. If we take, for example\u2014and I know this is hotly contested, but it\u2019s a really good example\u2014the farrowing crates rules that have just been introduced; that\u2019s an example where people will complain. The people who don\u2019t like the new rules, you know, will say this is a bad piece of legislation, and it\u2019s the result of bad regulatory stewardship.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003ENow, one of the questions is how people affected by it\u2014and there\u2019re only about 17 people here\u2014are treated properly, as I understand it. That\u2019s why my tabled amendment 11.35.04 a.m.\u2014oh, no, sorry, it\u2019s 11.35.05 a.m.\u2014talks about ensuring natural justice, because if what\u2019s going to happen here is that the landscape is going to be changed and the lobby group over there\u2014let\u2019s be honest; Greenpeace says, \u201CThis is a terrible piece of legislation.\u201D Then pig farmers over there and the Pork Industry Board, I think, or the pork industry association needs to have a right to be engaged, and that\u2019s called natural justice\u2014that no one can be subject to a procedure which will affect their rights unless they\u2019ve had a right to have their say.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s why, in my amendment, I suggest that in section 30 it states: \u201CThe board must comply with the principles of natural justice in any inquiry\u201D, which is really just saying, make sure people affected will be able to be heard. Now, if it was not a complaints-driven process, where you\u2019ve got Greenpeace complaining about the pork farmers, if it was simply the board going, \u201COK, we think this is an area that needs an investigation.\u201D, natural justice would not apply in the same way, because it\u2019s just an administrative action. But when you\u2019ve got clause 32\u2014actually, it\u2019s a concern to me that you\u2019re inviting people to, essentially, make attacks on other interest groups by saying this regulation isn\u2019t fair or that regulation isn\u2019t fair. I do think the natural justice point is a good one. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EYou know, of all the tabled amendments\u2014and I know the Minister\u2019s taken a view\u2014this is one that warrants being supported, because it\u2019s a simple procedural tool, and maybe other parties in the Chamber might want to think about it. The Minister\u2019s not in charge here; this is a question for the committee, and I\u2019d be interested in their support.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022 data-id=\u00226514a150aa044fd59032cd44cae7cead\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226514a150aa044fd59032cd44cae7cead\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. Following on, I did mention that I have a few more questions regarding Subpart 7; I\u2019m going to keep them concise. When it comes to carry out inquiries, we\u2019ve heard, from one perspective, they can be complaints or members of the public raising it. Can I just check with the Minister for Regulation for clarification: can then a Minister direct the board to carry out an inquiry? Understanding that, you know, there\u2019s the insertion of clause\u00A030A, which means that the board must act independently, but I want to check if that is a possibility. And when a board carries out inquiries, are they confined, then\u2014because I think this is the section to discuss this\u2014to clause 8, the principles of this bill, or are they also in clause 3, the purpose of this bill? So I want to check that when the board is carrying out an inquiry, it can be expanded.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EI then want to ask the Minister\u2014in terms of the function of the board, the board is going to be doing a substantial amount of work in terms of consistency accountability, reporting to the committee before reporting to the House; doing work that is very similar to, or has certain degrees of overlap with, what agencies and the Office of the Auditor-General, etc., are already providing. But I want to then check what then is going to be the cost that is going to be\u2014has the Minister considered what is the cost or budget that\u2019s going to be allocated to this board for it to be able to carry out all of these functions fully? So that\u2019s question number two.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EQuestion number three. I\u2019m going to move on to clause 30, and that\u2019s my last question for this part and for this contribution, which is around this idea of \u201Con paper\u201D, but then it says, \u201Con the papers\u201D. So I think the first question is: if the statement must be carried out on papers, do they mean that it has to be in writing; is that what we\u2019re looking at here? Oh, yeah, I\u2019m seeing a nod\u2014great. So how then would it mean for people who potentially\u2014because, you know, one of the core principles is everyone should be treated equal. How then would it be for people who have difficulties putting things down on paper and much prefer giving an oral presentation, etc.? Would that then also be acceptable, or are you looking at that person still needs to put it on paper, and there\u2019ll be other resources available for them to be able to put that in writing? That\u2019s question number three.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2154eca8dae42a480d28fe23da6e395\u0022\u003EThe final question\u2014it\u2019s very disconcerting when clause 30 says, \u201Con the papers\u201D with a definite article. I just want to check when they say \u201Cthe papers\u201D, does it mean Order Paper? Like, it must be a very defined paper we\u2019re looking at here. So those are my four questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d4137ef6b6b841e2ac62e8c46367ec05\u0022 data-id=\u0022be897afe591249f8b42d25832f5a2db1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d4137ef6b6b841e2ac62e8c46367ec05\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022be897afe591249f8b42d25832f5a2db1\u0022\u003EMILES ANDERSON (National\u2014Waitaki):\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=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022 data-id=\u0022871ce0346d004654a05d650e7b13aef4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022871ce0346d004654a05d650e7b13aef4\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019d like to move on, if I may, to clause 35. Clause 35 and an associated clause, clause 36, relate to the reports of the Regulatory Standards Board. There\u2019s actually a little bit of a mismatch in here, because it says in clause 35(1): \u201CThe board must give a copy of the final report on an enquiry to the following [people]\u201D. In there, the complainant is included, which actually just shows this kind of disputation problem. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003ENow, I can understand why if you\u2019ve made a complaint, you want to know. But then, in clause\u00A036(1), the ministry must publish reports, and then it says they can redact information, in clause\u00A036(2), right? I can understand that; I mean, commercial sensitivity would be the obvious one. But, equally, the report might say we spoke to this person who gave some important disclosures, and you want to protect their identity\u2014all recognised reasons for disclosure. As soon as you give that report to the complainant, it\u2019s in the public domain and there is no power to redact any information in that report going to the complainant.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003ESo if we\u2019ve got a report, to use my former example, about farrowing crates going to Greenpeace, the first thing that\u2019s going to happen is it\u2019s going to go up on their website in full, unredacted, right? There is no power to redact there and you can\u2019t overlay that. As a bureaucrat, you can\u2019t say, \u201CHere\u2019s the report, but it\u2019s confidential.\u201D So my amendment proposes that in clause 35 you insert a subclause\u00A0(4), which basically is a mirror of clause 36(2), saying that you can redact on Official Information Act grounds the copy of the report that goes to the complainant so that you\u2019re protecting the identities of people, you\u2019re protecting commercially sensitive information, and so on and so forth. It\u2019s actually a relatively important point and there\u2019s no politics in this at all, right? But it is actually a really good point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003EThe next thing I wanted to talk about is the membership of the board, and we did talk about this quite a lot. That\u2019s clause 37. We can talk about the number of members on the board, because between five and seven is quite low, because if you have five and a couple are sick, you get into all kinds of trouble. But the real thing I want to talk about is the qualifications of the members. Nowhere in the legislation does it talk about the kinds of people that should be appointed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003ENow, if you look at legislative quality, I would have thought that it was a good idea to say that you want people who are qualified or have experience in making good legislation\u2014the kind of people not in this House, obviously, and not the Minister for Regulation, but the kind of people who are on the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee would be a good example. I\u2019ll be quite up front with the Minister. My concern is that what we\u2019ll get is a bunch of economists, and whilst some economic expertise might be appropriate, what we wouldn\u2019t want to see is a kind of law and economics approach taken to good regulatory stewardship. I\u2019m not saying it\u2019s not a useful tool, but it\u2019s not a test. It\u2019s not the sole test of what good regulatory stewardship is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203b3a8aad696414a8eb7f03fa4e88c59\u0022\u003ENow, whilst obviously there\u2019s been a change here, and I agree that it\u2019s a better change, that it\u2019s not a direct appointment by the Minister, it\u2019s by the Governor-General, but the question in terms of who is appointed\u2014at the moment it\u2019s clause 38(5), the Minister may only recommend the appointment of a person who, in the Minister\u2019s opinion, has appropriate knowledge, skills, and expertise. I would have thought that it would be appropriate to take a more\u2014the Human Rights Act says that the Chief Human Rights Commissioner must be legally qualified and must have these other attributes. Why have we not taken that approach here to say we need people who have expertise in legislative quality, expertise in the law, and a range of other expertise which we could then debate in this House? I\u2019d be interested in the Minister\u2019s comments on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022 data-id=\u0022fb5bb67e87b54d90bb25464c92cb41aa\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fb5bb67e87b54d90bb25464c92cb41aa\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation):\u003C/span\u003E First of all, in response to Duncan Webb\u2019s questions about the nature of \u201Crequire inquiries\u201D\u2014his amendment that would add natural justice to an inquiry\u2014I\u2019d direct him to clause 34(b), which says that they can actually use the principles but also evaluate who is likely to have benefited and consider whether legislation has produced benefits, all based on events that have occurred. I think that opens them to be able to hear from other people, but they needn\u2019t necessarily be holding a kind of quasi court case. Their job is to report against the principles and see if the law is performing against those principles\u2014not according to somebody\u2019s opinion but according to the principles in law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EHe also raised the question of whether the reports of the Regulatory Standards Board given to the complainant should be redacted in the same way as the ones that are public. That is an interesting point; however, I think sometimes we just have to trust that most people, most of the time, know what they\u2019re doing and are sensible. If you are the Regulatory Standards Board and you expect that a person is going to leak or publish a report, as the Minister has suggested, then you needn\u2019t include private information in that report. Sometimes we don\u2019t need to legislate everything; we can just use common sense.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222fee4f49a15c4795a3ba0d173a43c15c\u0022\u003EI\u2019d reply in the same manner to his suggestion that we should legislate the qualifications of a person on the Regulatory Standards Board. I was pleased to see that he values the knowledge and expertise of economists. A lot of socialists prefer to shoot them, as David Lange once quipped, so that\u2019s progress. However, I also say that the member is actually living proof that we should not take august qualifications as proof of competence. We would rather appoint people who are capable of doing the job as the legislation sets out than specify what those qualifications should be.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221b25fe0aaf4a441c89618f1fa196cd1e\u0022 data-id=\u0022dfc0bb42171248ee93dc599aa67e441b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221b25fe0aaf4a441c89618f1fa196cd1e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dfc0bb42171248ee93dc599aa67e441b\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=\u0022d103fcdd81a94f72a09559177f37a3d9\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=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022 data-id=\u0022b7bd3a35346046dd916c751a3d483230\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b7bd3a35346046dd916c751a3d483230\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendment to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 427 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022b87fbf04cbda47a8a11cfb6e40aae09b\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 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\u003EAmendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022 data-id=\u00224839fc9dbb7647c9b996dbb6a389d1f8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224839fc9dbb7647c9b996dbb6a389d1f8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment replacing clause 8 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00225f0874470b4d47be9c704a0b09f86581\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=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022 data-id=\u0022d2efec3e1398447983f956d9e734afd7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d2efec3e1398447983f956d9e734afd7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson\u2019s tabled amendment replacing clause 8 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00220d5099c75d0f401ebd5ce09cfc19b423\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=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022 data-id=\u0022aeab53c422f846f8a5c94c0fa8df3ceb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022aeab53c422f846f8a5c94c0fa8df3ceb\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8 inserting new paragraph (aa) to require an overriding principle of the health of the environment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022f448145a67a444538749390f6eb4364b\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=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022 data-id=\u002293ed9f8f46394f489b083277527a0fca\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002293ed9f8f46394f489b083277527a0fca\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8 inserting new paragraph (aa) to require all legislation to be assessed for consistency with Treaty principles be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022bd2a8abe1ce746fda98a55344a4ca7dd\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=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022 data-id=\u00220c360c96ade7424c859c5662531bef57\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220c360c96ade7424c859c5662531bef57\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8, replacing paragraph (a), be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002294f418a329314e6ba6b1cc20d3423cc5\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=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022 data-id=\u0022a5a93db5e6d04d6aa3b52550c7cdf34b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a5a93db5e6d04d6aa3b52550c7cdf34b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Tamatha Paul\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8, amending paragraph (a), be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00222d2506b7f0844312aafdabf0d3f8df9d\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=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022 data-id=\u0022e484deafbb93485297140637fde853e7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e484deafbb93485297140637fde853e7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8, replacing paragraphs (a) to (l), be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022cf0de07e0cb2417d8372cd49b6278c40\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=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022 data-id=\u0022dd2bea9556bc494d937bfec042548485\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002299e5598886df43299456ba8aed7d56b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dd2bea9556bc494d937bfec042548485\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u2019Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8(a) inserting new subparagraph (vi) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002206845015493e4b0b8486607555bfb8e7\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u00223b093f7112b045abb0dcbfe4dd02dda7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223b093f7112b045abb0dcbfe4dd02dda7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8(a) inserting new subparagraph (vii) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022c36b799a82ad43bdb54b8518b6c871f5\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u002215887a35810e4b758024b018363a95ea\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002215887a35810e4b758024b018363a95ea\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause\u00A08(a) inserting new subparagraph (viii) is ruled out of order as being the same in substance as an existing provision of the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8(a) inserting new subparagraph (ix) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022cefe5b3744994fc897a00339bc69b520\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u00225cbf5e46986847c1b93added72007d89\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225cbf5e46986847c1b93added72007d89\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8 replacing paragraph (b) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002268aac1154dc94094bad5fe2c609bb3ed\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u00224eb04e2e699c4fa2a4d8a846ce6b3576\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224eb04e2e699c4fa2a4d8a846ce6b3576\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8(b) replacing the words after \u201Cdiminish\u201D be agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002280239094e3c2468ba146607907492a65\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022c744cf966ef7441e8185bd484cac061a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c744cf966ef7441e8185bd484cac061a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8 deleting paragraph (c) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022ebab2de0923b4a57b3f89fcccb8676fe\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u00220819793c19864dda83963966fd8567ef\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220819793c19864dda83963966fd8567ef\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Chl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8 deleting paragraph\u00A0(c) is ruled out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8 replacing paragraph\u00A0(c) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022598556083c204cc896c487fa0dd7140d\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u00228c6abe0f8f494c329991a2383cc20a68\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228c6abe0f8f494c329991a2383cc20a68\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8(c) replacing \u201Cproperty\u201D with \u201Cjustly acquired property\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022133ad5df8f8d475893c03d10077f5758\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022dbed144fc5a14a508f48a62a6ca7f919\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dbed144fc5a14a508f48a62a6ca7f919\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Francisco Hernandez\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8 inserting new paragraph (cb) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00224a7dcac6438a4d85bea2ec38a6a62919\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u002241f36bdfffd74888815ca6829d2e248c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002241f36bdfffd74888815ca6829d2e248c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8 deleting paragraph (d) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022e7a3a578926c429dbd672322830d35c1\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u00225ac180e9ddba45d7827989d28314ff96\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225ac180e9ddba45d7827989d28314ff96\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8 replacing paragraph (d) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022f8e4ca6a0aac47ac989b46f2e6ca9cd5\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u00226c704a5bb56b4b14ad8845a1068eaa99\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226c704a5bb56b4b14ad8845a1068eaa99\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8 inserting new paragraph (da) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022e62cac685ce441209815b5f7febfa560\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022d31143575ddf45f8a2da62394958709a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d31143575ddf45f8a2da62394958709a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8 inserting new paragraph (db) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022b0f41b5d64e34f23ae7a6c48eda1c657\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022de60b207eb83484bbc5fa0189d67efd0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022de60b207eb83484bbc5fa0189d67efd0\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8 replacing paragraph (e) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00225a969727e49341c0986a4889120a7237\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u00222aa7f7929c7d43ed8fae06743634fdd7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222aa7f7929c7d43ed8fae06743634fdd7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8 amending paragraph (e) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022a9df0068cf8544f5a7944473b6360b83\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u002291aabd325a584b589f94f29294ae2e9e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002291aabd325a584b589f94f29294ae2e9e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8(f) inserting new subparagraph (iii) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00227b4b8fc4d17544378f4229cacc85fb3f\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u00226b8fc004175045b0b07d42af7deead88\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226b8fc004175045b0b07d42af7deead88\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause\u00A08(f) inserting new subparagraph (iv) is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8 deleting paragraph\u00A0(g) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022590828c455a1471f9fe3c4592c8c41f5\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022c616ea26b7824df5ba9f3e2febe3e90b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c616ea26b7824df5ba9f3e2febe3e90b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8 replacing paragraph (g) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022e2396dd092754f26a0ed406ebae1b123\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u00222bec7dcd979b4d3c91a0a18aaff873d5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222bec7dcd979b4d3c91a0a18aaff873d5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8 replacing paragraph (g) and inserting new subparagraphs (i) to (iv) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022f0616177dbd840f1937d49156c451013\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u00222b754159077b4fa6bc24af2e6743d7d1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222b754159077b4fa6bc24af2e6743d7d1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8 deleting paragraph (h) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022a8f2b5c856fb4a948d925cd7ac449991\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022a71f6f1d066e467aaa0b66ae89210cb0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a71f6f1d066e467aaa0b66ae89210cb0\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8 replacing paragraph (h) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00229cf5039c700e419baaf4bd8533d68ee7\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u002278c620b34ecf4de38c99a87c7fff391e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002278c620b34ecf4de38c99a87c7fff391e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8 amending paragraph (i) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022c2c21295f22743cda2f777371bbd5747\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u002286de094171984e998361ce6eaa39055c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002286de094171984e998361ce6eaa39055c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8 inserting new paragraph (ia) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00228fd1dbea37b54b10be598f61d30f6d7d\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u002271f41c4b10c54282b9358ef920b8ef18\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002271f41c4b10c54282b9358ef920b8ef18\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8(j) replacing subparagraph (i) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002262eb88bbb4b64950929d4fef23697887\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u00223e925184b22746d79ddc0037f2207951\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223e925184b22746d79ddc0037f2207951\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8(j) replacing subparagraph (iv) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00222c7652f895924b12a4a3b042d728e0ec\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u002214d6011c70304d7d9d5477bb69434807\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002214d6011c70304d7d9d5477bb69434807\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8 deleting paragraph (ja) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00228e95adc6cba347db92a980d907aa526c\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u00220f40d96cb5c94f978fca3598128789b0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220f40d96cb5c94f978fca3598128789b0\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8 replacing paragraph (ja) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022397a5d03df674abb9719b71d2e7f60b4\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022e4a34af168f44fa481ede74ae82d4e3a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e4a34af168f44fa481ede74ae82d4e3a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8 replacing paragraph (k) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022c1695e894ab946e78af43678ebbce946\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u002297899f2f382540e9b1ef88bd89f9634d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002297899f2f382540e9b1ef88bd89f9634d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8 replacing paragraph (k) and inserting new subparagraphs (i) to (iv) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002267992a9aa7624bce973dd7bcac242310\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022e1ba3431f6ff48249ff0b75e200107ef\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e1ba3431f6ff48249ff0b75e200107ef\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8 amending paragraph (k) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00225c854ffe12a14cd3accee2ac4ffd9923\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u002256c1eebe1f384f7a9dd11ea57d9700e4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002256c1eebe1f384f7a9dd11ea57d9700e4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8 inserting new paragraph (m) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022e26c3bdd6e9043efb59f3c631d746625\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022a7b5ef0b56e44210805b6929481292aa\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a7b5ef0b56e44210805b6929481292aa\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8 inserting new paragraph (m) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002298a30507fe674e1aa8dc7d18b1ca97d9\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022fdf715b9c36a42a9b87d535972ce1418\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fdf715b9c36a42a9b87d535972ce1418\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8 inserting new paragraph (n) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00221f825702fcad4731940cd78011ea571c\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u00223f50e97939754e8180d4af5f4b8bcd7e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223f50e97939754e8180d4af5f4b8bcd7e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Chl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u2019s tabled amendment replacing clause 8A be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00228d425daffffd40e5851a5c8346256d69\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u00224353f9465b0b4b9098a74e9495b8658e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224353f9465b0b4b9098a74e9495b8658e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled inserting new clause 8B be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022bf045fb2f7904c3aa1db4b641d016288\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022a218bd9cb8694c3f9988033e4607b374\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a218bd9cb8694c3f9988033e4607b374\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment inserting new clause 8C be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00229c9b788edd8249b7a7dbec44a7899c71\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022ba732f15f40d463884a7375e6cb1ce5e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ba732f15f40d463884a7375e6cb1ce5e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment inserting new clause 8D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022331f8eabab4a4ea78429cb1cfa5c3d1b\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u002295ace5d83f1549f08ac4862a330f61c4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002295ace5d83f1549f08ac4862a330f61c4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 9 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002209e70feb8db34a38b97a551743e3882d\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022a8be9df92cfb461192a250a3c64fda2e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a8be9df92cfb461192a250a3c64fda2e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 9, inserting new paragraph (c) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022d43e6e35aa094b8a9b144f512337c7ac\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022a21f89aab51a4ea5ad49cc176fad2786\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a21f89aab51a4ea5ad49cc176fad2786\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 13(1) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00228c921f6e0dff4ddaaaea79019f50539c\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022761325cdacfe4f99af3bb85c4429f6b2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022761325cdacfe4f99af3bb85c4429f6b2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment deleting clause 15 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002261420d69f99243388bbccdf6b9a4947e\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022067b4cc977e649698ae149690026e6c4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022067b4cc977e649698ae149690026e6c4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 15(2), replacing paragraph (b) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00225412ca3d872f441aa4c55f4380b6b1bf\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u002202bb40af835645119851e8a320eac116\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002202bb40af835645119851e8a320eac116\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 15, deleting subclause (3) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00226b38364f1af14add824971a4416a1e4c\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022cf933417f97842c79597cc40fa06b8a4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cf933417f97842c79597cc40fa06b8a4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment replacing clause 16 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00223b7c7fdaab004d2584ee9c856637806b\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022e978c1a8f8604ecd8b79f7b5546749b5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e978c1a8f8604ecd8b79f7b5546749b5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 16, inserting new subclause (4) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002299a474fc9e6a411985f985c56bbf2277\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u00226ac4a9172bce439190273c4e201f3348\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226ac4a9172bce439190273c4e201f3348\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment replacing the title of clause 17 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022eb999663bc424e21b986a41d1940f920\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022adf29930e1e74cc79d7f16f9c00bd1b9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022adf29930e1e74cc79d7f16f9c00bd1b9\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 17 inserting new paragraph (aa) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022ab90c75b475846c4847be8b11cb0576f\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022d7097e9403dd4019ac97da2530248ba6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d7097e9403dd4019ac97da2530248ba6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 17 inserting new paragraph (c) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00227e76029f0035484ba6b4b515f7cca0c5\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u00221376164f529645f5a8150af6b8a8cd66\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221376164f529645f5a8150af6b8a8cd66\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 17 inserting new paragraph (d) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022533ed7c4292d4448b3a626e663fc67d8\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022e5cbe74f547a48e69067aa2b6aed2707\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e5cbe74f547a48e69067aa2b6aed2707\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 19(1), deleting paragraph (a), be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00228efa86863b554071a7f304dea1a3807e\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022b71eded351354bae9f8287aae79998d3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b71eded351354bae9f8287aae79998d3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 19, inserting new subclause (6), be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022771b3f1f4d424af78c622954f7888388\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u00225673e25162094a2c816df994c1ead6ee\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225673e25162094a2c816df994c1ead6ee\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 20, replacing paragraph (a), be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002276367bed796f4dfe99a20b60f8f7ee94\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022d7365e50ff63467d9a81349dee908f0e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d7365e50ff63467d9a81349dee908f0e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 20(b), amending subparagraph (iii), be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00226b18ace735e945f88a92d546d786143c\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022bd53e31508a344d78e8802a24e6526e2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bd53e31508a344d78e8802a24e6526e2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to the title of clause 23 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002285fbf68201a648129aa8e8059aa33498\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u002282a8d7cbc2ad4ea4a987689e5c336b65\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002282a8d7cbc2ad4ea4a987689e5c336b65\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 23, amending subclause (1), be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00225b5e25e817094edf8c3cee761da9a696\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022cdc094cb34274d0c81aefd3e4187962f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cdc094cb34274d0c81aefd3e4187962f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 24 inserting new subclause (1A) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022eac5d5ed84214b7ea38175627c808658\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u00221dcd8f4808f447ecb89f428b636ddcc2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221dcd8f4808f447ecb89f428b636ddcc2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 24 inserting new subclause (1B) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00226deaa8a7401149c5b6901c06306d0ece\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022cf109876512e497496f4db12c83da500\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cf109876512e497496f4db12c83da500\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment deleting clause 26 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022a4957f3312724c4680f53dcd61f292a0\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u002224d9ac2614724a10a722a3a411008c73\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002224d9ac2614724a10a722a3a411008c73\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 27, amending subclause (1), be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00225c90305c75ce46689a89247732e291c8\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u002298718d37a3224537bd4bc916431047bd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002298718d37a3224537bd4bc916431047bd\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 27(1), deleting paragraph (c), be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00226f3194a8191948628458d26e565bc73e\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u00221141245b15b2408cb26c2b0674d8c4ac\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221141245b15b2408cb26c2b0674d8c4ac\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 28 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022bad4ee385da44e38a77a08953333e82c\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022423c6c97f536487a86d4f389c1853943\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022423c6c97f536487a86d4f389c1853943\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause\u00A029(1) inserting new paragraph (aa) is ruled out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003EThe Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 29(1) inserting new paragraph\u00A0(ab) is ruled out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003EThe question is that Francisco Hernandez\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 29(1), deleting paragraphs\u00A0(a) and (b) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00220de7f41bc3fc4987b16b855750472598\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022a462274715e94aeb9720f8ed50049b2e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a462274715e94aeb9720f8ed50049b2e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 29(1) deleting paragraph (c) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022c22392ff9d6849c1b221e73994f16474\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u00223895f698cd1c455097146df965a1cb34\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223895f698cd1c455097146df965a1cb34\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment replacing clause 30 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002242823efafb66437d9f0f44608ba021ec\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u00221b0bd830aa4e47f3a1360d1930582d57\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221b0bd830aa4e47f3a1360d1930582d57\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment deleting clause 31 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00221b571bda56d14b9db2176d41cec6100f\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u00223da28cb824c540a4ac24cd842332e344\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223da28cb824c540a4ac24cd842332e344\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 32 replacing \u201Ccomplaints\u201D with \u201Csuggestions\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022bf71213129a74827840813b69e53221f\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022b1520002b4a24f18814c7b7d19e1ce7d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b1520002b4a24f18814c7b7d19e1ce7d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Francisco Hernandez\u2019s amendment to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 429 be agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022cd6c00f828464e998179da82cded796a\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u00227520e562625845019b113dd2ce2b62ce\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227520e562625845019b113dd2ce2b62ce\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 32 inserting new subclause (2) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00227aeca5d66e3846f582c6e5e2042cdf7a\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u002226c35448456e45b58e6ba10795cfbdf6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002226c35448456e45b58e6ba10795cfbdf6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment inserting new clause 32A be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022ddad32b10e2248fbb9b0bedac0981a62\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022daf7c98a8e164ce18cd7a63e1a1f9c2c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022daf7c98a8e164ce18cd7a63e1a1f9c2c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause\u00A033(1), replacing \u201Csecondary legislation\u201D with \u201Clegislation\u201D, is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 33 amending subclause (2), be agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022f7908eef6a174c1fb8a1c91ed8c50e5d\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022d3f3ebcc4b2e48909fb07cf4e3c88111\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d3f3ebcc4b2e48909fb07cf4e3c88111\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 33 inserting new subclause (3) be agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00225e2fcba095294fbba5ee98bdcd418a24\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022904a200bd2c24ac9b6e82303bbf77ec1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022904a200bd2c24ac9b6e82303bbf77ec1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment inserting new clause 33A be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002257d085be73ed435fb7e4955eb638a6a7\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022b6647fca6e0f43a3997a917f15102951\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b6647fca6e0f43a3997a917f15102951\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 34 amending paragraph (a) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022c6027b18a77641078be2df9320672c6c\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u002223c7ed36da7f4544a266415f68dc48d2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002223c7ed36da7f4544a266415f68dc48d2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 35(1) inserting new paragraph (e) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002232b3941c3375435b87085ba8386f3e1f\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u00228f63c5f0044548d897707bb77d60c454\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228f63c5f0044548d897707bb77d60c454\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 35 inserting new subclause (3) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022e24c5365738d4bcfa41130bfd7c65c69\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u00221a34042a4fac47a7aeb996e7d8dba79d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221a34042a4fac47a7aeb996e7d8dba79d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Francisco Hernandez\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 35, inserting new subclause (3) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022819548b41e0d4b2a9aec42080f8a95f1\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022ee74ca1cd0eb48388cddead8b22781f1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ee74ca1cd0eb48388cddead8b22781f1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 35, inserting new subclause (4) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00221339f8423bfc45fc929b541f9398ea81\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022a4fea5f2a504469aaf9bdca575a28ba3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a4fea5f2a504469aaf9bdca575a28ba3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment inserting new clause 36A is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment replacing clause 37 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002279bbe1b359244a9d9e8a171332c60ac1\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022fb45a50b4a994f2bab03bede516d2694\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fb45a50b4a994f2bab03bede516d2694\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 37, inserting new subclause (1) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022b5d6fd3737a24288b12d4a742c044e8c\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022f8a5a8d370924345bfc8e73adcbbe1ee\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f8a5a8d370924345bfc8e73adcbbe1ee\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Francisco Hernandez\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 37, inserting new subclause (1) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022ecc47a3f046746199f4546cbb8cc34ae\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022994ffcdb1c214164a44eb24b1727d598\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022994ffcdb1c214164a44eb24b1727d598\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Francisco Hernandez\u2019s amendment to Part 2, set out on Amendment Paper 430 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022460a09967eab4b718e6326679dc2d4ab\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u002219811099bedf4410b385f90f6b44b39c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002219811099bedf4410b385f90f6b44b39c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 38, inserting new subclause (6) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022ea210be006e847a8b3262481dfad931d\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u00228ca8cf8c76f24a23a0b3cea797773e8d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228ca8cf8c76f24a23a0b3cea797773e8d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 39(1), inserting new paragraph (c) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022a8685ade20c94035b09278c544288e49\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022181744d77fd84cefa1c09b69e4b28113\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022181744d77fd84cefa1c09b69e4b28113\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 39(1) inserting new paragraph (d) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022539235bf10134c60b6da30cb93416afe\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u002257d7500655144f24a6d90d87456ee651\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002257d7500655144f24a6d90d87456ee651\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 39 inserting new subclause (4) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00226d97e71ee128456eb458ea921656513b\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=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022c3a0084534104ad49595a3f4033e96c7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c3a0084534104ad49595a3f4033e96c7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tabled amendment inserting new clause 39A be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022e094a688fd9f4215805a350d1d41874b\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=\u002204c809216d354f0a999ad595da7edae0\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 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\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 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u0022df9e05347f4d4732aa53c627d5d44804\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022df9e05347f4d4732aa53c627d5d44804\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the time has come for me to report progress.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003EHouse resumed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00221961408cfd8a4a04b3c79f422b7703a4\u0022\u003EReport of Committee of the Whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00221d8d2726d2e5422e9aa9d3dac5314566\u0022\u003EReport of Committee of the Whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022 data-id=\u00229e0d4415a4e440bf8f84083dc32c89a7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229e0d4415a4e440bf8f84083dc32c89a7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Regulatory Standards Bill and reports that it has made progress on the bill. The committee has also considered the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill and reports that it has made no progress on the bill. The committee has also considered the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill and reports that it has made no progress on the bill. The committee has also considered the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill and reports that it has made no progress on the bill. I move, That the report be adopted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b05298d233114114a3080f0d123f4b7c\u0022\u003EReport adopted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223c51c9ac06a84df8b17d091ad8787ff3\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20251105e37858f0bb51406888d11097de335875000403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b546dbe94a7c480c8a38a626c514de60\u0022\u003EThe House adjourned at 1.13 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n  \u003C/body\u003E\n\u003C/html\u003E"