"\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=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000000\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00223dc63e6119f149a370cc754b2a925097\u0022\u003ETuesday, 10 March 2026\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EThe Speaker\u003C/span\u003E took the Chair at 2 p.m.\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000002\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022130df9d071b83bf30cc32a9885b1fb44\u0022\u003EStart of Sitting Day\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022036ef7fdb59bd0dee47930afc95e105c\u0022\u003EKarakia/Prayers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022 data-id=\u0022bf0263bd3abdcba6df7fe83fd84e5864\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bf0263bd3abdcba6df7fe83fd84e5864\u0022\u003EGREG O\u0027CONNOR (Assistant Speaker) (14:00)\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 the peace of New Zealand. Amen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002256a34a2b5f885030917d260beb69f126\u0022\u003EParliamentary Membership\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022471fee446d463411fabe23de9028bfed\u0022\u003ETe P\u0101ti M\u0101ori Membership\u2014Mariameno Kapa-Kingi\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022 data-id=\u002299724ce3e41986db5fe3eb67334c93bf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002299724ce3e41986db5fe3eb67334c93bf\u0022\u003ESPEAKER (14:00)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, under Standing Order 36(1)(c), I\u2019ve been advised by Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori that their parliamentary membership has changed and that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi is a member of Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori for parliamentary purposes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f058aec21409bc3dfc66d6ac37dc5ba8\u0022\u003EMinisterial Statements\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022791e05b0986c6c2bf01565d37e285eb1\u0022\u003ERoyal Commission of Inquiry into Covid-19 Lessons Learned\u2014Final Report\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u002215f35dc83c7d244f5bd3ee17b4e5a86f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002215f35dc83c7d244f5bd3ee17b4e5a86f\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:01)\u003C/span\u003E: I wish to make a ministerial statement. Today, I advise the House that the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Covid-19 Lessons Learned has presented its final report. This is a significant moment for New Zealand: an independent account of one of the most consequential periods in our modern history.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBefore I turn to the report\u2019s findings, I want to acknowledge all New Zealanders affected by COVID-19 itself. We think of the families of those who lost loved ones to this disease and of those who are still living with the health consequences of COVID-19 today; their experience is part of this story too, and it will not be forgotten. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also want to acknowledge and thank the nurses, the doctors, the aged-care workers, our emergency services, and the many thousands of essential workers who kept this country functioning throughout the pandemic. They showed up every single day, often under extraordinary pressure, and New Zealand is a better place because of them. We\u2019re enormously grateful for everything that they did.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat this report asks is whether the decisions made by decision makers were the right ones and whether New Zealanders were well served by their Government. Those are important questions, and New Zealanders deserve honest answers. New Zealanders should be proud of how this country came together in response to the pandemic. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe commission finds that the initial response to COVID-19, starting in February 2020, was balanced and appropriate\u2014Kiwis looked out for one another, communities came together, and that effort saved lives.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut as the response continued, particularly into 2021 and 2022, the royal commission finds that restrictions extended beyond what public health advice recommended. Decisions meant that Kiwis were separated from family, people could not be at the bedside of dying loved ones, and funerals were held without family present; businesses closed, and children stayed home from school for months; mental health services were overwhelmed; and many New Zealanders are still living with these consequences today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe commission finds that former Ministers chose to keep Auckland in alert level 4 lockdown, against public health advice. Unredacted Cabinet papers obtained by the royal commission also reveal that former Ministers kept an Auckland boundary in place over Christmas and new year against the explicit advice of the Ministry of Health; New Zealanders were not told this at the time. The boundary remained for more than month, preventing some Kiwis from travelling to see friends and family over the holiday period.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe commission also finds that the COVID-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group advised against a two-dose vaccine mandate for 12- to 17-year-olds due to myocarditis risks. Former Ministers were informed of those concerns.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002218641be7f971ff303c77711e468cc2b3\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002235227dcb596b01a4ce59ce9fcd1f45c4\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order\u2014this is most unusual\u2014the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f982e776cedc97ddb3f83a45245782bb\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker, you\u2019ll be aware that the Opposition has been provided a copy of the Minister\u2019s statement prior to him delivering it. The statement that he has just made is factually incorrect and, in fact, is the opposite of what the royal commission have found. This is a ministerial statement, and it must actually relate to the topic and accurately reflect the findings of the royal commission. The royal commission specifically found that Ministers were not presented with the advice that the Minister has just claimed they were presented with.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d14cb7bad6fe3eeea7f20be39c72e09d\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order, the royal commission finds that, on 22 December 2021, the briefing was made available to the Minister for COVID-19 Response, the Hon Chris Hipkins, of those concerns.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b615d21de407fd00d8ced567b896f73a\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think this is very important, because it\u2019s a representation of the royal commission\u2019s findings. I\u2019ll quote directly from paragraph 495 of the royal commission\u2019s report: \u201CWe consider the failure to ensure that this specific advice reached Ministers and the public was significant.\u201D That is the finding of the royal commission. The royal commission went through the very issue that Simeon Brown has just claimed Ministers were informed of and found that Ministers were not informed of that, and that the oversight from the relevant officials in not informing the Ministers was, to quote them, \u201Ca significant oversight\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226a9df5d9a37701018cb3e20544ea0f94\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223482da163147edd8438b27ee755ad502\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, we\u2019re not going to have an argument about this. We\u2019ve got a ministerial statement that is on, and so we\u2019ll follow the procedure under Standing Order 418, and there will be a Q \u0026amp; A available to it. I think the Minister is about to conclude his statement, and then we\u2019ll hear from the Opposition.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226afe92ec8d7361999175449fcdf5ae70\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: The two-dose mandate remained in place regardless of both workplace environments and extracurricular activities such as sport.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe commission also looked at the economic response through the pandemic. Treasury advised from the outset that pandemic spending should be timely, temporary, and targeted. Despite that advice, the $60 billion COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund spanned 821 programmes, half of which had nothing to do with the pandemic. The commission finds that economic buffers were depleted, and the debt that accumulated has left New Zealand with less room to respond to future shocks. It finds that a key part of preparing for a future economic shock is to ensure we have prudent fiscal management.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe commission is clear that New Zealanders are still living with the consequences of these decisions today. The cost of living pressures many households face today and the social divisions that have not fully healed\u2014these too are part of the story. The pandemic was an evolving situation, and that context matters, but uncertainty alone does not explain what happened. Advice was given, and in several significant cases that advice was not followed. Ordinary New Zealanders paid the price through longer lockdowns than were necessary, through spending that drove up the cost of living, and through health and education systems still catching up today. The public placed enormous trust in their Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis Government is carefully reviewing the commission\u2019s findings, and we expect to outline our formal response to the recommendations of phase one and phase two by July.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to acknowledge the families, the healthcare workers, the business owners, and the tens of thousands of Kiwis who gave evidence to the commission. This report exists because of them. To those who grieve what was lost during this period, your experience is part of our national record now. It will not be forgotten.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022 data-id=\u002289b42c129c97a7f6def12ddcee2cdc78\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002289b42c129c97a7f6def12ddcee2cdc78\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (14:07)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019d like to welcome the second royal commission into the COVID-19 response report that is being presented to the House today and thank the royal commission for the work that they have done.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen we turn our minds back to February and March of 2020, sometimes it\u2019s easy to forget the scenes that we were seeing from around the world, particularly looking at countries such as Italy and the UK, where COVID-19 had taken hold. Health systems were being overwhelmed. Economies were also being locked down, but not for the reasons that New Zealand\u2019s ultimately was; they were being locked down because they couldn\u2019t cope with COVID-19 rather than because they were trying to prevent that. We as a Government were determined to do everything that we could to ensure that that did not happen here in New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI would like to thank all of the front-line workers who were involved in New Zealand\u2019s COVID-19 response: our doctors, our nurses, all those in the health system, those who worked at the border, those who managed our quarantine and isolation facilities\u2014all of the essential workers who went to work at a time when there was huge fear and huge uncertainty, putting themselves at risk in order to serve other New Zealanders. To all those whose lives were disrupted, who experienced the pain of a global pandemic, we also acknowledge all of you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to quote directly from the royal commission\u2019s findings\u2014which I note was something the Minister did not do\u2014and perhaps some of the most telling findings of the royal commission. A direct quote sums up what I think is a high-quality report: \u201CEvidence shows New Zealand had among one of the best pandemic responses in the world.\u201D A further quote: \u201CBy many measures, Aotearoa New Zealand\u2019s response to the pandemic was enviable. We recorded lower case numbers and fewer COVID-19 deaths per capita than nearly all comparable countries. Our health system did not collapse. The economy rebounded strongly from the initial shock and unemployment rates remained low throughout the pandemic period.\u201D Those are the findings of the royal commission. Those are direct quotes. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022130fff197a59081f8c3cc2881869632b\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I think it would be a good idea for some people commenting here to recognise that it should be a respectful debate in response to the Minister\u2019s statement on the royal commission of inquiry. Apologies for interrupting\u2014the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229cc591a10e46129e192b21df0609dce4\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS\u003C/span\u003E: A further quote from the royal commission is also worth reflecting on: \u201CMinisters and officials often had to work at breakneck pace to keep up with the rapidly changing environment and the multitude of tasks required to manage the response to the virus. The success of Aotearoa New Zealand\u2019s pandemic response, most obviously measured in terms of New Zealand\u2019s low death rates and excess mortality, is a credit to their work and dedication and to the quality of the decisions they took.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThey further went on to say, \u201CMinisters and officials regularly faced a set of unpleasant high-stakes choices. There was no scenario in which New Zealand or any other country could have confronted the pandemic without some cost.\u201D I believe those findings are a testament to the work that everybody involved in the COVID-19 response undertook.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to respond specifically to some of the incorrect claims, not borne out by the royal commission\u2019s report, that the Minister has just made. The Minister has made a claim that the boundary was in place in Auckland over Christmas and new year. Aucklanders will know that from mid-December, they were able to leave Auckland. That is a matter of record. Aucklanders experienced that. Where there was some disagreement between the Government and health officials was around the requirement for testing before people left Auckland. We were trying to contain the spread of COVID-19 around the rest of the country for as long as we could. The claim that the level 4 lockdown was extended against public health advice in Auckland is simply factually incorrect. The Director-General of Health attended the Cabinet meeting in which that decisions was taken; the advice he presented on the day was different to the written advice that Cabinet had received several days earlier, and the director-general spoke directly to that at the press conference immediately after the decision was taken. The direct quotes from the director-general at the time confirm that the public health advice was to continue the lockdown at level 4 for a further week.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Vaccine Technical Advisory Group advice against two doses for 12- to 17-year-olds never went to Ministers, and the royal commission finds that. The findings on the economic\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022535aabe27dafb569c40fe30ab32ffddb\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019ll see about that!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c8241e17aa008b62ddbe3d5b64e54cd3\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it\u2019s interesting that the people who set up the royal commission appointed the members and set the terms of reference about questioning its findings.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe argument\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220fbffb1337ba84f729f276f5a93ce53d\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The House will just come back to a bit of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022910c5621f493f4910aa104a451e1ddfa\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS\u003C/span\u003E: The arguments around the Government\u2019s economic response, particularly those put forward by the National Government, contradict the position that they took at the same time. Christopher Luxon\u2019s very first announcement as leader of the National Party\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002241116cdbf735b1a2e2b5893dcb57991d\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. The speaker\u2019s time is up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002239570a592526cc878e65dacf44637020\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s largely up to the Chair, but I make the point: please conclude your speech.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bb56458a4c6c1aa7c9fe50c68fc4dca1\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: No, no, point of order. It is not up to the Chair; it is up to the long, decades-old practice in this House that you have to follow the clock and you\u2019ve got a certain time to speak. His time has expired. His argument expired a long time before that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fd3020202ec1a2bff9bdf2372294e06e\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: There have been numerous occasions just in recent times where I could point to people going well over the clock.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022523f3228fe500922366f1d2df8c5c035\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker, I seek an extension of time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002293027355a1aa58b107cac8c59b2ae80a\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f265469f8c620fa88fc87bc65a8972c3\u0022\u003EHon Member: \u003C/span\u003EYes!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b5bb868dc856800fdd3e7990d4a3ec66\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: OK, thank you. That\u2019s it. I call Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ab46fa9f9cf314d7cda10995cb890ade\u0022\u003ERicardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229ff98110880ab4c0489a021e080c64fe\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Hiding information!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f30a6ac936a58ac655c0d1d88a64f0e7\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll tell you what: if that continues, the member who\u2019s calling out will have to spend the afternoon outside the House. Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u0022aee9a79be6b2bc43ead1df7deb7d878e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022aee9a79be6b2bc43ead1df7deb7d878e\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (14:14)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you so much, Mr Speaker. The Green Party acknowledges the phase two report on the lessons learnt from the response to COVID-19. We also want to draw upon one of the quotes that was already acknowledged in the previous contribution that \u201CEvidence shows [we] had one of the best pandemic responses in the world\u201D and that decisions had to be made under tight time pressures, balancing public health responses and the need to protect our health system with real limitations and infringements on people\u2019s rights. I also want to acknowledge that there are many people who remain impacted by COVID, whether it\u2019s their health or economically. I want to acknowledge many of the front lines where there were health workers or, actually, iwi, hap\u016B, and wh\u0101nau M\u0101ori who were actually protecting and taking lessons from previous pandemics that have happened in the world.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also want to acknowledge that COVID has not gone anywhere. Hospitalisations are still increasing at the moment, as we speak, and we\u2019re yet to see a comprehensive plan to address this. This is a disabling illness that accumulates damage the more times you have it. I also want to acknowledge that the distributional impacts economically are still being felt. During this period, we saw wealth inequality rise; we also saw child material hardship rise as a result. This is something that the Greens constantly fought to address by increasing welfare support to those who needed it the most and putting an excess profits tax on companies who were making record profits while everybody else was made to struggle due to a pandemic completely outside of our control. To that end, I think it is also time that we work in a cross-party way to address the recommendations in this report. We also call on the Government to bring back fully free rapid antigen tests for people and prioritise increasing air quality and ventilation standards in public buildings and in schools.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe broadly agree with the recommendations, including limiting exemptions to regulatory impact statements, developing standing primary legislation for pandemics with clear powers and safeguards and greater transparency over the data and evidence that decision makers use to justify their actions, especially in regard to restrictions on human rights. While we are not happy about the fact that the Government is choosing to exploit monetary policy decisions from this inquiry, we acknowledge that an overreliance on unconventional monetary policy saw one of the largest transfers of wealth that we have ever seen, along with the inflationary environment impacting low-income New Zealanders the most. Despite the inquiry not being able to undertake fulsome analysis, we are glad to see recommendations relating to greater understanding of the use of unconventional monetary policy. Another recommendation is to improve epidemiological modelling and strengthen data and modelling of public health measures, including their assessment against key social outcomes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI now have some questions for the Minister. I\u2019d like to ask the Minister if he is aware of any impact that cutting 1,850 jobs in the data and digital directorate of Health New Zealand has on their ability to meet the spirit of these recommendations, including tracking data, contact tracing, and modelling for current and future pandemics. That is my first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u0022909cd2f95a79edc4a31eb6d6c88c4a9b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022909cd2f95a79edc4a31eb6d6c88c4a9b\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:17)\u003C/span\u003E: I appreciate the member\u2019s comments, and particularly his reflections on the recommendations around the monetary policy advice in the report. In relation to Health New Zealand, Health New Zealand continues to stand up a large number of people who are responding to COVID. We have invested significantly as a Government in testing, waste-water testing, vaccinations, and treatments. That is about continuing to ensure that our health system is able to respond to COVID as it now continues to be a disease that is in the community. Part of that is making sure that that data is there and available to be used in monitoring the disease.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u00225b34ac64da709a033e17f3a4a5552d31\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225b34ac64da709a033e17f3a4a5552d31\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (14:17)\u003C/span\u003E: The line of questioning was around the 1,850 jobs in the data and digital directorate of Health New Zealand and whether this has an impact on their ability to meet the spirit of the recommendations. I\u2019ll move on to my second question: will he reverse the job cuts to the data and digital directorate of Health New Zealand to implement the recommendations around improving modelling and data on the social and health impacts of public health measures?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u002284330d14c729b7886dd04e48b66c8a88\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002284330d14c729b7886dd04e48b66c8a88\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:18)\u003C/span\u003E: The report provides a range of recommendations that, as a Government, we will be considering and providing a full response to in July. In terms of Health New Zealand, the last Government merged 20 district health boards together during the pandemic to create Health New Zealand. As part of that, there has been the process of bringing those organisations together to find efficiencies in the back office, with a focus on making sure that we can invest more in front-line workers\u2014doctors, nurses\u2014so we can deliver more for the care of patients, which is exactly what we\u2019re doing as a Government. As per the recommendations, we\u2019ll be considering in full phase one and phase two recommendations and providing a full response in July.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u00228f26bf96d7ca4d562a3c27c1be526e4b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228f26bf96d7ca4d562a3c27c1be526e4b\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (14:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Would he be able to give further clarity on the process that he will undertake in determining the Government\u2019s response to the recommendations\u2014specifically, looking at what agencies will provide advice and what Ministers or Cabinet committees will be involved?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u00227f25fbde5fa5b4d21f1682e14ac0395f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227f25fbde5fa5b4d21f1682e14ac0395f\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:19)\u003C/span\u003E: The Prime Minister has asked me as the Minister of Health to coordinate the Government\u2019s response to both the phase one and phase two reports of the royal commission. I gave an oral update to Cabinet yesterday in relation to the report and the process that will follow. Ultimately, it will be a number of Ministers and a number of departments who will be fully engaged. The report\u2019s recommendations include health, education, and social development. Also, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Treasury, and a number of other ministries will be involved and will require a whole-of-Government response to this report.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u00222e6da47fc039a639cb839abcd531a403\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222e6da47fc039a639cb839abcd531a403\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (14:20)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My following question is: is he is committed to working in a cross-party manner to achieve consensus on how the recommendations will be implemented, and, if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u0022c4a02aeb6e8be56124184468a5f9f731\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c4a02aeb6e8be56124184468a5f9f731\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:20)\u003C/span\u003E: The first point I would make is we will be, as a Government, working through the recommendations. There will be some areas which, no doubt, will require consideration across the Parliament. That is something we will be considering as part of our response in July.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u00227788af6b8de1cc2e914bd90ef1fe9a3e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227788af6b8de1cc2e914bd90ef1fe9a3e\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (14:20)\u003C/span\u003E: Will he, during the process, ensure that he actually reaches out to all political parties so that their response to these recommendations can outlive this Government?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u0022424a5b475e1e51906a36b75687140fbc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022424a5b475e1e51906a36b75687140fbc\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:20)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, ultimately, this will be a Government response to the report. We will be taking an all-of-Government approach. That will be the starting point. And then, ultimately, Cabinet will be taking a view on that. There will be, no doubt, areas where there will be consideration for that, and we will be considering that as we go through the report, prior to making a report back in mid-July.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f6e1cfbc429cd0d24320d3e839a63cb5\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Before I call the Hon David Seymour, can I just refer the House to Speaker\u2019s ruling 54/1 in relation to the point of order exchange earlier.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022 data-id=\u002298870af77aacfc0f35dd67b24bb43745\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002298870af77aacfc0f35dd67b24bb43745\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader\u2014ACT) (14:21)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. This commission of inquiry, second report, is important to so many New Zealanders: to those who suffered from COVID but, equally, those who suffered from the then Labour Government\u2019s response to COVID. It was those women who didn\u2019t know they had breast cancer because screening was stopped. It was those children who missed out on learning, that will affect them for their lifetime, because education was put down the society\u2019s totem pole of priorities as COVID became everything. It\u2019s those butchers who were crying on the footpath as they threw out meat, yet again, because their stores were shut while their competitors in the back of supermarkets could continue. It is those young people who observed that the Government added a third to house prices and doubled Government debt with miscoordinated and irresponsible fiscal and monetary policy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAt the height of their arrogance, the Labour Party commissioned a royal commission of inquiry into its own performance and set the terms of reference to exclude those matters from consideration. Just like the response itself, they did not consider the impacts of the response on the rest of society; only that singular goal that increasingly consumed and, ultimately, devastated their Government. It is because of this coalition Government, and I might say the ACT Party\u2014that has campaigned and won a revised terms of reference, with revised commissioners\u2014that all those New Zealanders who suffered will get some truth and some understanding of what happened. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFor all those future New Zealanders, who, when something like this happens again\u2014and pandemics have always been with us, so it will\u2014they will have a message in a bottle saying, \u201CYou know what? If you\u2019re going to respond to a pandemic, try to balance all the other aspects of New Zealanders\u2019 welfare against the one thing that you are pursuing.\u201D That is the message that comes out. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI have to say\u2014for those who say, \u201COh, it was difficult\u201D and \u201COn balance, we did well.\u201D\u2014anyone can quarantine an island, and, if you\u2019re prepared to double the Government\u2019s debt, you can even keep the economy going for a while. We know that. But, the question is: do you have the strategy to exit the lockdowns? The answer, in this report, is: they didn\u2019t. Are you prepared to adopt the technology, such as rapid antigen tests, that will allow people to get on with their lives faster? And the answer is: they didn\u2019t. Can you follow the official advice and use vaccine mandates in a way that does not divide this society? And the answer is that they didn\u2019t. And I know that there will be all sorts of attempts at avoidance and blame-shifting\u2014we even saw it from Christopher \u201CSensitive\u201D Hipkins with his point of order exchange a moment ago. But\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220c3d6c1773314c99827bf97580e5e64f\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No\u2014no. Just\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cbb57581772bd1ff3dde574f2456b3bc\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: But the truth is\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f1f3a009f9333c836f38ee2001abfa7a\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Just withdraw that comment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220f161c7ccc2bcc8a5098b512961abb20\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw that comment. But the truth is that there are more. This is the guy, when he was Minister of Police, crime went up. When he was Minister of Education, school attendance went down.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d52c571cdb246f6abf50a39de1a66f7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d5bf207650125f670c0a160d87a53aae\u0022\u003EGlen Bennett\u003C/span\u003E: How does this relate to the statement?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226b0c46f451de451bb68cf068a662ebbf\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: When he was Prime Minister, Government debt went through the roof.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224b3b45aebc0cf0ff14b5b4e65cf1a0d1\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, come back to the point\u2014to the ministerial statement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f50b01ca3bd6ec2c80221d5ac44a6563\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: I will, Mr Speaker. If this guy opened a funeral parlour, nobody would die. He can screw up anything\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bab50893a301c99786fd2cb3f352e0eb\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No\u2014sorry, that\u2019s enough. I just remind the House these are responses to the ministerial statement and should not go broader than that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022 data-id=\u0022c9fdcf68308508b441c41ee7f8b2515c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c9fdcf68308508b441c41ee7f8b2515c\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First) (14:25)\u003C/span\u003E: Under Standing Order 365(1)(a) and (b), we won\u2019t be saying at the very beginning that we always believed this inquiry would be deficient. Quotes we said back then: \u201CWe disagree with allowing the current inquiry to simply continue as \u2018phase one\u2019 in its current form, the current chair remaining in place, and the further extension of [the] report-back period.\u201D Further, we said: \u201CWe believe that \u2018phase one\u2019 of the Royal Commission is simply a continuation of the current inquiry, which is far too narrow in [its] scope and remains compromised by the current Chair\u2019s direct involvement [and] the previous Government\u2019s administration and direct planning of the COVID pandemic response.\u201D And further: \u201CNew Zealand First campaigned on the fact that the current Royal Commission was nothing more than a Labour Party political tool, being used to craft a message through its lack of scope and lack of suitability of the commissioners. We believe the public perception of bias of the current chair represents a reputational risk for \u2018phase one\u2019 of the inquiry.\u201D Enough quotes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EToday, there is a serious lack of confidence across New Zealand in our health system and its processes as a result. Here are the questions we wish to ask. This is basic, to start: does the inquiry show that Ministers imposed a vaccine mandate for 12- to 17-year-olds and kept it in place, despite clear warnings from experts that a two-dose vaccine mandate presented risk for young people? That\u2019s the first question. Second: does he agree with the finding of the inquiry that the failure to provide information about the risk of two doses of the Pfizer vaccine to 12- to 17-year-olds was \u201Csignificant\u201D? Third: does the inquiry show that Minister Verrall was aware of the advisory group\u2019s concerns about requiring two vaccinations for young people? She was aware that they were concerned about that at the time. Four: did the inquiry show that Ministers were aware that the benefits of the 2021 lockdown in Auckland did not outweigh the costs, as compared to previous lockdowns? Five: did the inquiry show that Ministers were not fully assessing the economic and social effects of keeping Auckland in lockdown in 2021? Six: does the inquiry identify shortcomings in the provision of rapid testing of New Zealanders, particularly in comparison to Singapore, which first started using the tests in 2020? Seven: does the inquiry show that Ministers made decisions regarding vaccine mandates without consideration or even any monitoring of the medium-term effects on the health and education workforces?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, we\u2019ve got countless other questions, but those are the ones we want to start with today, and to say, at the end of the day, what we\u2019re concerned about here is the alacrity with which the Leader of the Opposition got up and tried to excuse himself in the face\u2014as perverted and biased as it might be\u2014of a shocking report.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u002214977dc1e7aa1d6c47c5b46465d9de21\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002214977dc1e7aa1d6c47c5b46465d9de21\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:28)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I thank the member for his questions. The first issue was in relation to the risk of myocarditis for 12- to 17-year-olds, and that is an issue that was traversed significantly in the report. The report found two things\u2014firstly, that it was a significant failure on the Ministry of Health not to clearly provide clear advice to Ministers on that particular point. However, also in paragraph 413 of the report, it says: \u201COn 22 December 2021 the Ministry of Health provided a briefing paper to Hon. Chris Hipkins, Minister for COVID-19 Response, titled \u2018Policy decisions required for further amendments to the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order (No 7) 2021.\u2019 The paper was considered by Hon. Dr Ayesha Verrall, Associate Minister of Health, on 7 January 2022.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002294f592810620a86b42a2b213231c4d7d\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Hiding the information!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022efc2893471477bebc0d1becec8f5fdb2\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Just hold on. I\u2019m trying to listen to make sure that there\u2019s a fair go all round and that the information being given by the Minister can be clearly heard. Anybody who thinks that they\u2019re helping him by yelling out like that is not doing so.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002231cd686882ad580c757c4e49f557771b\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: Paragraph 414 says, \u201CParagraph 23 of this paper stated that: \u2018In November 2021, CV TAG has raised concerns about vaccine mandates requiring younger age groups (e.g. those under 18 years) to be fully vaccinated. Consideration should be given to permitting younger people who have had one dose to be permitted to work or undertake other activities covered by the mandate.\u2019\u00A0\u201D The reality is that that advice was provided to the Ministers, and the mandates that it related to continued to stay in effect for some time after that. Concerns were clearly made, and the reality is that the questions around why those decisions were made are questions that would need to be put to the former Ministers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn relation to the other questions, I think the report outlines, certainly, around some of the Auckland lockdown decisions, advice from the Ministry of Health not being followed and alternative positions being taken to Cabinet; certainly, delays in getting access to rapid testing in New Zealand didn\u2019t support a more rapid and nimble response; and, of course, there are certainly some recommendations which will be considered, around how the issue of mandates and the impact those have on people versus the health benefits\u2014that is certainly an issue that is going to need to be further considered. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022 data-id=\u002203ced9079909adafd01ab0fb701bdc5f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002203ced9079909adafd01ab0fb701bdc5f\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First) (14:31)\u003C/span\u003E: Could I ask the Minister: how many tens of thousands of 12- to 17-year-olds could have been adversely affected as a result of the Government of that time ignoring the advice of people who knew what they were talking about?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u0022b31bd9575c1f8a393ae4b6cb162529a4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b31bd9575c1f8a393ae4b6cb162529a4\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:31)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the reality is that there would be tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of young people in that age group, and the reality was\u2014as is outlined in paragraphs 413 and 414 of the report\u2014that a briefing was provided to the Hon Chris Hipkins. It was then considered by the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall on 7 January 2022, and that report said that the COVID-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group (CV TAG), in November, had raised concerns about vaccine mandates requiring younger age groups to be fully vaccinated: \u201CConsideration should be given to permitting younger people who have had one dose to be permitted to work or undertake other activities covered by the mandate.\u201D The reality is that those mandates did stay in place for some time following that paper being considered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022 data-id=\u00220137427435e695e727cd3b5b9ff15e62\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220137427435e695e727cd3b5b9ff15e62\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First) (14:32)\u003C/span\u003E: Does the report mention any officials who were sacked for failing to advise the Government Ministers of the time, or is it a case where they did advise the Government Ministers of the time and the Ministers who are claiming today to be innocent are denying all knowledge? Is there anybody in the report who was fired for failing to advise Ministers?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224e3832ed33bdd71cf326619672c7dd86\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: In so much as the Minister is able to answer somewhat factually, then he could make a comment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u002219692b3ca2f7b98fa10e76e6d04c1fe8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002219692b3ca2f7b98fa10e76e6d04c1fe8\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:33)\u003C/span\u003E: The report makes the finding that there was a significant failure on behalf of the Ministry of Health in not being clearer in terms of the advice that it provided on that point to Ministers. The answer to the member\u2019s question relating to the issue of the officials, and who provided what, is not answered in the report.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220ba0658632984472c4706e1b7f1a4a6e\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The Rt Hon Winston Peters has one minute and 21 seconds of his time, if he wishes to\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022 data-id=\u0022361bbd4e6762a5615972c07d3dbbb7ff\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022361bbd4e6762a5615972c07d3dbbb7ff\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First) (14:33)\u003C/span\u003E: No\u2014next week.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221d9ed4dc8666896b91f41c1d3483465b\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EDebbie Ngarewa-Packer rises to take a call\u003C/span\u003E] No, this is a\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002209dca6f599455b0de4f345571fa340dd\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: On the basis that it takes some people to absorb the information that we\u2019re giving them, I\u2019ll come back next week with it, or the week after.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ab3ce3442a15b39c18cf12269c672ce8\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, that\u2019s very generous of you. The M\u0101ori Party would need to seek leave for\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b87ccd5cdda48b9f846b6c653156759e\u0022\u003EDebbie Ngarewa-Packer\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, kia ora. E te P\u012Bka, I\u2019d like to seek leave to take a call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022536f8d947d7a229c5809b678d9ef81b5\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022 data-id=\u0022621ea7ad1a155d59cbaef25042e92b21\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022621ea7ad1a155d59cbaef25042e92b21\u0022\u003EDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader\u2014Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori) (14:34)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. First of all, we all want to acknowledge the enormous sacrifice made by many across Aotearoa during the COVID-19 pandemic. At home and across the motu, we saw marae and iwi mobilise and really feed and care for their whole community. This report is bereft of that information. In fact, it\u2019s really disappointing because it\u2019s framed the whole response, in our view, as everything being successful based on what the State did, and let me tell you how we saw it from our perspective: the State was missing in action.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe had the largest M\u0101ori caucus, and yet we still had to endure warrantless searches on marae. We had to endure tikanga that was harsh and that didn\u2019t have any input from iwi across the motu. We had to have tangihanga challenges and we also saw mandates, and they were cruel and harsh on our people. We saw that the supply of resources didn\u2019t arrive. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the things that I think that was really disappointing was that the whole role of iwi and the backbone of the COVID response was actually just seen as something extra, versus what it should have been seen as and what we also see in the climate crisis\u2014they are a critical part of recovery. They are a critical part of standing up for the whole community. There were checkpoints, there were community protection measures, there was delivered kai, there were medicines, there was testing, there were protected kaum\u0101tua, and vulnerable, vulnerable communities, which is why we didn\u2019t have what happened in Italy. I think that what the coordinated campaign\u2019s done off the back of their own steam is really important, and, sadly, missed in some of this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo we reject the framing that everything needed to be attributed, and thanked, to the Government at the time. What\u2019s even more disturbing is that there haven\u2019t been lessons learnt from this that we would expect to have seen come through. I think some of the things we know is that M\u0101ori and Pacific communities were disproportionately affected, and that isn\u2019t something that\u2019s because of their culture, it\u2019s because of deprivation, and that needed to be acknowledged in this as well as Te Tiriti.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI have some questions that we would like to put to the Minister. The first one is: why does the report acknowledge the success of iwi-led response during the pandemic but fails to recommend permanent resources for iwi and M\u0101ori providers to lead future public health responses? As Minister Seymour said, there will be other pandemics.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u00224580bfa885ff7f6a89008a77ed4f85bd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224580bfa885ff7f6a89008a77ed4f85bd\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:36)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the report was an independent royal commission report. I can\u2019t speak to why or why not a recommendation may or may not have been added to the report. As a Government, we will respond to the report\u2019s recommendations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022 data-id=\u0022992cd6e3567798bafac67e19bbd0e476\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022992cd6e3567798bafac67e19bbd0e476\u0022\u003EDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader\u2014Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori) (14:36)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. My next question is: how does the Minister reconcile the report\u2019s findings with its ongoing removal of Te Tiriti obligations from the health system?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u0022aeb1deb1067ed688b9e749012ec08b32\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022aeb1deb1067ed688b9e749012ec08b32\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:36)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I\u2019d say those are two separate things.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022 data-id=\u00227657bd9ae98cf42c0eb620ff99837aa5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227657bd9ae98cf42c0eb620ff99837aa5\u0022\u003EDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader\u2014Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori) (14:36)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m sorry, I didn\u2019t hear that\u2014apologies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u00228f4e68b4343e16ab516380a4490b628f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228f4e68b4343e16ab516380a4490b628f\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:36)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019d say that my response to that is those are two separate matters.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022 data-id=\u00227a2eefb2a6c4a4a6de3b8ea7cacf3213\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227a2eefb2a6c4a4a6de3b8ea7cacf3213\u0022\u003EDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader\u2014Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori) (14:37)\u003C/span\u003E: The next question is: does the Minister accept that the delayed access to M\u0101ori-specific health data undermined iwi\u2019s ability to protect their communities?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u0022948af973a423f49d93db1dfd9a7d40fb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022948af973a423f49d93db1dfd9a7d40fb\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I think there was certainly a need to ensure that during the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, all communities were engaged in the response, and to make sure that the response was as effective as possible.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022 data-id=\u002272322a2c43da14e8d18b33a5795bdd1d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002272322a2c43da14e8d18b33a5795bdd1d\u0022\u003EDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader\u2014Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori) (14:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister believe that a M\u0101ori-led pandemic response framework is critical and something that should be adopted as a consequence of this report?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u00224346ed5c0306363067144a2176cee329\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224346ed5c0306363067144a2176cee329\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:37)\u003C/span\u003E: We will be responding to the phase one and phase two reports. Cabinet will be considering that and reporting back in July.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022 data-id=\u002254804649b1adb759aec13516f22ce633\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002254804649b1adb759aec13516f22ce633\u0022\u003EDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader\u2014Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori) (14:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister believe that a Treaty-based emergency governance that includes iwi decision, given the way that we saw iwi stand up and actually contribute to the success of the COVID response that this nation had, is important to be addressed?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u00226d0dce8aab06dbc4851b2515b3a30cdc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226d0dce8aab06dbc4851b2515b3a30cdc\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:37)\u003C/span\u003E: We are focused on responding to the royal commission\u2019s reports. We\u2019ll be providing a full response in July.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022 data-id=\u0022b1fa03c01d340736975d3642a48df40f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b1fa03c01d340736975d3642a48df40f\u0022\u003EDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader\u2014Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori) (14:38)\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister believe that there are future safety issues for communities with inequities in future pandemics affecting Aotearoa?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u0022502106e060932c61686e697974f49a04\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022502106e060932c61686e697974f49a04\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:38)\u003C/span\u003E: I think, as the report highlights, the best thing that New Zealand can do to be prepared for future shocks, whether those are economic shocks, whether those are natural disasters, or whether those are pandemics, is having a prudent fiscal management of our economy and focusing on growing our economy so that we\u2019re able to respond to shocks. That is why this Government is focused on making sure we have fiscal strategy, which is about reducing the burden of debt, which is about ensuring we are focused on economic growth and the resilience of our economy in the face of shocks.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWe are a small country. We are far from international markets. Our isolation can be something which can be an advantage, but ultimately, at the same time, for all New Zealanders, the best thing we can be focused on in preparation is ensuring we\u2019re running the economy well, keeping debt down, and ensuring we\u2019re focused on fixing the basics and building the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223682b0fd570b8795ea373b74636f0165\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That concludes this debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002222bfafbffde275b3a8686d6299c11aba\u0022\u003EPresentation\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022334d43bd3f379f9ea25fa64e7c6db55c\u0022\u003EPetitions\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022564862c4cfffc005aea1f41cb1f01e49\u0022\u003ESPEAKER (14:39): \u003C/span\u003ETwo petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002248b02340d5b10adc58020a8676120b93\u0022\u003ECLERK (14:39): \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003EPetition of Katja Feldtman requesting that the House increase penalties for serious or repeated privacy breaches, strengthen the Privacy Commissioner\u2019s enforcement powers and improve accountability where organisations fail to protect personal or health information\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003Epetition of Wendy Joy Baker requesting that the House urge councils to reduce rates and spending.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228aeeb4e8a3502c2b1cf98bf8983875f1\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00223709a4d38b464620d4a350a0ea1b46cc\u0022\u003EPapers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226961242a049970f2ab79eb60c13c559a\u0022\u003ESPEAKER (14:39): \u003C/span\u003EMinisters have delivered two papers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e031a66fb8f67c0d623832cdd8baacad\u0022\u003ECLERK (14:39): \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003EGovernment response to the report of the Health Committee on the inquiry into the aged care sector\u2019s current and future capacity to provide support services for people experiencing neurological cognitive disorders\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Royal Commission COVID-19 Lessons Learned\u003C/span\u003E, documents related to phase one and phase two of the inquiry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221cb89cb0bc0a4a33c60e1a6b2da96924\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Those papers are published under the authority of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00229c63827a5834813a25176dc47f3e2229\u0022\u003ESelect Committee Reports\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022170f185253eb8f6acb45d860d3ce3d76\u0022\u003ESPEAKER (14:40): \u003C/span\u003EEighteen select committee papers have been delivered for presentation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022720a9504bc48a0c56ec886f8e1d61103\u0022\u003ECLERK (14:40): \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003EReports of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003E2024/25 annual reviews of AgResearch Ltd, Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd, the New Zealand Forest Research Institute Ltd, and New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Ltd\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003E2024/25 annual reviews of the Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd, the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Ltd, and the National Institute of Water and Atmosphere Ltd\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003E2024/25 annual reviews of the Accreditation Council, the Real Estate Agents Authority, and Research and Education Advanced Network New Zealand Ltd\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003E2024/25 annual reviews of the Broadcasting Standards Authority, New Zealand Tourism Board, and the Retirement Commissioner\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003E2024/25 annual reviews of the External Reporting Board, Kordia Group Ltd, and New Zealand Growth Capital Partners Ltd\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003EMeteorological Services (Acquisition and Policies) Legislation Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003Ereports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003E2024/25 annual review of the Ministry for Regulation\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003E2024/25 annual review of the Treasury\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003EBudget Policy Statement 2026 and Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update 2025\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003ETaxation (Annual Rates for 2025\u201326, Compliance Simplification, and Remedial Measures) Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003Ereport of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the 2024/25 annual review of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003Ereport of the Governance and Administration Committee on the report of the Controller and Auditor-General, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInsights into local government: 2023\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003Ereport of the Justice Committee on the 2024/25 annual review of the Ministry of Justice\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003Ereport of the M\u0101ori Affairs Committee on the Ng\u0101ti R\u0101hiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003Ereport of the Regulations Review Committee on the Parliamentary Counsel Office, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EAnnual Report on Legislative Practices 2024-2025\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003Ereports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003E2024/25 annual review of the Children and Young People\u2019s Commission\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003E2024/25 annual review of the Independent Children\u2019s Monitor\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003Ereport of the Controller and Auditor-General, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EOranga Tamariki: Inquiry into procurement and contract management\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bc35ca2ec3fb0f0bba1649543b4bae67\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The bills are set down for second reading. The Budget Policy Statement, reports of the Controller and Auditor-General, and the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EAnnual Report on Legislative Practices\u003C/span\u003E are set down for consideration.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b901638d634c2583afcc1d66dc76fb93\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ed7523298ead43335b8dfcc0c7836aab\u0022\u003EEmployment Leave Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002207eae5e2b17f226fb3d5a2e66292b8ee\u0022\u003EIntroduction\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022 data-id=\u0022fece4b619ce59c35e548d1601d339e00\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fece4b619ce59c35e548d1601d339e00\u0022\u003ESPEAKER (14:42)\u003C/span\u003E: The Clerk\u2019s been informed of the introduction of a bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d063e68a3ba12e72a14d78c3848c4b3b\u0022\u003ECLERK (14:42): \u003C/span\u003EEmployment Leave Bill, introduction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225f64189d8169e9dabb74d844d6c656c8\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The bill is set down for first reading.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00226087c8f858baaa19e7835d055da55d43\u0022\u003EOral Questions to Ministers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022789ac38de2d6f8cf4b4de7a77fd734d2\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002258b9b8bc96879908fc545e1da50a2c4f\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 1\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022 data-id=\u00223f04a00d3e4cda6074b5e3414db7a2d3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223f04a00d3e4cda6074b5e3414db7a2d3\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (14:42)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u003C/span\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=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022 data-id=\u00222706a022698c40fc9e4e1fcaf971c490\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222706a022698c40fc9e4e1fcaf971c490\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:42)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222b59109d5817cf1a101538603ac40f6a\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by his claim that giving landlords a $2.9 billion tax cut would lower rents; if so, why have rents gone up almost 10 percent in the past year?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224569b5e63e7483ced8a05c84968e7dcf\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I\u2019m very proud of the fact that we actually have seen rents stabilise in this country after having gone up $180 a week under his Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002271db9d683cbf44379e497fd65d060960\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Why does he believe that rents going up 10 percent in a year is a sign that they\u2019ve stabilised?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022812e47bd5c460e1523051998dd7df548\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019d just say to that member: asking me about housing policy, which was an abject failure of his Government, is a waste of time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022768646801e6106403392dbb9d724f65c\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Those were both actually very straightforward questions, about rents going up 10 percent. The Prime Minister\u2019s chosen to not address those questions at all. I think that last question in particular\u2014why does he believe that a 10 percent increase in rents is a sign that rents have stabilised?\u2014is not an unreasonable question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022028c63988a39f9a155d8e872309f7de8\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I don\u2019t think there\u2019s any suggestion it was an unreasonable question. There was a response from the Prime Minister that, clearly, he judged to be in the public interest, and that\u2019s where the public will probably judge it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002232338d3f131d4f35c4e2f4e96aa71743\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Why should everyday New Zealanders believe that the economy\u2019s improving when 70 percent\u2014seven out of 10\u2014of working people received pay rises last year that were less than the rate of inflation, meaning that their pay in real terms is going backwards?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e195f9961a2ebcf10d8e2d9df146168d\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, look, we do have an economic recovery under way. That\u2019s evidenced by the GDP growth being 1.1 percent in the last quarter. It\u2019s evidenced with inflation being low at 3.1 percent. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand and the Treasury expect that interest rates will remain low, as will inflation. We\u2019ve got consumer confidence the highest it\u2019s been since 2021. We\u2019ve got business confidence the highest since 2014. We\u2019ve got farmer confidence the highest since 2016. Manufacturing growth, record exports, great growth in tourism, trade surplus for the first time in five years, building consents up 20 percent, construction jobs up 43 percent in the last year, job ads up 10 percent in the last year. There\u2019s still a lot more for us to do, and life is hard, but it underscores some of the conversation we\u2019ve had here in this House today, which is if you don\u2019t run an economy well, if you don\u2019t manage it prudently and responsibly, you end up taxing more, borrowing more, spending more\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002269a23cd4da433031d0027ad1f8ce3346\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Good\u2014OK.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228432a425b2eb2157d14facb60344e9a8\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014and causing huge pain and suffering for New Zealanders and, most importantly, damaging the economy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f866eeebff8d4229fff51832e5c67176\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: If the building and construction industry has turned around, why was there $5\u00A0billion less activity in construction last year compared to 2023, and 751 construction firms going into liquidation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002267ce785b0480643f4396c42a4979489b\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, as I\u2019ve explained to the member before, construction is very contingent upon something called interest rates, because you actually need to borrow money to get developments done and built. How you end up with high interest rates is because of wasteful Government spending leading to high inflation, which leads to high interest rates. That really hurts a construction industry, and building and construction. What I\u2019m saying to the member is it\u2019s good to see that we\u2019ve got building consents up 20\u00A0percent in the last six months, we\u2019ve got construction jobs up 43\u00A0percent in the last year. That\u2019s good progress; there\u2019s more for us to do. We want more New Zealanders feeling the recovery. But if the member feels very strongly about it, why doesn\u2019t he support our fast track?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221aa06461016f0757fc726ad7e0827c8c\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Does he think that the 2,000 New Zealanders a week who have been giving up and leaving the country under his leadership feel that the economy\u2019s turned around?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022550615abe5b11a88cfd6259f5554b6b7\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I\u2019m pleased to report that, actually, New Zealanders returning back to New Zealand was up 12\u00A0percent on the previous year. For the last four months, I\u2019m very pleased to say that New Zealanders leaving is less than in any month in the period that he was Prime Minister. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002245fa6e2f76c8ce594886b44363363950\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s enough.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225c8de7ef7e8411263b6c5f3f28d7df0e\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Does he agree with his finance Minister that struggling New Zealanders just need to be less impatient, or will he admit that his Government\u2019s been consistently making life harder for New Zealanders?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f3f710626bdf29689f139374c10003a0\u0022\u003EHon David Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Labour leader frequently raises points of order to try and debate matters of fact. He\u2019s just misrepresented the Minister of Finance, and he should withdraw and apologise for it, as you asked me to earlier.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002239c9c72560d558793a6110306e048159\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I missed that there was a\u2014it was the description of the member that I took objection to before, on behalf of the House. Was there a descriptor for the Minister of Finance in that question?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222311be2e99fc3ec7b46fc80f36c34a23\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker. First of all, a member can\u2019t take objection on behalf of another member.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226f9c380ab412cdd436b2f1a7e88f5c26\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I\u2019m aware of that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223488a8fe04bd08d7c55f74e1c6529b1e\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: But second of all, the statements that I make in my question or, if you like, the assertion in my question is no different to any other assertion. If the Government wants to reject it, they can reject it in the answers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002237c2ab55a47261a77d5ed6544de2ccd4\u0022\u003EHon Nicola Willis\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition has formed a repeated habit\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227fc7f84abac0b2136fe7c918ccb64863\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, hang on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223fbc4c974c9c084fe63e601fe16fc89a\u0022\u003EHon Nicola Willis\u003C/span\u003E: No\u2014a repeated habit of misrepresenting my statements in this House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a73d27ec3bdb9fa08aa33ca35064b87d\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, sorry. A point of order has to be specific. It can\u2019t be a general speech about how the member feels.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002285a220455bb9d8f61ec5157aa74b085e\u0022\u003EHon Nicola Willis\u003C/span\u003E: The way he represented my statement in his supplementary question was inaccurate, and he should withdraw.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002214a0799b58eb7472a5e1f4d43eec2350\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member might\u2014why don\u2019t you ask the question again and I\u2019ll decide whether you should withdraw?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229997401af263464e1a118c50af7f67f2\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Does he agree with his finance Minister that struggling New Zealanders just need to be less impatient, or will he admit that his Government\u2019s\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d92311cc23b4b8f416ae40ec456d2235\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, I don\u2019t think you can say that. Sorry, unless you can point to a quote that actually says that, you can\u2019t\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221cacfae91ad490e26accd152fbe898b2\u0022\u003EHon Ginny Andersen\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s what she said.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f789629e11219478507a943c13cbe9b0\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Beg your pardon? Ms Andersen, are you now sitting in the Chair? Good, because you\u2019ll be sitting in a chair outside the House if you keep challenging like that. You can\u2019t assert something or come to some conclusion about what something else might have meant. It has to be fact.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002234909b39a80165f8ac1ffb5728652593\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Further point of order, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226e97b47d66793de2d8888af471246ba0\u0022\u003EHon Nicola Willis\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order. I can clear this up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220235b3ce2776deb1f816d82fc5721dc7\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Just a moment. You might be able to, but I\u2019m hearing from the\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226b1ea4720e1c5a8ace62edda5325aaaf\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker, if you\u2019re ruling that we can\u2019t make assertions or paraphrase Ministers in our questions, you\u2019ll be knocking out most of the questions in this House, including a significant number of the patsy questions that come from the Government solely for the purposes of attacking the Opposition.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002287b5311b99d200990d056ae2e9691d26\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, I\u2019m not doing that. Standing Orders do it. If you read the Standing Order, you\u2019ll see that that is clearly the situation. Does the member have another supplementary?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022378278f5bb7143171f9973e1b4bde712\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: No, supplementary question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ce374d878597b5cb88d8e8533b68af03\u0022\u003EHon Nicola Willis\u003C/span\u003E: Quick, speaking to the point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022340dac6a5ddf125ff85ae3539bd10af6\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Supplementary here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c62d1daa589af574d664190f4a89d6a0\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b6b8309e269e34f9d5fa2186868008d1\u0022\u003EHon Nicola Willis\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker, can I speak to the point of order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a35438978f2eae8240e867db9c423ccf\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, no. Mr Peters, we\u2019ll go to the supplementary here. We\u2019re moving on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221c73e3ea6e1f0565e63728a874fb5111\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: We can\u2019t take any more of this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c6ae7fecc9d43167256beca08632a52f\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Beg your pardon?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a00b4cffd2c9c414df26e68d3d26ed16\u0022\u003EHon Nicola Willis\u003C/span\u003E: Can I speak to the point of order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002230d3bf668966cef3f9871dd79717d347\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Look, I know you\u2019re pretty fast on your feet, but you\u2019ve got to be fast to beat this young guy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227e2e91e962bcc593d931ce37145f892b\u0022\u003EHon Nicola Willis\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order. Point of order, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ed8e946ce13a5b231496de34ad8091b4\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, the point of order\u2019s dealt with.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f08f628115d30a06ef2bad7721e33c8f\u0022\u003EHon Nicola Willis\u003C/span\u003E: Well, can I raise a new point of order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e367302f92cb950b14eb00b674e63f7f\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Best be a new point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227b99c60f952079992b8eec25928d29b5\u0022\u003EHon Nicola Willis\u003C/span\u003E: I wish to state for the record of the House that I have never stated\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e0ff3f266bc3a24fd2460cbc2bb611f3\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, that\u2019s not a point of order. Sit down.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f6b39d0467fc3e9633472013bfdefae8\u0022\u003EHon Nicola Willis\u003C/span\u003E: Just need to be\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002272964e91aeb29e10c372a4671bfec7f4\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That is not point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d45531b0f7b1dc64455413b8db6c2a06\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Has the Prime Minister identified one single New Zealand family that\u2019s received the full $250 a fortnight that he promised them before the election?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229abb9acfa73b179afb88ed4846c4ee13\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: I think it\u2019s quite interesting the member is so flippant about the efforts of this Government to help low and middle income working New Zealanders. It wasn\u2019t deeply ideological to lift tax thresholds to help lots of people with lower tax. But what we know is that member spent too much, borrowed too much, for way too long, caused huge amounts of suffering, and he wants to get a go at doing it all again. Not going to happen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d037c6ef609720529c2bfea493e457ab\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Can I ask the Minister: if an inherited $92 billion debt blow-out was spent on consumption\u2014not production, not wealth creation, and not added value\u2014is it likely that adverse economic indicators will stay around for some time?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222472022175f0565cf931941077aff2ef\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, you\u2019ve ruled already that assertions cannot be made in questions. That was just a string of assertions, none of which have a basis in fact.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002287ea938c5d415973530819c4bddd1e73\u0022\u003ESPEAKER: \u003C/span\u003ENo, sorry\u2014slightly different. In your case, you asserted that a Minister had said something. Mr Peters asked the Minister a question about those things\u2014quite different. It is hard but the Standing Orders will never cover the whole lot.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220e0c9f464c8bac982837bb9c4ff70b8b\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: I want to thank the member for his question, because it\u2019s very illuminating, which is that the Labour Government was the second-biggest spending\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229fee57d2053bc114689af5ec9f1f0f5e\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, no\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220a474d00ee8b454fc6bac8c80702168a\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229484876d3f8375070b78be88cdfb5785\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m giving context.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002226e207821fc6eaaa302725544a051b06\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Wait on. Hang on\u2014just a minute. There\u2019s a point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223c2c3269eff3c55e7f2d319c98816f84\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s a Government patsy question from a Minister to another Minister, and he begins immediately by attacking the last Labour Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b084538ad5c23a395d7aa402d743abaf\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, and that\u2019s right. Before you stood to your feet, I was about to stop it. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E] Sorry? Another one who wants to come and sit in this Chair. There\u2019ll be a whole choir of you outside shortly. I\u2019ll just tell the Prime Minister you\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0e2403c87194ab09a0bd954cda7ab12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f2419a85d816355851241b9a6dfa901b\u0022\u003ERawiri Waititi\u003C/span\u003E: Supplementary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e06a0dbd4a8c79e8bdb6e07d231671e0\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Actually, we\u2019ll move on. Rawiri Waititi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0e2403c87194ab09a0bd954cda7ab12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fb47e51fe3b546318500a69d858b8694\u0022\u003ERawiri Waititi\u003C/span\u003E: Hopefully the Prime Minister will be thanking me for my question. Will he finally condemn the USA and Israel for their illegal invasion of Iran, which has killed at least 1,205 civilians, including at least 194 children; if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022da6c89be10511b46dd65e58a017ebee6\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: As the member knows, I gave a statement in this House last week, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has given subsequent statements, and I\u2019ve got nothing further to add to what we\u2019ve already said last week.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0e2403c87194ab09a0bd954cda7ab12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227732a16c639740c4195829190e8173db\u0022\u003ERawiri Waititi\u003C/span\u003E: Can he categorically rule out sending any military support to the United States and Israel for their illegal invasion of Iran?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e2ea234a8cc106a823525a5ba93c98d6\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: We haven\u2019t been asked. We are not central to the region, we are not central to the issue, and we are a long way away. We haven\u2019t been asked and we don\u2019t expect we will be.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0e2403c87194ab09a0bd954cda7ab12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a71cba270f1e56c977dd7887e2c7b8b0\u0022\u003ERawiri Waititi\u003C/span\u003E: When he said, \u201CWe haven\u2019t been asked to.\u201D in a response to a question about Aotearoa joining the strikes, was he suggesting that we would support the strikes if the USA or Israel asked us to?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022825ccbc81085a32a957d7627bb7b9aed\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221b4eb824dd6ca49f1831fbc097afab00\u0022\u003EHon David Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: Does he think it\u2019s very likely that the United States would ask a country called Aotearoa to join a military action?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225d0edd5526f64f1eb505896aaae838d1\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, that\u2019s not a question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f5eca12029be0869c4de0fa1bb27f735\u0022\u003EFinance\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ea5e75c44ec282806a55f231a3e93684\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022784f4e929aed4ea6a05d1a10add6eccb\u0022 data-id=\u002278685953d4a3dc158b6d580f1e0c20c2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022784f4e929aed4ea6a05d1a10add6eccb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002278685953d4a3dc158b6d580f1e0c20c2\u0022\u003ERYAN HAMILTON (National\u2014Hamilton East) (14:52)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Finance\u003C/span\u003E: What recent reports has she seen on economic policy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022 data-id=\u0022ef1ea2929449f41a1b172e37cba26888\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ef1ea2929449f41a1b172e37cba26888\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:53)\u003C/span\u003E: The final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Covid-19 Lessons Learned was released today. One of the four key areas it focuses on is economic policy. The royal commission observes that the COVID-19 pandemic was a substantial shock to the economy and the costliest event in terms of fiscal support in New Zealand in the past 40 years. We must learn lessons from the way this event was responded to, because these lessons must inform the Government\u2019s response to the next natural disaster, global downturn, pandemic, or other economic shock. Denial is not an option. Mistakes were made in the economic response, and these mistakes were costly. Those who choose to minimise these errors are not well placed to learn from them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f4d464918a78d61283852251316e566\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a question about a royal commission report. The answer was largely the Minister\u2019s opinion on what she thinks about the royal commission\u2019s report, not the contents of that report, with a deliberate attack on the Opposition. Government patsy questions\u2014and you\u2019ve repeatedly ruled this\u2014should not be used to attack the Opposition.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228349bbddfd93001cc9911609ce5c468c\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s true, but the\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022784f4e929aed4ea6a05d1a10add6eccb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223fb5f5b20e80861f555c4e552f3709e1\u0022\u003ERyan Hamilton\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002280a0ef2f2fbe59ef42956e3954d8f1e5\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, that\u2019s good\u2014let me speak first\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022784f4e929aed4ea6a05d1a10add6eccb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227188b09c1736d8283de0bbffe94cf588\u0022\u003ERyan Hamilton\u003C/span\u003E: My primary question\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b6f15b0d98a3d33bc4280ad0edc833c6\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Hang on\u2014wait on. Let me speak first. Sit down. The question, if you read it, says, \u201CWhat reports has she seen on economic policy?\u201D Well, certainly there were aspects of that in the royal commission report. I don\u2019t think it was unreasonable for her to comment on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022784f4e929aed4ea6a05d1a10add6eccb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228eb5cdb833c485e3f817d05209b8309d\u0022\u003ERyan Hamilton\u003C/span\u003E: What did the royal commission say about Government spending and fiscal stimulus during the pandemic?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022654dbae746b0f5a0044b58d063672534\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it says that Treasury and Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment advice from the outset was that fiscal stimulus measures to address the consequences of the pandemic should be timely, temporary, and targeted. However, the royal commission found that many examples of Government spending, including the so-called shovel-ready infrastructure projects, did not meet these tests. The $60 billion COVID-19 Response and Recovery fund spanned 821 programmes, around half of which were not related to the pandemic, such as conservation programmes, additional public housing places, and school lunches. Many initiatives in the COVID fund extended well beyond the time of the pandemic, and some were baked in, including permanent increases to welfare benefits. As a result, the big increase in Government spending was highly stimulatory and went on for too long.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022784f4e929aed4ea6a05d1a10add6eccb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ca7f2320ffacb844089adb6db32e7f21\u0022\u003ERyan Hamilton\u003C/span\u003E: What did the royal commission say about the consequences of that stimulus?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e8acaf9620bc7d7454b41810bbf1bc47\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it says that highly stimulatory fiscal policy, together with low interest rates, led to a surge in house prices in 2021 and 2022. House prices, I acknowledge, also rose in other countries but the commission points out that the increase was far more dramatic in New Zealand. This was avoidable. The commission says that fiscal policy set in 2020 received limited review and adjustment. It says, and I quote, \u201CWe are not aware of any sizeable component of the fiscal stimulus programme that was reviewed or cancelled to lessen the stimulus once the undesirability of further stimulus became clear.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a388352e86d8df1bfc41ffcc7229c71a\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table Christopher Luxon\u2019s first announcement as Leader of the Opposition, arguing for the Labour Government to spend more money on the COVID-19 response, after the Reserve Bank had already started to tighten monetary policy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002251b6f8689c01127ceefe85f1749c034a\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EDocument, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022784f4e929aed4ea6a05d1a10add6eccb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002211620f2bbd5c8865008d9b744c083863\u0022\u003ERyan Hamilton\u003C/span\u003E: What did the royal commission say about Government debt?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a01f8a3005f11e114b5315640775a6d5\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Fiscal stimulus comes from increasing Government spending. In the circumstances, increased Government spending had to be borrowed for. As a result, New Zealand\u2019s Government debt rose from 18.6 percent of GDP before the pandemic to 38.7 percent in the 2022/2023 fiscal year, obviously a very significant increase. The royal commission makes it clear that the large amount of debt accumulated during the pandemic means New Zealand is now in a weaker position to deal with the next large shock that comes along. The report concludes\u2014and, again, I quote\u2014\u201Cthere is a pressing need to reduce public debt to provide a buffer for future pandemics or other economic shocks.\u201D This Government agrees with that conclusion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022776e3002ea197e39faf943a89a69c432\u0022\u003EFinance\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002221e1346ef55f79ced65993379d15e329\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 3\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022 data-id=\u00221a130344f0571a915da9e3444e6a3a5b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221a130344f0571a915da9e3444e6a3a5b\u0022\u003EHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (14:58)\u003C/span\u003E on behalf of \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003Ethe Hon Barbara Edmonds (Labour)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Finance\u003C/span\u003E: 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=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022 data-id=\u0022d67a6947300fbec258c97a647c6d4fb2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d67a6947300fbec258c97a647c6d4fb2\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:58)\u003C/span\u003E: In context, yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ba9f3fee9063970285456bfeb37b237c\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Does she stand by her statement on 6 March 2026 that \u201CThere\u2019s no getting away from the fact that a higher oil price means New Zealanders paying higher prices.\u201D, and, if so, does she expect current overseas events to worsen New Zealand\u2019s inflation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022109b6c94ae82bc0364a7f4dcda5124dc\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I stand by my statement of 6 March, and I also stand by this Government\u2019s decision to unwind proposed petrol tax increases by the previous Government which would have added 12c extra to fuel as well as 10c in a regional fuel tax.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dc30066434ff7d3d721505a2445e3f41\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Was Nicola Willis correct on 19 July 2022 when she said that Governments \u201Ccan\u2019t simply blame these issues on overseas factors. It needs to front up and do its bit.\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ba1e0eceddf4d5415773cc7b78826ea0\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, that was a very wise statement from Nicola Willis, who I also recall at the time was pointing out while we can\u2019t control global factors, the Government can always control its own response, including the spending decisions it makes. I recall, at that period, what we had was both the Reserve Bank making decisions but also the Government choosing to have a highly stimulatory fiscal stance, right when we were also trying to fight global inflation factors. Yes, global inflation played a factor, but no, the previous Government did not take prudent steps to rein its own belt in.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224fdea179a3152241ba8ef3f9b799b861\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Was Nicola Willis correct on 14 June 2022 that Governments need to stop blaming overseas events and step up and deliver a plan to fight inflation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002209267da086aa2fc3469df9c4ecf5bc6b\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, and how prudent it was that, on being elected, this Government restored a single inflation-busting mandate to the Reserve Bank and that we have delivered $43 billion worth of savings to reduce pressure on inflation that can come from stimulatory fiscal policy. How good it is that we are a Government that is committed to a fiscal strategy to see the debt curve bend down and to reduce spending, as a proportion of the economy, and get the books back in balance. Members, of course we cannot control global events, but every Government has the choice about how it responds, and, as the royal commission report lays bare today, the last Government, in responding to an unavoidable shock, made costly fiscal and monetary policy decisions for which New Zealand continues to pay today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223a1e13c3ccb51051cbe2fc8c11029b71\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Was Nicola Willis correct on 21 April 2022: \u201CIt\u2019s simply not credible for [a] Finance Minister to distance [themselves] by blaming our inflation woes solely on global causes.\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002268e530f7e8ff401ab3010cad0e43fb42\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, and I certainly have not done that and would not do that. What I acknowledge is that global changes in the price of oil do have an impact here at home, but what I have also been is a finance Minister who has recognised that monetary policy needs mates, and the fiscal decisions that a Government makes have an impost on New Zealanders and have impacts for inflation and interest rates. I take very seriously that role, and I think that this would be a point where members opposite might reflect that the decisions made in response to COVID-19 in the independent appraisal of the royal commission of inquiry, along with the New Zealand Treasury, find clearly that they spent too much, they stimulated the economy too much, it led to a massive spike in debt, a massive spike in the cost of living, and we are still unwinding that now. I watched that response unfold. I\u2019ve reflected on the lessons; it\u2019s time that lot did too.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a9a7575032123514da7824f16b888dad\u0022\u003EHon David Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: Is it the Minister\u2019s position that no Government can control every factor but every Government has a responsibility to take control of the ones it can, and, if so, what is this Government doing to boost growth and to control inflation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220fae678d5cc2538ef1a6f7e7ef102d9a\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: I wholeheartedly agree with those statements from the Deputy Prime Minister. This Government, while we do not have it within our power to declare peace in the Middle East, is ensuring that we are supporting growth in this economy and that we are doing so through sensible fiscal management, by reducing red tape that stands in the way of investment and development, by having in place an Investment Boost tax policy to encourage new development and growth, to pursue more free-trade agreements, and to encourage investors to come to New Zealand to ensure we are delivering a sustainable pipeline of infrastructure, and we are lifting the achievement of children in schools so that the workforce of the future can be more productive. This is a Government with a clear plan. We are controlling what we can control, but we haven\u2019t sorted out peace in the Middle East yet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220988a4346ad7111adaed241efb875c4d\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Isn\u2019t it the case that the Minister doesn\u2019t need overseas factors to have a negative impact on the economy; she\u2019s well on her way to doing that herself?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f6d98dc2cf822032e7fdacc98c9057ee\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019d suggest the person doing the most damage to themselves today is Mr Hipkins, who seems to be in a state of fervent denial.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ebc3ae27c4cdb5df33aff5e447789d97\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The question and the answer probably matched each other quite well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022bf8971e0003c127d273bcc83e27d8459\u0022\u003ETourism and Hospitality\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00220ebf259981d858b44f9d115740195b8e\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 4\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002290f442a79aea4ce0aeae083763135935\u0022 data-id=\u0022f666982db8a7a33ad513a0bed1bb6a31\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290f442a79aea4ce0aeae083763135935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f666982db8a7a33ad513a0bed1bb6a31\u0022\u003ECARL BATES (National\u2014Whanganui) (15:04)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister for Tourism and Hospitality\u003C/span\u003E: What recent reports has she seen on tourism in New Zealand?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u0022acf71c7dfa25dab679fe9ed994402e61\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022acf71c7dfa25dab679fe9ed994402e61\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Tourism and Hospitality) (15:04)\u003C/span\u003E: Data released last week shows New Zealand\u2019s tourism sector continues to grow, driving billions of dollars into our economy. The Tourism Satellite Account shows total tourism expenditure in New Zealand is at $46.6 billion for the year ending March 2025. A new travel option that enables eligible Chinese and Pacific visitors to cross the ditch to New Zealand visa-free is also bringing in a considerable boost to tourism with over $210\u00A0million being injected into the economy as a result of our Government\u2019s visa changes. These results highlight exactly why tourism is a key part of our Government\u2019s plan to fix the basics and build the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290f442a79aea4ce0aeae083763135935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022196205daab772cd11f9fae7bc8344849\u0022\u003ECarl Bates\u003C/span\u003E: How have the Government\u2019s recent visa changes provided a boost to our economy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022741cd550482fb96bdb909d2338e27128\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: In December, we announced that 13,000 Chinese and Pacific travellers had already visited, with 24,000 total requests approved. That number has now almost tripled to 36,800 visits. With average visitor spend at $5,800 for Chinese visitors, that\u2019s an estimated economic injection of $210 million for Kiwi businesses from those who have visited, with Chinese visitors making up 36,200 visits through the new pathway. This visitor spending is going directly into local businesses; it includes shops, eateries, accommodation, and transport, and this is spending that may not have come into New Zealand without these changes. More international visitors mean more customers for our businesses and more jobs being created across the country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290f442a79aea4ce0aeae083763135935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e3dfe0925d31903789b910baa156b7b2\u0022\u003ECarl Bates\u003C/span\u003E: What progress has she seen on employment in the tourism and hospitality industries?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229adc77c72a7ff3049b0fa4c738d4d249\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: The latest Tourism Satellite Account data shows that now one in nine people are employed in the tourism and hospitality industries. Total tourism employment increased 2.8 percent to over 325,000 people. This means almost 9,000 more people are employed in the industry. This data shows the importance of our Government\u2019s commitment to growing tourism and its contribution to employment growth across New Zealand. More visitors mean more spending on our accommodation, caf\u00E9s, bars, restaurants, and local businesses, which, of course, gives a significant boost to the economy and supports more local jobs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290f442a79aea4ce0aeae083763135935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b66db7473131f7cd202c1c4b09387254\u0022\u003ECarl Bates\u003C/span\u003E: What commentary has she seen on these reports?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223640dce97c783958bfc68adf70671798\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: Tourism Industry Aotearoa Chief Executive Rebecca Ingram has said, \u201CThis summer, we have seen changes to our visa settings for China, which has made a real difference, and we have also seen quite considerable activity to stimulate demand.\u201D Napier City Business Inc. General Manager Pip Thompson said, \u201CWhen visitors are here, staying overnight, and spending, it supports accommodation, hospitality, and the wider CBD.\u201D Greymouth iSite manager Kelly Ashworth describes tourism at present as \u201CFantastic\u2014great to see. There\u2019s not accommodation available in Greymouth, Hokitika, or Punakaiki \u2026 It\u2019s great not just for the tourism industry but for supermarkets, caf\u00E9s, boutiques, local businesses that we\u2019re lucky to have. They\u2019ve all benefitted\u2014it\u2019s what keeps everyone employed.\u201D Tourism is critical to our economy, and our investments will help to deliver lasting benefits for communities and businesses from one end of New Zealand to the other.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a6a89f653db7f2648f3f2a99a8160f34\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ebe0531784f302063211f2acfbb26e37\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 5\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022 data-id=\u00226ef681609f2e8818a7c9b0e701ec5e73\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226ef681609f2e8818a7c9b0e701ec5e73\u0022\u003EHon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader\u2014Green) (15:08)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EE tautoko ana ia i ng\u0101 k\u014Drero me ng\u0101 mahi katoa a t\u014Dna K\u0101wanatanga?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003E[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EDoes he stand by all of his Government\u2019s statements and actions?\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022 data-id=\u0022b37f4940be9c29cab5acbbeaeb77270b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b37f4940be9c29cab5acbbeaeb77270b\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (15:08)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ecc3d9fd34584f65f04dc687cd824444\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Does he share the incoming US ambassador to New Zealand\u2019s priority of \u201Cexpanding our defence partnership\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022254310dc8058d9f133da6cdea0f6e4c0\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, what we believe in is we have our own independent foreign policy. We work with like-minded countries on making sure we keep the Indo-Pacific region safe and secure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e80d2e8618efa6d704ce4d3b3c027ba8\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Why is he comfortable expanding defence partnerships with a country that has launched an illegal war with Iran, further destabilised the entire Middle East, and upended global fuel supply?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b6da97e6f3a59bf83513a147329d4cf0\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The question itself needs to be reworded.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002260f7a97f15e472da46ba16f2ecc646cd\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Is he comfortable expanding defence partnerships with a country that has launched an illegal war with Iran, further destabilised the entire Middle East, and upended global fuel supply?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002230c0f7cf6e0bb0a13a4c1be08cdf88e1\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: I reject the characterisation and the assumptions that are inherent in that question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002239c0f2939e9d6098fae01af988b44f68\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Will the Prime Minister rule out providing any resources or intelligence to support the US-Israeli war with Iran?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224dd5d12c47c96fdab37488403824f339\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019ve canvassed these issues before. As I\u2019ve said, any intelligence that is collected and shared is done in accordance with New Zealand law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f9c0d7d5982f920b9cdf9b775d221174\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by his statement that \u201COur position is the same as the Australian position.\u201D, and, if so, why does his Government share Australia\u2019s support for the US attacks on Iran?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b65c95f3360aac23945fd7e1cb737e5b\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: I don\u2019t understand the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224a77c1336bb83e6928246238c86e8ce6\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, that\u2019s a statement that the member is making. It\u2019s certainly not one that my very considerable following of this issue could verify. So, I think, reword the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002294a79a9edfa2d2eacbd29ce10adcd6b5\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by his statement that \u201COur position is the same as the Australian position.\u201D; and if so, why does his Government share Australia\u2019s support for the US attacks on Iran?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002264c8b89fa1d6859adbd95352636269a4\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it\u2019s the last bit that\u2019s the problem.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220190c702bae4cf4a90ea00dfcc0ad9d8\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: I reject the characterisation of that question completely.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002233968fc70a1a43d8e1ae942006a0576d\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Why is his Government unable to articulate a clear position on the illegal US-Israeli war with Iran?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221e79f6f19c2b5a6421d2b9e0cce2b3b2\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: We canvassed that last week. We\u2019ve had statements in the House on that. I\u2019ve got nothing further to add to what\u2019s already been said and discussed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00222df8457b2ef7b909cc270ff390e6354e\u0022\u003EHealth\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ebb0762bc41beb4ee843931b9e75c8a1\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 6\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022 data-id=\u00226057730376952cf43b7df6049cc854e8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226057730376952cf43b7df6049cc854e8\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (15:11)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Health\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Government\u2019s 24/7 online GP service on track to reach one million patients a year; if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u002246ea7109a3f91d7e7e89dc809e743db0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002246ea7109a3f91d7e7e89dc809e743db0\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (15:11)\u003C/span\u003E: The member opposite appears to be confused. There is not and has never been a target for X number of patients being seen through this service. Since the Online GP Care service was introduced, tens of thousands of New Zealanders have received care they otherwise could not have accessed\u2014making a real difference to patients\u2019 lives. The figure of 1 million, which the member is referring to, was not a projected usage target; it relates to survey findings for access to primary care, not to any target for the Online GP Care service. The Government introduced services like this to work alongside our wider primary care plan, to ensure that patients can get the care they need when and where they need it. Uptake of this service will only continue to grow, and I encourage the member to support it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222aa1c367797f30d418df3fa05e9ed4a0\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: When will the service reach 1 million users a year, as promised in the fact sheet distributed in the launch?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ac2ce43c0c1cb0184c68434f21797c23\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: As I said in the answer to my primary question, the figure of 1 million, which the member is referring to, was not a projected usage target; it relates to survey findings about access to primary care\u2014not to any target for the online GP care service. Ultimately, usage will continue to grow, and we encourage the member to promote it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c0dc5e380990dedda9254a7f03160c2f\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, sir. Sir, if the Minister was accurate and that there was no target of 1 million, that primary question would not have been allowed by the Clerk\u2019s Office. As you know, we are required to provide verification, which we did, and that is why the primary question was allowed. It is inaccurate for the member to dismiss the question by saying, \u201CThat isn\u2019t the case.\u201D, when it\u2019s already been verified, through the parliamentary process, that it is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228c28c5e9da6f069606110b9ad9e5747b\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I don\u2019t have that in front of me. I accept that the question was accepted. The Minister\u2019s answer can\u2019t be dismissed just because of the acceptance of the question by the Clerk\u2019s Office. The reality is that the 1-million patient number will be reached when the 1-millionth person rings the line.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227e16f3dd85277c491a05423b92b2d228\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to that, sir. I accept that, but my point is that if it was inaccurate for us to claim that there was a target of 1 million\u2014as happens every sitting day, if there is something\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b550053dc26dc2070da752c86a8ac76a\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll tell you what\u2014I\u2019ll tell you what.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002234d978247780e1152dbb4a65951a60a3\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014in a question that can\u2019t be verified, it is sent back by the Clerk\u2019s Office. This was not, because it was verified.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002278a6c0b448f88c31d320299f44de7e15\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: OK. I don\u2019t have that in front of me. I\u2019ll need to go have a look at that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022df63ff7b713bde73a479fe66a2d71f5e\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: Who is correct: the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, who said he could see this \u201Ctaking off quite well\u201D; or his own data, which says that the service is only reaching 5 percent of the patients he promised?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229492d18f4019bc139ad37c3ce8da23d7\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: The Prime Minister, of course, is always right, and, ultimately, the tens of thousands of New Zealanders are using this service, and it will continue to grow, as people become more aware of the service. But I do note that the policy of the members opposite, in the Labour Party, was to scrap\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f740fc1793ecbf537f38f5681fca375c\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221605a2b4479f409112a8eda610fbb821\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014the ability for people to access Online GP Care, which is something, I think, many New Zealanders would be opposed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bbcecf66b9b0a2ce0669c26ea0e37ea0\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: How few people would have to use the service for the Government to discontinue it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022da03d1f4fa0fa9c5e4779b9d524a476b\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: Well, this service is making access available to New Zealanders who otherwise wouldn\u2019t have access. We\u2019re having to promote access, and it is one part of our plan to increase access for primary care; expanding access to urgent after-hours care, Online GP Care; investing more in record capitation for general practitioners; our Primary Care Tactical Action Plan; growing our primary care workforce, with more doctors, more nurses, more nurse practitioners. We have a clear plan to increase access to primary care: it is multifaceted, and it is delivering for New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b773d09f87f0a72605c1b1ec40a13acf\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Just to refer back to the point of order by the Hon Kieran McAnulty, the authentication, I\u2019m reliably informed, didn\u2019t say it was a target; the quote is \u201CIt is estimated up to 1 million may use this service in a year.\u201D That makes the question that\u2019s asked perfectly legitimate\u2014when will it be on track for 1 million patients in a year? It equally makes the response from the Minister correct as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022871a088f7c395f3732c79d2bf3436658\u0022\u003ETrade and Investment\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002260a6e1085b9f39277ab6ddeae779c110\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 7\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226c562dc86e974914b8878595e580f138\u0022 data-id=\u002203b447733a488a4fc68fa488b044d8f2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c562dc86e974914b8878595e580f138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002203b447733a488a4fc68fa488b044d8f2\u0022\u003ECATHERINE WEDD (National\u2014Tukituki) (15:16)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister for Trade and Investment\u003C/span\u003E: What do the latest international trade statistics show about the resilience of New Zealand exporters?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u0022d1aea56e1afc05e7e255da0e97699315\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d1aea56e1afc05e7e255da0e97699315\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade and Investment) (15:16)\u003C/span\u003E: New Zealand\u2019s exporters are winning, despite challenging international conditions. Stats released last week show a robust performance across global markets, reflecting the skill, innovation, and resilience of Kiwi exporters, who continue to compete amongst the best in the world. Exports rose to $29.2 billion for the December quarter compared to a year earlier, up $2.2 billion. Two-way trade also increased strongly, reaching $61.2 billion for that quarter. These results show the importance of opening markets and strong trading relationships, and they show that New Zealand exporters are well placed to navigate ongoing trade disruption and global economic uncertainty.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c562dc86e974914b8878595e580f138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226c2f06acc8a66d73ee0e4fb7cc2ff755\u0022\u003ECatherine Wedd\u003C/span\u003E: Which key export sectors are leading this growth?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224af5935c852aaa8a602c16f9de7af889\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY\u003C/span\u003E: Export growth has been broad across our key export sectors, but, again, our farmers and growers are punching well above their weight. In the December quarter, meat exports increased by a significant 21.4 percent; dairy exports were up 10 percent, tourism\u2014thank you to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality for her work\u2014grew by 9.4 percent; transportation exports grew by 7.5 percent; and for our foresters, log exports were up by 3.7 percent. New Zealand exporters are performing well across both goods and services, and across multiple markets, despite these ongoing global economic uncertainties. These results show our exporters continue to compete successfully in a highly competitive international environment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c562dc86e974914b8878595e580f138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228bf515839140d5b77270e4f0f25c11c7\u0022\u003ECatherine Wedd\u003C/span\u003E: What is the Government doing to ensure New Zealand exporters remain resilient and competitive as global economic conditions continue to evolve?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a7babd53be30ba5b3585244685ef8afa\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY\u003C/span\u003E: This Government is focused on using our free-trade agreements (FTAs) to back exporters by reducing barriers at the border, improving market access, and giving New Zealand businesses greater certainty in tough global conditions. Statistics show exports have grown most in markets where New Zealand has free-trade agreements: the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, in China, in Australia, the UK, and the European Union\u2014growth across each of these markets demonstrates the value of our FTAs in helping Kiwi exporters remain competitive and succeed internationally. As global conditions evolve, the Government remains committed to strengthening and growing our expanding network of FTAs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c562dc86e974914b8878595e580f138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022573b9a23529b820521e6cf786fab852b\u0022\u003ECatherine Wedd\u003C/span\u003E: What does this export performance mean for jobs and incomes for New Zealanders?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f701c555f3c48747aab87cd98315b77d\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY\u003C/span\u003E: Trade supports one in four Kiwi jobs, and companies who export employ more women and they generally pay their workers more. So strong export performance is important for jobs and drives higher incomes across New Zealand. Over the past year, New Zealand exported more than $114 billion of goods and services, and delivered a small trade surplus. Resilience in our export sector helps underpin regional economic growth, it creates jobs, and it pays Kiwis better wages.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c2e0e11b9feef824d6f5d2478291bb80\u0022\u003EEconomic Growth\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00223360e2261c6e789c562d98d49b609b0f\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 8\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022 data-id=\u002218f538a789c2be90d48931063d0443ff\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002218f538a789c2be90d48931063d0443ff\u0022\u003EHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (15:19)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister for Economic Growth\u003C/span\u003E: Does she stand by her statement, \u201CEconomic growth means more jobs, higher wages and better opportunities for all New Zealanders\u201D; if so, why?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022 data-id=\u0022c5f1491ef4f29467a2446f63a3a56dfd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c5f1491ef4f29467a2446f63a3a56dfd\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister for Economic Growth) (15:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, yes, because economic growth means more jobs, higher wages, and better opportunities for all New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002278a738fe97eefa40e8385cd67839a3cb\u0022\u003EHon Ginny Andersen\u003C/span\u003E: Are wages keeping up, when Radio New Zealand reported that 70 percent of workers received a pay rise that failed to keep up with inflation last year?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223f4eb3a76aa8e8aff547067f0550dd19\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it\u2019s always the case that family circumstances vary. While some workers will have received pay rises or moved to jobs with higher pay, others will not have received pay rises in the previous year. What our Government is focused on is increasing opportunities in this economy, which will allow more job creation to occur, allow businesses to pay their workers more, and ensure that every New Zealander has more choices about the opportunities they face. I\u2019d point out to the member that one key way we are doing that is with the Investment Boost tax policy, which Treasury forecast will increase wage growth significantly over the forecast period.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022625f823ae891908e279a6f22868853ae\u0022\u003EHon Ginny Andersen\u003C/span\u003E: Does she expect that wages will keep up with inflation this year given that food prices are up 4.6 percent and economists are now predicting inflation will increase further?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022943c960d9768daf268254eed44642c97\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, as I outlined in extensive detail yesterday, there are currently a number of issues occurring globally which mean that it is challenging for anyone to give a definitive forecast about what will happen with New Zealand\u2019s annual inflation rate or our rate of economic growth. It is always the case, however\u2014I can confirm for the member\u2014that we want to see people\u2019s wages rising faster than inflation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002262c621a514463a75aa44788d41f11664\u0022\u003EHon Ginny Andersen\u003C/span\u003E: How can she credibly say that there are \u201Cbetter opportunities\u201D, when wages are going backwards, New Zealanders are now facing higher prices, and the best her Government can do is to set up an oversight group?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022282833c29907647a0f601e29a1cf7860\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: I absolutely reject the assertion at the back end of this question, but what I would also highlight is that when I think about those people who are working on the new housing development in Nelson, fast tracked through the fast-track Act; when I think of the construction workers working on the Auckland port extension, made possible by the fast-track Act; when I think of the workers across the country doing work right now that would not be possible without the fast-track Act, then I think it\u2019s pretty clear that this Government stands on the side of opportunity. I would put to that member that members who opposed that fast-track legislation and the jobs it is supporting right now may be speaking out of both sides of their mouths.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c3de3d292811d7ccc618c6d86e94bc3a\u0022\u003EEnergy\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d313638098a3e3f089b3eca9a72b7214\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 9\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d92a09db28c44070bbfdcc9f0e6f3cca\u0022 data-id=\u002228551e1aa03bdd95d92f49cc8c498a5c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d92a09db28c44070bbfdcc9f0e6f3cca\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002228551e1aa03bdd95d92f49cc8c498a5c\u0022\u003EJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) (15:22)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EAssociate Minister for Energy\u003C/span\u003E: What reports has he received on fuel security?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022 data-id=\u002234e42c5600ce53f7f995b41ff6af50cb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002234e42c5600ce53f7f995b41ff6af50cb\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister for Energy) (15:22)\u003C/span\u003E: Obviously, the war in the Middle East is creating considerable pressure on our fuel importers. We do have, however, a reasonable supply of fuel, with 25 days\u2019 worth of diesel, 27 days\u2019 worth of petrol, and similar amounts safely on its way here. However, in 2022, when the Marsden Point refinery was closed down, with the approval of the then Labour Government\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c8d327aeb698b1d2dc6af1a1346bfc8a\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222d4026cd7f96b6f8c6b27b94b0331a69\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: You don\u2019t need to. That\u2019s not a line you should pursue, given the nature of the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220e0ea23b28e56d6e4c823561c6790290\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Well, point of order, Mr Speaker. Not only is it a line that he shouldn\u2019t pursue; it\u2019s also factually incorrect. The Labour Government did not approve the winding down of Marsden Point; it was a private business.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220ff4bbd391671c23771da8d2ef933400\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order, sir, I never said that the Labour Government gave its permission; I said that the Labour Government approved of it in the context of an agreement\u2014i.e., they expressed their agreement. If you have any doubt, I shall table the Cabinet paper where they say that. And why don\u2019t we ask the Clerk to consult the dictionary as to whether \u201Capproval\u201D can be an expression of agreement, as opposed to offering a consent or permission?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221b437f07806b19be3a603ac912fe2314\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, well, that\u2019s a lot to take in. Jenny Marcroft.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221de1caa3ef8e4b7959223740db4fd424\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224c01a9f613574c479463796fc555af5b\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No\u2014oh, OK.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227abafa03a9ef626937d1bd9b7321d829\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker, based on Shane Jones\u2019 logic, then every closure of a factory that\u2019s happened over the last couple of years has been approved by this Government. The fact that it happened to happen whilst we were in Government does not mean that the previous Government approved it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002246b71c06ae627e580053eeb415eed863\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: OK, look, there\u2019s also reference to a Cabinet paper in what Mr Jones said to the House. I don\u2019t have that in front of me. I don\u2019t know whether Cabinet ever considered that or not. But the point, I suppose, being made by Mr Jones is that if it went to Cabinet, there clearly had to be some kind of approval for the private sector action in closing the plant.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224de2882473573fe3fcef5af9a4e8df47\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022df858aac9fe0465c0d4b1978377c8694\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, well, I\u2019m kind of finished.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225ae902ca15b70dcf0241e9a8aa0bf8be\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: I can actually, genuinely, in this case, be helpful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dd7528b1d2e281b28f85f987be4447a3\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The last person I heard say that was Richard Prebble, and it didn\u2019t work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fa58c980cc074773f874d01ce8dabfdb\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: Well, in that case, I\u2019ll shut up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d92a09db28c44070bbfdcc9f0e6f3cca\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225311d8feb0f8521ebd239aa1ac26dc8c\u0022\u003EJenny Marcroft\u003C/span\u003E: What risks to fuel security does New Zealand face due to the Middle East crisis?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cb5ddaff7ae05ff58c862745a01572d8\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: As I\u2019ve said, when the previous Government approved of the Marsden Point closure, sadly we are now reduced to importing all of our fuel and beholden\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e1eee2ff94476d55f86d441579664b95\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: The question was about the Middle East. You\u2019re just ignoring the Speaker and making a mockery of the whole thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a12ebf40468a5d419d5c377da688eb96\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014to the whims of the global market. Twenty percent of the global\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fde9ccab737ef47b1cf95f5de7123121\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry; hang on. Give it up. It\u2019s about fuel security. Anybody who thinks you can talk about fuel security and not mention the Middle East and the current environment is, I think, wide of the mark.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002287147e2873e4f2866cb5ec8d9d809996\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. The point is, Mr Speaker, the question was about the Middle East; the answer has nothing to do with it. If you were listening to it, sir, the question was \u201CWhat reports have you seen about the impact of the Middle East?\u201D; the start of his answer was \u201Cthe previous Government\u201D. If you\u2019re not going to pull it up, no wonder we are carping on the sideline, sir.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022efbc6d494a8963f2a87e064dd137928a\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, well, the sideline\u2019s about to get a heck of a lot further away from where you\u2019re currently sitting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e43213d5a8f4d92ba522fbb0a152b93d\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: Roughly 20 percent of the global oil supply, not exclusively feedstock, does pass through the Strait of Hormuz. But more importantly, two-thirds of the crude used by the refineries in Asia which deliver our fuel does come from the Middle East. I say again, because Marsden Point was shut down, these refineries are our exclusive source of fuel, and when the Government said at that point in time, \u201CI do not believe there is a strong case to support continued refinery operations on fuel security grounds.\u201D\u2014I\u2019m right, you\u2019re wrong.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226431f8022c1f1a71602297ec06d4eefa\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Was 100 percent of the oil refined at Marsden Point imported?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d39590cfa5c1d1a8bd5b892ad7760b46\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: Marsden Point, when it performed at its peak, was responsible for the generation of 70 percent of all products, including carbon dioxide, including inputs to agriculture, including fuel for aviation, fuel for cars, fuel for trucks\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224980d0aa9be2d3fbff571e15bd358e82\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223e22ef00f66fe1732f3e31c8ba812f83\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Just a minute\u2014just a minute. I think I can help you here. The question asked, effectively, about the feedstock for the former refinery at Marsden Point. Certainly, the member has given us an outline of the production that came from that, but it came from a feedstock and that was the question. Ask the question again\u2014no penalty.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a108243288f34acd86287c76d38f8144\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Was 100 percent of the oil refined at Marsden Point refinery, prior to it being closed, imported?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a3e4c420dd79738dc90fb9867d0e8d32\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: I say again: that essential strategic asset, closed down and approved for closure by the then Labour Government, was a facility that drew its feedstock from overseas destinations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002299a6edbcc5eacac770c44fdb4ef1ca5c\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Was it imported? Simple question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002265ee16895963d5d253081bfbdb30d1e0\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: Which is just what I said.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002289df411043cadf893f9b1862bbd23136\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has asserted in his earlier answers that the closure of Marsden Point left us vulnerable to imported fuels when he\u2019s just admitted that 100 percent of the fuel that was refined at Marsden Point was itself imported. The fact that we had to ask him that multiple times somewhat illustrates the point\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b989bdd73d3833126b7da95da1f5d557\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Debating point\u2014a debating point, which I think you\u2019ve made.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d92a09db28c44070bbfdcc9f0e6f3cca\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022559d985260d7fdd57a6828df1eefc241\u0022\u003EJenny Marcroft\u003C/span\u003E: Why does New Zealand have a fuel security plan?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b32530812af86e369f547c0c6465ad46\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: A far-sighted nationalist party, New Zealand First, put it in the coalition agreement. However, it\u2019s important that our wee nation does develop and implement a fuel security plan, and I\u2019ll be the first to acknowledge that all sides of the House have an interest in fuel security\u2014with the exception of the Greens, who do not believe in fossil fuels.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d92a09db28c44070bbfdcc9f0e6f3cca\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223d1c84a6b7edbd42ed10797cb6867f7b\u0022\u003EJenny Marcroft\u003C/span\u003E: Was it a mistake for the Government to not keep Marsden Point open?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229441ac596e7a977c466a924dc843abfa\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, just a minute. That\u2019s not something that the Minister, with his current responsibilities, can reflect on. Do you have another supplementary? Is there another supplementary?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d92a09db28c44070bbfdcc9f0e6f3cca\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f84079ae881cebaeda6d63eb6e5597da\u0022\u003EJenny Marcroft\u003C/span\u003E: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00229e3f9d7ffbf0b05f64ef0cdf02a40369\u0022\u003EBuilding and Construction\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022acb4a815d82fff3652a5cfafe0b8e277\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u002290b37d999833f156816962a67eeedce2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002290b37d999833f156816962a67eeedce2\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (15:30)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister for Building and Construction\u003C/span\u003E: What, if anything, is the Government doing about the 20,000 job losses in construction on its watch?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022 data-id=\u0022f70948f8b1d224698dd643ec7331c88d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f70948f8b1d224698dd643ec7331c88d\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (15:30)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, we know that the construction sector has had a hard time over the last several years\u2014since the previous Government\u2019s COVID-19 response, in fact\u2014including through high general inflation peaking at 7.3 percent, high interest rates, and high construction inflation, as well, at a 50 percent increase. But over the last two years, through the actions of the Government, we\u2019ve taken steps to fix the economy and make building easier. Inflation is now under control. Interest rates have dropped, therefore building costs have stabilised and confidence is returning.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022226a39286f47f533b9e032b74499f648\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: When he said in a press release that he\u2019d listened to frustrated builders, did they tell him how long it will take them for the industry to recover from his Government\u2019s management of its construction pipeline when it cancelled and scaled back hospital builds from Whang\u0101rei to Dunedin while claiming to be focused on infrastructure builds?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f57973371b88d83d0fbe3566f2af44cb\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS PENK\u003C/span\u003E: The frustration that\u2019s been expressed by the construction sector reflects the fact that their sector was beset by an even steeper boom-bust cycle, as exacerbated by the last Government\u2019s actions, than they had realised. Therefore, the consequence has been that we have had to work all the harder to make construction easier, faster, and more affordable, as well as getting Government procurement actions, yes, across health, but also education, defence, and social housing at the right settings so we can see the increase\u2014which we have, by the way, with a 15 percent increase in building consents, for example, compared with the same time last year.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223b1a056ae44fbe30a420228f7dde8b00\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Are the frustrated builders wrong to hold them to account when the Government has cancelled 3,500 State houses\u2014homes that would have kept them in business, apprentices on site, and kept New Zealand families off the street?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220c86de7bf7500e9a61b1c2cecf5b740b\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS PENK\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s important for New Zealanders in general, but including for the construction sector, that we have a coherent approach to State housing. So it is that K\u0101inga Ora\u2014and, by the way, also community housing providers, commonly known as CHPs\u2014are given a mandate to build the right type of social housing, in the right place, at the right price. That is exactly what, as a Government, we have been getting on and doing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022debbfd53cedcd325707b07f215e8541e\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Does he agree with the Prime Minister today that there\u2019s good progress for the building and construction sector when, to the contrary, $5 billion less was spent in construction this year than in 2023?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022441927fd53fb7045cefd970393168421\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS PENK\u003C/span\u003E: Again, we\u2019ve traversed the history, including in the exchange that involved the Prime Minister earlier in question time. He was quite right to note that, for example, construction job ads were up 43 percent in December 2025. Of course, with 11 fast-track projects touching on construction activity across the country, creating tens of thousands of jobs, it\u2019s clear that this side of the House has a plan to increase construction capacity. We\u2019re getting on and delivering exactly that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b2df938fb6ae4dc9105e82265f4f7c50\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Does he think that the frustrated builders are comforted by his words about a plan to increase construction activity when things like his overseas product rule changes\u2014that he admits are no silver bullet\u2014are happening while 751 construction companies were liquidated last year?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d532467ef9f89ee0e3faddd3f70026a1\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS PENK\u003C/span\u003E: There are a large number of different factors, some of which I\u2019ve already outlined. But, of course, to make it easier for Kiwi tradies to get access to high-quality materials from overseas, as well as New Zealanders, is actually a win for that trade as well as for Kiwi consumers. These are good things, and I\u2019ve been pleased, at least until now, that the Opposition has seen fit to support them. They should know that the sector, as well as Kiwi consumers more generally, with the house price inflation that was seen under the last Government, but also in terms of commercial construction and infrastructure alike\u2014these changes are hugely important and welcomed by the sector. I just hope that the Opposition continue to realise that and support accordingly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022de365243075ef75d46f461948866aa4e\u0022\u003EDefence\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022eb042d332d42027c9a56e9b48320b968\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022 data-id=\u0022963c2cab0413d50deb1f1951459b4715\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022963c2cab0413d50deb1f1951459b4715\u0022\u003ESUZE REDMAYNE (National\u2014Rangit\u012Bkei) (15:34)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EAssociate Minister of Defence\u003C/span\u003E: What is the Government doing to support defence personnel into quality housing?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022 data-id=\u002244baad04bfc0a3a4ff60da42ba49394f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002244baad04bfc0a3a4ff60da42ba49394f\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS PENK (Associate Minister of Defence) (15:34)\u003C/span\u003E: Recently, the Government announced changes to remove barriers that prevent our defence personnel from using their own KiwiSaver funds to purchase their own home. Since 2010, Kiwis have been able to withdraw from their KiwiSaver accounts to assist with the purchase of a first home, so long as they live in the homes that they buy. However, when applied to defence personnel\u2014who are required to live on base, out of their hometown, or overseas on deployment\u2014this is clearly an unfair barrier. I\u2019m happy to say that this Government is removing that barrier.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bb2d9cc6663fcecf813b7b42b2395332\u0022\u003ESuze Redmayne\u003C/span\u003E: What feedback has he seen from defence personnel in relation to the KiwiSaver changes?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002298180d632781fb7a78badaecd84475cd\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS PENK\u003C/span\u003E: The feedback has been extremely positive from our defence community. New Zealand Defence Force personnel already sacrifice a lot to serve, often spending large periods of time away from their home towns and away from friends and family in the service of our nation. It\u2019s only right that we make this seemingly small but actually quite meaningful change that will make it easier for them to purchase their own first home, and I do add that the member asking the question provided some of the genesis of the idea that would help our defence personnel, with her initiative around rural farm and home purchases, too.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002255289dc12c95183a12d0d087a195baff\u0022\u003ESuze Redmayne\u003C/span\u003E: What else is the Government doing to ensure defence personnel have access to quality housing?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c625194cd0d02776402f65f4ab149df6\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS PENK\u003C/span\u003E: This Government is putting significant investment into our defence estate so that our sailors, soldiers, and aviators can stay in accommodation that is fit for purpose. The Government spent around $138 million on estate regeneration last year, with some $16 million being spent on housing alone. Currently, Defence is planning and constructing a further 77 new homes in Wai\u014Duru, Linton, \u014Chakea, and Burnham, with additional homes planned in the coming years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220c94cdd45ddd654aae3fe1c73646f6f2\u0022\u003ESuze Redmayne\u003C/span\u003E: Why is new investment in the defence estate important?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225121acc158fa5e5d72f4dfa193a48f59\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS PENK\u003C/span\u003E: Much of the defence estate was built during the Second World War and it is currently now no longer fit for purpose\u2014and that\u2019s the polite version. Investing in the defence estate, therefore, is investing in our people. Ensuring that we have an estate that is modern and functional will help us to recruit and retain talent, ensuring that the Defence Force can continue protecting New Zealand\u2019s interests.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022505d6a7ea2b44f9adcaddf745f1d2ce7\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002225b4ab598fae95547ba5b1fddb725a76\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 12\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022 data-id=\u00221e28abeb675c00a712e84968fad2483e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221e28abeb675c00a712e84968fad2483e\u0022\u003ECHL\u00D6E SWARBRICK (Co-Leader\u2014Green) (15:36)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EE tautoko ana ia i ng\u0101 k\u014Drero me ng\u0101 mahi katoa a t\u014Dna K\u0101wanatanga\u003C/span\u003E? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003E[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EDoes he stand by all of his Government\u2019s statements and actions?\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022 data-id=\u002279b7d49d1e84e346b91df99ec31fe830\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002279b7d49d1e84e346b91df99ec31fe830\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (15:36)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e4d1653022e4c3adae8c96a1ac490030\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: Has his Government increased or decreased our country\u2019s dependence on fossil fuels?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a90a79d0ade1ef91aaddb7ae2e84fc21\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: What we\u2019ve done is actually made sure we\u2019ve got an energy strategy that de-risks our reliance in a dry year and actually, as a result, we\u2019ve taken the risk premium down. It\u2019s been encouraging seeing recent announcements that maybe electricity wholesale prices have come down by about $20.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022241b2bd09683d467d60e505c150c800f\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: Does his decision to pour $1 billion - plus of taxpayer money into a new liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal instead of, say, distributed renewable energy generation increase or decrease our exposure to and dependence on risky and volatile fossil fuels?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000424\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228367d1651ce61b08a247988861b3b293\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the failed policy of the previous Labour-Greens Government meant that we were making the rather unique transition from domestic gas to internationally imported coal. That\u2019s not good for emissions, but we are also in a place where the risk around the dry year has been costing New Zealand about $5 billion a year since 2017. Building this facility takes that risk premium down, and, as I\u2019ve said before, this will save Kiwis about $265 million a year, or about $50 a household, and will actually protect 2,000 jobs from higher energy prices.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ba45efd317ac8b0f82f6c675fb253c7d\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: Did his decision to completely remove the Clean Car Discount\u2014which has seen electric vehicle sales plummet from 27 percent in 2023, to 8 percent in 2025\u2014increase or decrease our country\u2019s dependence on risky fossil fuels?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d4ff0ed4ead44440e6fe125f68d74e00\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, there\u2019s actually a lot that goes into our energy mix across our energy policy and our actions that we\u2019ve got. I\u2019d want to say to the member that it\u2019s been very exciting to see that there has even been a draft approval through fast track for renewable wind in the South Island. That could actually power up a thousand homes and move them into renewable energy, and that\u2019s a good thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f2b1292560376ae9de729a0030f27d19\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: Did his Government\u2019s decision to cancel $640 million of support to decarbonise and electrify our farmers and growers increase or decrease our dependence on risky fossil fuels?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000428\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f3d0ade4c5d9b85de78dacdf972ba91d\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Again, as I\u2019ve said to the member, the previous policy had led to total failure. It had led to high electricity prices that actually raised up power bills and put jobs at risk. That\u2019s not something that this Government is doing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229ec683d16061a9b72e15dabf720613a9\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: What will it take if not new evidence seemingly every single day\u2014like the unfolding war in Iran\u2014that increasing our country\u2019s dependence on risky fossil fuels hurts regular people for the Prime Minister to end up backing down on expensive and, ultimately, resilience-undermining plans, like his billion-dollar, taxpayer-funded LNG terminal?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223386b537b420eb591cdfed5888f7349d\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, but the member, when she was part of a Labour-Greens Government, caused a huge amount of failure in our electricity market. Prices went up to $800 per megawatt hour. That caused mills to shut down and low and middle income working New Zealanders to lose their jobs. I\u2019m sorry, but the member has no credibility in energy. The good news is\u2014I know the member cares deeply about emissions, and, as I said to the member last week\u2014the October quarter was the lowest level of emissions generated by this country since 2010. That\u2019s good news.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022da33775ea0f9eefdf77a687dd932deab\u0022\u003EDebates\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d003fb57d08eab08d2a528cc4daf9761\u0022\u003ERising Oil Prices\u2014Government Response\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00226439fd4def232d747f1b19140ae72ffa\u0022\u003EUrgent Debate Declined\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022 data-id=\u0022b03300f3bd72752652aa28b566a5e449\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b03300f3bd72752652aa28b566a5e449\u0022\u003ESPEAKER (15:40)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, I\u2019ve received a letter from the Hon Barbara Edmonds, seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the Government\u2019s announcement of its response to rising oil prices. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there\u2019s ministerial responsibility. The conflict in Iran and the impact on oil prices is a developing situation. I don\u2019t think that the Government response, so far, warrants setting aside the business of the House at this point. The application is declined.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000435\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00224eb6bff034d38d1cb1a4e3dab9123991\u0022\u003ESittings of the House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002260f436c9a0c636f52b9022f1cdeb74eb\u0022\u003EExtended Sitting\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u0022501e65040cb4a875f7348fffc91004b5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022501e65040cb4a875f7348fffc91004b5\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Deputy Leader of the House) (15:41)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for the continuation of the second reading of the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill; the committee stages of the Legislation Amendment Bill, the Public Finance Amendment Bill, the Public Service Amendment Bill, and the Online Casino Gambling Bill; and the second readings of the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill, the Financial Markets Conduct Amendment Bill, and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the motion be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000440\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f8348a193b9b894989c278dc712c4216\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00220d037aa9bdae86d69a23ea688031f5ed\u0022\u003EHealthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022bd9b0adf2c96761dbfa7702e4d401259\u0022\u003ESecond Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000447\u0022\u003EDebate resumed from 5 March.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022 data-id=\u0022b8e9976832711dcb55e2f15a8638f092\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b8e9976832711dcb55e2f15a8638f092\u0022\u003EDr CARLOS CHEUNG (National\u2014Mt Roskill) (15:42)\u003C/span\u003E: This bill recognises a simple truth: when we set a clear target and maintain a sharp focus, we improve outcomes. In health, clarity matters. Targets drive accountability. They ensure that resources are directed where they are needed most. This bill will make our healthcare system more effective, more responsive, and more transparent. It will enforce the importance of measurable outcomes and consistent performance across the country. Our angle is clear: deliver quality, timely healthcare for all New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000449\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f2277fe40316812d4506bfc70edcb86d\u0022\u003ESPEAKER: \u003C/span\u003EThe question is, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments recommended by the Health Committee by majority be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000450\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000452\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000454\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000455\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill be now read a second time\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000458\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a second time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000463\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d30a19d60f5d723a42946d8ce8bd79a4\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Legislation Amendment Bill, the Public Finance Amendment Bill, Public Service Amendment Bill, and the Online Casino Gambling Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002236df0653deab6fbe9fdd8cce2b58aaf1\u0022\u003ELegislation Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00223a51d2473457a7c5a11557bd820681bf\u0022\u003ECommittee of the Whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u002256c7be660c62785dedf2c56b08ec15e0\u0022\u003EPart 1 Main amendments to principal Act \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002207bdca969b6ea34111d1647ea49c2e4c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the House is in committee on the Legislation Amendment Bill, the Public Finance Amendment Bill, the Public Service Amendment Bill, and the Online Casino Gambling Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWe start with the Legislation Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1, which is the debate on clauses 4 to 51, \u201CMain amendments to Principal Act\u201D. The question is that Part 1 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022 data-id=\u002295104c913e03534fd06bef4690db95c2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002295104c913e03534fd06bef4690db95c2\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (15:46)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I\u2019m in the chair instead of my colleague and friend the Hon Judith Collins, who\u2019s Attorney-General. I\u2019m very happy to, obviously, field any questions or comments that colleagues may have.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000470\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe purpose of the legislation is, of course, to improve the transparency in the sense that members of the public, those affected by regulations, will have a clear, accessible, and transparent way of finding those in a single location. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d18e2f932b9a1c11c3ad7011e5239938\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The Rt Hon\u2014oh, sorry\u2014the Hon Dr Duncan Webb. I almost gave you a \u201CRt Hon\u201D then.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u0022054ca4115a81000567c97558c698103f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022054ca4115a81000567c97558c698103f\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (15:47)\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, that\u2019s all right, Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cf207011d368e6f6ce236fcf663066db\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Not that it\u2019s my place to do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002223e9259f4d2036c28180ac6d273cf75a\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. I am planning on a late comeback, but we\u2019ll see how we go.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELook, it\u2019s no secret that this bill is widely supported around the Chamber, but it is, actually, one of those bills which is important\u2014part of the constitutional framework of the bill. I do think, when we come to examine this bill, it is appropriate and I\u2019m glad that it\u2019s Minister Penk in the chair who\u2019ll give us some thoughtful reflections on the bill. The first question that I have\u2014and perhaps I\u2019ll give him two at once because they\u2019re both relatively small ones to kick off with\u2014relates to clause 6, \u201CSection 5 amended\u201D, the interpretation section. The first thing is the introduction, I believe, of a new phrase in the definition of \u201Cadministering agency\u201D that deals with the various agencies that administer legislation\u2014whether it be local authority, Office of Parliament, the department, and so on. Then it comes up with\u2014and I\u2019d be interested if he could explain exactly what it is\u2014\u201Can instrument of the Crown\u201D. To be perfectly honest, it\u2019s not something that has occurred to me before: how, outside of Crown entities, local authorities, and departments, exactly what this \u201Cinstrument of the Crown\u201D is. That\u2019s the first thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second thing is almost a drafting point but a little bit more. Throughout the legislation acronyms are used. \u201CPCO\u201D is used quite a lot, and I think that\u2019s one that\u2019s relatively common. I\u2019m not going to suggest that most people don\u2019t know what that is, but \u201CMLI\u201D is also used. Now, MLI refers to minimum legislative information\u2014we know that\u2014but my concern is that MLI is never defined. The use of MLI is in new section\u00A072. It sits there in the title. Now, under the old legislation, I don\u2019t think that acronym was, in fact, used in that way. It may well be that this is a new practice of the Parliamentary Counsel Office, but I think I can confidently say the current Speaker would not endorse the use of acronyms\u2014in fact, he hates them. I\u2019m just curious as to\u2014I know what it means, but, I\u2019ll be honest, when I saw it, I had to go and fish around and just make sure and ascertain that. Is that appropriate to use acronyms like that scattered throughout legislation, which is actually supposed to be assisting in the accessibility of legislation? There\u2019s a couple of questions to start. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022 data-id=\u0022df3fef82801db390ac9b4298841a6883\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022df3fef82801db390ac9b4298841a6883\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (15:50)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Hon Dr Duncan Webb. I fear he may have talked me up too much in anticipating helpful and clear answers. On the second of those two points that he\u2019s raised: I see that it\u2019s proposed to amend the principal Act, such that in the interpretation section\u2014being section 5 but clause 6 of the bill\u2014the definition of \u201Cminimum legislative information\u201D would have inserted after it \u201C \u2018or MLI\u2019 \u201D, effectively defining that term, albeit that it\u2019s an acronym that is, at least as yet, not as well known as, for example, \u201CPCO\u201D. I take his point around that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAs for the instrument of the Crown, I might benefit from some advice on that point and would look forward to coming back to him.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226f607d4079164946af0eb589f5753d1b\u0022 data-id=\u002214b92249d45ec8f79f4515bd9bfa9e9a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226f607d4079164946af0eb589f5753d1b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002214b92249d45ec8f79f4515bd9bfa9e9a\u0022\u003EVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (15:51)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you in advance to the Minister for his, no doubt, very thoughtful responses on this significant piece of legislation, which has huge constitutional importance. I do know that the Minister was, of course, a member of the Regulations Review Committee when we contemplated the initial legislation going through the House, so he is very aware of the importance of accessibility. Indeed, this is a project that started as a result of the 2014 inquiries and then the subsequent change to legislation. In many ways, this piece of legislation recognises an administrative difficulty, if you like, in terms of the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) doing all the legwork to get secondary legislation published.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI had a few questions, also, on the same section, which is the interpretation section, clause 6. It\u2019s a different question about administering agencies. The old definition of \u201Cadministering agency\u201D means, in relation to legislation, the \u201Cdepartment \u2026 Office of Parliament \u2026 or other organisation that is, or will be, responsible for administering the legislation\u201D. The change notes that PCO is now the point of recognition, and my question is around when new paragraph (b), as inserted by clause 6, of the definition applies. When would you have a situation where PCO didn\u2019t record who the administering agency is? Just so we understand what the scope of that is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere is also a change in relation to clause 6(3), where there is a repeal of, actually, a string of definitions: \u201Ccentral government entity, Government amendment, legislative guidelines or standards\u201D. A string of those are repealed, and I\u2019m just wondering what the effect of that is, and if there are new definitions of those provisions in clause 6(3), or whether they were deemed no longer necessary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of clause 6(4), there is a reference to the new definition of \u201Cconsolidation\u201D. I just wanted to confirm whether my understanding is correct that this is not a reference to a consolidation of proposed amendments that have been approved but haven\u2019t yet commenced. I know that there was some discussion about whether it was worthwhile, the public having access to changes that hadn\u2019t yet come into effect, but being able to access what that secondary legislation were to look like, as well. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022 data-id=\u0022a6b9d6c7a9e54d1a265847754a350c69\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a6b9d6c7a9e54d1a265847754a350c69\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (15:53)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank Vanushi Walters for her always thoughtful remarks. Actually, if I could initially go back to her colleague Dr Duncan Webb, I can, hopefully, demystify the \u201CCurious Case of the Instrument of the Crown\u201D\u2014it does sound quite Holmesian, doesn\u2019t it? My new understanding, the new knowledge on which I\u2019m relying, is that an \u201Cinstrument of the Crown\u201D is not a department but might otherwise describe\u2014I\u2019m trying not to use the word \u201Centity\u201D, because a Crown entity is different again. An example of the instrument of the Crown, I\u2019m told, is PCO, the Parliamentary Counsel Office\u2014there\u2019s an acronym, and for our Speaker, who loves acronyms so much, I might just add \u201CL-O-L\u201D, which, of course, means \u201Clots of love\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000484\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn terms of Ms Walters\u2019 points, I wonder if the first of them might have partly been answered by that answer. If not, then she will let me know, surely. In terms of her second point, I do wonder, and I will confirm, and come back to her if it\u2019s not the case, that those various repealed definitions may relate to a part of the bill that is no longer required because there is an intersection between what this legislation had proposed to do with the Regulatory Standards Act, as it now is. I\u2019ll confirm and let her know if that\u2019s not the case\u2014otherwise, please take that as my response for that point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e66329e431ea47019b41524c6ef2954a\u0022 data-id=\u00222e8cdc2d8325892f55ac6ff06ac4edf6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e66329e431ea47019b41524c6ef2954a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222e8cdc2d8325892f55ac6ff06ac4edf6\u0022\u003ECELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) (15:55)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I was not fortunate to be on the Justice Committee, so excuse me if there is something that I ask that may have been clarified during the committee. I do hope you\u2019ll be able to answer some of my questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy first one is really about an aspect of the bill that we probably generally agree with\u2014this single point of access for primary and secondary legislation. The Greens think anything that makes legislation more accessible to the ordinary person is a good thing. I wanted to know what consideration had been given to whether the single point of access also creates a certain vulnerability. We have seen that ManageMyHealth, and also other health data that\u2019s held by private companies, has been subject to malicious attacks. What reassurance can the public have that legislation\u2014including regulations\u2014that is held and is more available to the public and now more vulnerable to attack will be protected from being undermined? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also wanted to ask, if I may\u2014this is in Part 1, clauses 4 and 5: I just don\u2019t know what \u201CImperial legislation\u201D means. For the interest of those of us who are not lawyers and for the public that might be interested, which empire are we talking about, and could you clarify that? I have some more questions later on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226f607d4079164946af0eb589f5753d1b\u0022 data-id=\u002247e98b69c19fd21b8b55a8433ab37f43\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226f607d4079164946af0eb589f5753d1b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002247e98b69c19fd21b8b55a8433ab37f43\u0022\u003EVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (15:57)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister for that initial response. I did have one more question in relation to clause 6(5). This is the one that changes the definition of \u201Clegislation website\u201D. It replaces the words \u201Cor supporting material (or both)\u201D with the words \u201Cand information relevant to legislation\u201D. The full section currently reads \u201Cany Internet site maintained by, or on behalf of, the PCO for the publication of legislation or supporting material (or both)\u201D. The wording of the change seems interchangeable to me, so I\u2019m not really sure what the impact of the change to the language there is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ELet me see if I can find my second one\u2014if I can\u2019t, I might just let the Minister respond to that question. No, I have it here. The next one is clause 6(7). In this one, the definition of \u201Cminimum legislative information\u201D, after paragraph (c) in the principal Act, there was an initial proposal to insert new paragraphs (ca) and (cb), and (ca) has now been deleted. This was a reference to \u201Cin the case of an Act, the date on which it was enacted\u201D, and now, the new version only refers to \u201Csecondary legislation, [and] the date on which it was made\u201D. I just wanted clarification on the impact of deleting (ca). Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022a6787b8eabea194ac0743cce47dccb99\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a6787b8eabea194ac0743cce47dccb99\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (15:58)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the Minister; I always find the committee of the whole House stage with the particular Minister in the chair to be extremely enjoyable and engaging. I thought that the Minister\u2019s insertion of \u201CL-O-L\u201D was going to be something along the lines of \u201CLegislative Office of the Law\u201D\u2014but whatever the Minister thinks is appropriate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy first question is in terms of the definition, in clause 6, of \u201Cadministering agency\u201D, and I know that there will be a little bit of crossover between what we\u2019re seeing here in the bill\u2014and I\u2019m sure others will refer to it, as well\u2014and what we\u2019re seeing in the Minster\u2019s Amendment Paper 506, noting that in Amendment Paper 506, there is an additional insertion after \u201COffice of Parliament\u201D of \u201Cparliamentary agency\u201D. One of the things is that we\u2019re seeing that appearing kind of frequently. I think there is another bill where this did appear, as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI just want to double check if in this case, the parliamentary agency also retained the same definition as what has been introduced as part of the Parliament Act\u2014if the Minister could answer that question as a starting point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI then move on to clause 6(8), which has the new additional definition for agency-drafted legislation and agency-published legislation. Again, we see some of the differences in criteria between what the agency draft/publish and what the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) draft/publish. Can I just check how\u2014considering there are two separate definitions for agency-drafted and agency-published, do we have a situation where it is drafted by the agency but published by PCO? The other way around, I guess, is understandable; it\u2019s more common. But considering that that is now a possibility, is it a consideration that is being considered to have PCO-drafted agency-published or vice versa? Those are my two first two questions for the time being.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u00224d876748d24f0d6fb182ea3246329ab7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224d876748d24f0d6fb182ea3246329ab7\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (16:01)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, congratulations to the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) for the new website, which I hope we\u2019ve all gone and had a good look at. Good work there. It actually does seem to work quite well. It\u2019s a great example of technical modernisation by this Parliament, in fact.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second is about that. It\u2019s about this legislation and bringing up to date publication. Throughout the legislation, it talks about legislation being published on a website hosted by and on behalf of the Parliamentary Counsel Office. I guess my question there is about the security of that site. I\u2019d be curious on the Minister\u2019s reflections, because we do know that cyber-security is a massive issue. Whilst New Zealand might not fall if we can\u2019t read our legislation, it still is important that it be sovereign, right? I\u2019d be interested to know when you say hosted on behalf, by or on behalf of PCO, whether it\u2019s in fact hosted in New Zealand, and, if it\u2019s on behalf, whether there is any kind of sovereign risk in that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000496\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second question to move on is actually about clause 8 of the Legislation Amendment Bill, which inserts section 16B, a matter close to my heart, because it actually is a pointer section. It doesn\u2019t actually do anything in and of itself. It says how to meet legal requirements using electronic technology and there is no definition, or there was no definition, in the Legislation Act as to what an electronic signature, for example, was. It does strike me that the right place for the definition across all legislation of electronic signature or electronic message or any of those things is the Legislation Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000497\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut we\u2019ve got this curious situation where, tucked away in the dusty and cobweb-ridden depths of the Contract and Commercial Law Act, you\u2019ve got a whole of what used to be the Electronic Transactions Act, and yet it\u2019s not about commerce and consumer law; it\u2019s about the whole of the law. I\u2019d be curious if the Minister could explain to this committee why we didn\u2019t simply put the relevant definitions and provisions in the Legislation Act for all of the legislation, rather than having general provisions in a specific Act, and having essentially a big red legislative hand going, \u201CAnd if you want to know about this, you\u2019ve got to go all the way over there,\u201D which it strikes me as kind of poor drafting and just, frankly, hard to read. So I\u2019d be curious on those two questions there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022 data-id=\u0022e252ac1325c463bc217dda71b2f21666\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000498\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e252ac1325c463bc217dda71b2f21666\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (16:04)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m grateful to have a chance to take a call, lest I fall further behind. On that final point, I understand the point the member is making. I presume that he\u2019s right to raise the question of where these general requirements of electronic witnessing and so on may be met, and that we\u2019re not merely pointing to the requirements in the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 that apply only in relation to that type of agreement or pact.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m taking the unusual step of expressing this doubt while on my feet and excusing my back, hoping that I\u2019ll be rescued at some point on that. But suffice to stay I understand and acknowledge his point. On his first point in his latter contribution, I would say that cyber-security and other considerations are of course important, but I think properly outside the remit of the legislation. I mean, the legislation is already about legislation, which is confusing enough. This is all quite meta, isn\u2019t it? Certainly, his point\u2019s well made about the importance of the security of that site from a point of view of sovereignty and even just the continuous access, for the reasons that we all agree are important under the rule of law. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000500\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI wonder if I can connect that back to a point that was made by Celia Wade-Brown, which I think I understand to be around having a single point of failure in terms of where all the information might be, which could have an implication for, you know, vulnerability in the case of a cyber-attack or other outage, even of non-suspicious origin. I think, if I understand correctly, the mechanism by which the websites would operate, it includes that the sites in question sometimes has an aggregator function and it can sort of point to other Government agency or, indeed, Crown instrument sites. It might be the case that those are under attack, in which case we\u2019re no better off, except to say, I suppose, we don\u2019t have all our virtual leagues in the same basket necessarily, if my understanding of the architecture of those sites is correct.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000501\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs for imperial legislation, staying with Celia Wade-Brown, I can only assume that it\u2019s the British Empire, of which this nation and this jurisdiction was once part. But if the commencement date says that any of it comes into effect on May the 4\u003Csup\u003Eth\u003C/sup\u003E, then we\u2019ll have to contemplate other imperial regimes that might relate to it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000502\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of agency-published versus drafted legislation, to Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s point, I think it\u2019s the way round that he indicated would be more logical in his mind. Certainly, that would accord with my understanding that it might be that an agency was to draft legislation but not necessarily publish it. Whereas I think\u2014no, excuse me, the other way around. I confused myself, but not as much as he confused me, which is that an agency might publish rules or other guidance that have this particular status in terms of being legislation but not primary legislation, but its publication could be supported on the Parliamentary Counsel Office - governed site.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226f607d4079164946af0eb589f5753d1b\u0022 data-id=\u002249b68bc0693a3395bfadbc44a6e4fbcb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226f607d4079164946af0eb589f5753d1b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002249b68bc0693a3395bfadbc44a6e4fbcb\u0022\u003EVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (16:07)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister. I\u2019m still on clause 6 and I\u2019m just looking at subclause (8), which refers to exemptions. I guess my broad question is whether we have the exemptions from publication right. At the moment, we\u2019ve got reference to certain cases where the agencies\u2014the Parliamentary Counsel Office might be exempt from publication and you can accept, of course, that that might need to be the case in certain emergencies, etc.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think this kind of takes us in a bit of a segue fashion to the Minister\u2019s amendments, which, as I\u2019ve read them, significantly broaden what is almost an exemption. This is when failure to comply does not invalidate secondary legislation. The Minister would have seen that I\u2019ve proposed a few amendments on this, because my concern would be that if you had secondary legislation that was published that subsequently fell off the portal and the website, it would continue to have effect in law, however would not be accessible to individuals who are trying to assess what the law is. Of course, that is entirely what this piece of legislation is trying to address.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000505\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I completely understand that from time to time this may happen and that there may be an error, but the amendments that I would propose to the Minister\u2019s amendment are that we allow a window of time to rectify that error. I\u2019ve proposed 20 days or 40 days, but of course the Minister could insert whichever number of days that he deemed was suitable in terms of rectifying that. My concern would be that if it fell off publication for a long period of time, there is really no legislative directive to correct that. So that\u2019s just one suggestion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhile we\u2019re on the Minister\u2019s amendment, my other concern\u2014and the Minister would have seen that I\u2019ve proposed amendments to the amendment in this regard, as well\u2014was failure to present to the House and what the consequences ought to be in terms of failure to present. Again, this is something that we certainly discussed a fair amount in the Regulations Review Committee. Understanding that there\u2019s a huge administrative burden to be able to present the number of pieces of secondary legislation to the House that need to be, again, I wonder whether the way to address that is allowing a time buffer to ensure, however large it may be, that there is a requirement to present or\u2014and perhaps I\u2019d say controversially\u2014that the secondary legislation is not lawful if it\u2019s not provided in that window. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000507\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFor that amendment, again, I have proposed a number of different days, including 100 working days after the time required to do so under the House\u2019s rules and practice. So I think I\u2019ve been fairly flexible in that regard, and I\u2019m interested to hear the Minister\u2019s views.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022 data-id=\u0022a5e150cb5cc2da93674e24c47bfc6b8f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000508\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a5e150cb5cc2da93674e24c47bfc6b8f\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (16:11)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms Walters would surely know that the Regulations Review Committee doesn\u2019t need 100 working days to do anything. But, you know, I understand the point she\u2019s making in her amendment to the amendment to the Legislation Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000509\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think in the event of failure to present to the House, as with her other proposal around a window of time to rectify if there\u2019s a loss of access, she rightly notes, I suppose, a potential glitch in the matrix, but as she quite rightly goes on to note, that\u2019s no worse a situation than that which we currently face in terms of lack of accessibility. So I\u2019ll consider those amendments in good faith, but suffice to say, I do understand the point she\u2019s making. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000510\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs to the point that Dr Webb had made, I understand that his point has been contemplated in the earlier stage of the passage of the legislation. To rework the bill in the way that I think he\u2019s proposing would have taken more policy work and time. I think that\u2019s possibly as far as you\u2019ll get from me as an acknowledgment that he makes a very jolly good point and that\u2019s maybe something that could be looked at further.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000511\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen, finally, just going back to the \u201CImperial legislation\u201D question, it\u2019s pointed out to me that, of course, UK legislation, being the British Empire, as it then was, includes\u2014more to the point, New Zealand law includes the Bill of Rights 1688, which is New Zealand law that predates New Zealand in terms of New Zealand\u2014much as I hesitate to raise that in the House after question time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022682eb129c636f89f385761e9bc48892a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000512\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022682eb129c636f89f385761e9bc48892a\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Noting that we are currently just in the midst of discussing clause 29 of Amendment Paper 506, but there are a few things I do want to go back to. I want to pick up on what the Minister said first. I guess, if you\u2019re looking at the explanatory note of Amendment Paper 506, like the Minister said, there\u2019s a glitch in the matrix if there are things like failure to comply with drafting and publishing requirements, and potentially if it\u2019s in the wrong format. That\u2019s understandable, but can I just check with the Minister in terms of the operationalisation of secondary legislation: for example, when they haven\u2019t been published\u2014now on the single-source website\u2014or have not been presented to the House and then they\u2019re still considered effective, what would happen if someone is non-compliant with that regulation but doesn\u2019t actually know that regulation has happened or taken place? Would that be a possibility?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000513\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do agree with my colleague Vanushi Walters in terms of amendments, but, I guess, in this case, as the Minister will also know from the Regulations Review Committee, something like this\u2014would it often be part of the scrutiny agenda of the Regulations Review Committee where things are not published in the right format or people didn\u2019t sign a signature, etc.? Can I just interpret it as kind of in the same vein: that while they haven\u2019t met the requirement, they\u2019re still nevertheless considered in effect, in which case people still have to be compliant? But what, then, would be the cause or repercussions if people aren\u2019t compliant with that particular legislation? So that\u2019s my first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000514\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESpeaking of compliance, the second question goes back to new section 68A(4), inserted by clause 12: \u201CAdministering agencies have a duty to comply with the regulations\u201D. Other than through Regulations Review Committee, what does the Minister think if this particular clause provides additional directions, particularly by the Attorney-General, when it comes to the non-compliance of agency-drafted legislation if it is not published in the right format or it\u2019s being placed in that single source? The specification has been mentioned in the bill, but in terms of the repercussions for non-compliance staying as it is currently. Those are my two questions for the time being.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022 data-id=\u0022eeb5e196a8e3e444c2547851a1ce1a07\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000515\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022eeb5e196a8e3e444c2547851a1ce1a07\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (16:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. In response to Dr Xu-Nan\u2019s second point, in the absence of any particular consequence being outlined for non-compliance with the particular requirements of new section 68A in terms of how law is to be published, I wouldn\u2019t have thought there was any different outcome to that which would currently be the case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000516\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOn his first question, which I found really interesting, I think he\u2019s highlighting a scenario in which there could be non-compliance with a rule of which a person is unaware, or potentially, compliance with a rule that no longer exists in a brief moment of time by reason of not having been presented, I suppose, in the first instance, or having perhaps lapsed in a way that Ms Walters has identified. I think he\u2019s asking whether the law or the rule would be said to be effective or not, in that situation. It\u2019s sort of a Schr\u00F6dinger\u2019s cat of the law in that it sort of both exists, but not at once. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000517\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs for the consequence in any given case, obviously it would depend on the particular legal and then factual scenario, but I would express a hope\u2014and I hope I\u2019m not going too far out on a limb to say this. If the central government\u2014you know, State or local government or other authority\u2014were involved in a way that was able to reflect a lenient approach given some degree of uncertainty, then I\u2019d hope that they would do that for the sake of the citizen or other person involved.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u0022b3583434fb8461a538649bf3e010e7d0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b3583434fb8461a538649bf3e010e7d0\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (16:17)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask a question about the status of legislation and what the definitive version is, because it strikes me, under this legislation\u2014and perhaps prior to this, but certainly under this legislation\u2014the legislation now requires publication on a website. So if you are, for example, going to court and you need to know the exact definitive version of the law, you now refer not to the statute book but to the statute website.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000519\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, there is, of course, tucked away in in the Clerk\u2019s office somewhere, the copy that the Governor-General has signed\u2014of which I believe there are three\u2014but, in fact, for the general public and anyone using the law, it is now the case that the certified copy of the law is the website, which brings me to the crux of my point, which is in clause 17 which replaces section 72. In replacement section 72(2), it says, \u201CThe PCO\u201D\u2014that means the Parliamentary Counsel Office\u2014\u201Cmust continue to publish the legislation and information by ensuring that, (a) as far as practicable, the legislation and information is at all times able to be accessed at, or downloaded from, the legislation website\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000520\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe words I want to focus on are the words \u201Cas far as practicable\u201D because that\u2019s a balancing word. The question then becomes: is that the right threshold? I would have thought \u201Cas far as possible\u201D would be a better framing because there\u2019s a price quality trade-off. We know that we could have a more or less reliable provision of information, but what we are providing is not a handy reference; it is the definitive source of what the law is in New Zealand. If that\u2019s the case, saying, \u201CIt wasn\u2019t practicable for me to provide the law. The website\u2019s down for a week and we can\u2019t actually get it back up because it\u2019s tricky.\u201D\u2014that\u2019s actually not good enough. \u201CWe didn\u2019t have a triple back-up server.\u201D, or whatever it might be.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000521\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAm I right that we now have the definitive version being online? Secondly, does the Minister think that if that is how we find out what the law is, it\u2019s OK to have a practicability test?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022 data-id=\u002245f40b546953e708cd1dc85cb9ab300c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000522\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002245f40b546953e708cd1dc85cb9ab300c\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (16:20)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s a very fine distinction that Dr Webb highlights, not entirely without meaning, if I may say, in my view, but I sense that if we were to say that it must be available as far as or as much as possible, then that would inevitably be read in a way as to mean something along the lines of \u201Creasonably possible\u201D or \u201Cpossible in the circumstances\u201D. If the circumstances were that the first and second server were down and there was not a third, then that would be a matter of impossibility as well as impracticability. So I take his point, but I\u2019m not sure that we would justify our time and energy as a committee in debating it much further or indeed amending.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226f607d4079164946af0eb589f5753d1b\u0022 data-id=\u0022008635284494b61c25a0bfd282b8570d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000523\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226f607d4079164946af0eb589f5753d1b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022008635284494b61c25a0bfd282b8570d\u0022\u003EVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (16:21)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I am just going to go back to new section 16A, inserted by clause 8, which I don\u2019t think we\u2019ve discussed. This is the \u201CReferences to Sovereign\u2019s birthday\u201D. The question for the Minister is: this feels like we have a moment to potentially make a change that New Zealanders may like, and I looked up why we have the Sovereign\u2019s birthday in June. It turns out the origin of the Queen\u2019s second birthday, or the June birthday, can be tracked back to the dilemma of planning a party around fickle British weather.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000524\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo while the Edward VII and then King George VI were both born in November and December, respectively, their birthdays were celebrated in the middle of the year to allow for that. Now, of course, in the middle of June in New Zealand, we\u2019re in a little bit of a different circumstance, and so there is potentially an opportunity there for some thought. I\u2019m just wondering whether the Minister had given any thought to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000525\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen a couple of practical questions on new section 16B(2), which sets out when Subpart 3 of Part 4 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act provisions won\u2019t apply, and when that might be the case in terms of the use of electronic technology. Also, in relation to new clause 11(2), which makes reference to the \u201CChief Parliamentary Counsel must not make a PCO (Parliamentary Counsel Office) notice unless satisfied that the administering agency for the secondary legislation to which it relates has agreed to the notice applying to that legislation.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is: am I correct that this has more or less the same effect as the current provisions in the Act which anyway require agreement between the administering agency and Chief Parliamentary Counsel? So there is, effectively, no change in procedure on that front. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e66329e431ea47019b41524c6ef2954a\u0022 data-id=\u00221b50005d9266e17772210e05b69a998d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000527\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e66329e431ea47019b41524c6ef2954a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221b50005d9266e17772210e05b69a998d\u0022\u003ECELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) (16:23)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I do appreciate the filmographic references from the Minister, and filmographic is a word that will now be in \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E. Also his historical references: 1688 makes 1835 and 1840 look pretty recent, so thank you for that background. My subsequent question is really related to new section 16B, inserted by clause 8; I am avoiding the Sovereign. I want to know about\u2014there will no longer be a requirement to retain information in paper or other non-electronic form, as I understand it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000528\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m just interested in whether primary legislation and regulations\u2014whether there will be required paper archives. I mean, it\u2019s a wonderful thing when you\u2019re waiting for your turn for House duty to go and look at \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E. I\u2019m not sure I fully understand everything that I read in there, but it\u2019s there. Again, thinking about either malicious attacks or just mistakes or just data being lost: can I be reassured that there is some way that there will be paper? I\u2019m not requiring any stone tablets to be produced by this Government or any other.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000529\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf we just see how technology has changed\u2014I think there are other members in the House that would remember being excited about having a Walkman, and that has been somewhat superseded by other technology like CDs, DVDs. Will there be hard drives that we know will not be corrupted by magnetic, by\u2014goodness gracious\u2014solar flares, all of the excitement of magnetic poles changing, or would we have some paper happily kept? Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022 data-id=\u002278eb2b546c8376811ba894c9e94f2ba0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000530\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002278eb2b546c8376811ba894c9e94f2ba0\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (16:25)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair.I think the member is quite right to highlight the possibility of compromise by various means.We somehow dodged a bullet on Y2K, but there are other ways by which, of course, electronic or digital systems can be compromised.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000531\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think in terms of backup, while the detail would be an operational matter rather than a matter for the legislation itself, I would hope that there would be some sort of effective backup, whether or not in hard copy\u2014and one, of course, must always think of the trees\u2014but if not in hard copy, then some sort of cached or other record that\u2019s not vulnerable to cyber-attack or, either way, in which it could be deliberately or accidentally removed from accessibility. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of the point that Vanushi Walters made about the Sovereign\u2019s birthday, the Associate Minister for Emergency Management Recovery has told me there\u2019s no good time in New Zealand at which we can avoid inclement weather for the purpose of celebrating the Sovereign\u2019s birthday\u2014God save the King\u2014so it\u2019s not something that had occurred to me in terms of changing, but it seems to me that any change is as good a time as any, and one\u2019s likelihood is no worse than any other time to have some kind of celebration, accordingly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs for 11(2), the point that she makes about whether there would be a Parliamentary Counsel Office notice being made, notwithstanding the administering agency for the secondary legislation agreeing or not, there is no effective change to the current rules of the game, so to speak.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022d52df5d11b57de189915984db15f97bd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d52df5d11b57de189915984db15f97bd\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:27)\u003C/span\u003E: Moving through the bill, the next question is in relation to replacement section 72, inserted by clause 17, which is also the same question I have just for the Chair, for your record. It\u2019s the same in theme, in terms of my question, to replacement section 75, inserted by clause 19, because those two are basically the same but one is from a perspective of minimum legislative requirement for Parliamentary Counsel Office and one of them is for administrative agency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000535\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy question is that, for example, for section 72(2), \u201Cmust continue to publish the legislation\u201D\u2014I think in general we were looking at the improvement and the digitisation of our legislation, and it does have specific requirements for things that are considered accessible for the New Zealand public. My question is with the update that we\u2019re seeing\u2014two questions\u2014will there be ways for us to be accessible from a disability lens, particularly when we\u2019re looking at the ability for the new legislation website to have better ways for, I guess, speech transcription for those who are blind, in particular? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000536\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnd whether the way that we\u2019re having a single source, which is also better for accessibility\u2014whether the hyperlinks that are going to be used within that website to link to either revoked, repealed, or previous versions of a legislation, primary and secondary, or if it\u2019s hyperlinked to an agency website that has a secondary legislation, if it\u2019s agency-administered and published, and whether those hyperlinks will also be readily available for someone who is blind or hard of seeing? So I guess those are my two questions from an accessibility perspective.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022 data-id=\u0022033c05d60b61fe575a9f86a829778b95\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000537\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022033c05d60b61fe575a9f86a829778b95\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (16:29)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. In terms of the accessibility point, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s points are well made. Of course, we talk about access to justice or accessibility of the rules being a key tenet of what we would call the rule of law, in general. Of course, in a disability sense, accessibility is no less important, so I take his point about speech transcription. The availability of hyperlinks, it seems to me, is a starting point, notwithstanding any mechanical issues that would need to be overcome in terms of providing those different ways of reaching the law that our agencies in general and Parliamentary Counsel Office in particular\u2014our instrument, as we now know it to be\u2014should make as great a provision as practicable or possible, according to whether Dr Webb\u2019s in the House or not, to ensure that that\u2019s the case for those citizens of New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226f607d4079164946af0eb589f5753d1b\u0022 data-id=\u002243e361a06a5770377129b5a308636faf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000538\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226f607d4079164946af0eb589f5753d1b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002243e361a06a5770377129b5a308636faf\u0022\u003EVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (16:30)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. A few very quick questions from me. Clause 17\u2014so this is the replacement section 72\u2014refers to the obligation for the Parliamentary Counsel Office to comply with that section, even if the legislation is repealed. So this is just a question about whether that\u2019s any change from the current situation. I imagine that there isn\u2019t a removal of repealed legislation, as a matter of course. So I\u2019m just confirming, just to be crystal clear, that there\u2019s an obligation there to keep the legislation up, if you like, and accessible?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000539\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe next two questions are in relation to clause 19. Lawrence Xu-Nan has asked one of the questions that I had on disability and access. My view, if the Minister was wanting to make an amendment, is that replacement section 74(3) may present an opportune place to add some language about accessibility for disabled people. But my question is in relation to the little grid that we\u2019ve got in subsection (1), where it sets out when the secondary legislation must first be published\u2014and the language is: \u201CAs soon as practicable after the legislation is made\u201D. Did the Minister consider imposing a time period regarding first publication? That\u2019s my first question. The attached question is: do comparable jurisdictions have time-bound directives in terms of when the time frame in which secondary legislation must be published?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI, then, also had a question in regards to replacement section 75(2)(a). This paragraph says \u201Cas far as practicable, the legislation and information is at all times able to be accessed at, or downloaded from, an Internet site referred to \u2026 free of charge;\u201D. Did the Minister consider making it mandatory that legislation must be downloaded? Now, this is a question that actually attaches to my colleague\u2019s question about disability access, because if you are able to download secondary legislation, then you may well have the tools to be able to apply a voice system or to increase the size of the print, etc., and so that could be quite an effective way of addressing the accessibility issue by simply changing the word \u201Cor\u201D, in that paragraph, to the word \u201Cand\u201D. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022a4eb634970e2647cb437fe75d225c69b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a4eb634970e2647cb437fe75d225c69b\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:33)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Minister, for that response. I guess this is something that\u2019s applicable in both primary and, potentially, secondary legislation, from accessibility and also in terms of good legislative practice with the languages, as well, of Aotearoa New Zealand. To give some context, we are seeing, for example, in Canada, legislation is published in both English and French; and, for example, in Wales, legislation is published in both English and Welsh. I wondered, while we\u2019re looking at, potentially, official languages, etc., in this House, whether there is any consideration as part of this bill to also be able to draft\u2014other than settlement bills\u2014bills in te reo M\u0101ori, as an official language, which I know that many other jurisdictions do, and in recognition of its official language status. Understandably, it is harder when it comes to New Zealand Sign Language, but I just also wondered, even from a New Zealand Sign Language perspective or, even, a te reo M\u0101ori perspective, how are we ensuring that legislation is accessible in recognition of other official languages?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000542\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EBut, I guess, also, in terms of an even broader context\u2014it depends on the response of the Minister. I do have, under the potentially different context in terms of, even, how English and the United Kingdom drafts its legislation in terms of using some of these other languages, as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u0022b225586632ff9ba428ddf621b86401a6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b225586632ff9ba428ddf621b86401a6\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (16:35)\u003C/span\u003E: Just in response to Dr Xu-Nan\u2019s last point: there\u2019s no intention in this bill to look at mandatory drafting in te reo M\u0101ori, or, I guess, the equivalent in New Zealand Sign Language. There are, probably, very good reasons for that. I think our country has had quite an interesting history of drafting legal texts in two languages, and trying to reconcile, perhaps, different interpretations of specific words in different languages can cause issues. We have enough of those issues trying to argue about interpretations of a single language in our courts, let alone others. So that might have to be a discussion for another day, but it\u2019s not one for this particular bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust to address one of the questions around access, from Vanushi Walters, I\u2019ve just got some advice here that the bill does support disabled communities\u2019 access to legislation both in-house, published on agency websites, and the features of the new website. Regulations made under the bill will set out what forms and formats legislation must be published in. We anticipate that this will require publication of secondary legislation in machine-readable formats, and so that means that people who are supported by screen readers will be able to use them to read published legislation. The new website will also aim to comply with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2, Level AA\u2014and that\u2019s probably a technical term that the member knows more about than I do, but that is the advice provided.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000545\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust in terms of the question around \u201CShould it be changed from\u201D\u2014this is in clause 19, which inserts new section 75(2)(a)\u2014\u201C \u2018accessed at, or downloaded from,\u2019 to \u2018accessed at, and downloaded from,\u2019?\u201D I\u2019m not convinced that that change would make a material difference. Of course, there are probably arguments that as soon as you\u2019re accessing something online, through a device, you have actually downloaded that data anyway, so there may well be some technical interpretation questions as to why you have \u201Caccessed \u2026 or downloaded\u201D as being the option. But we think, with those standards put in place around disability, around accessibility, that having the option to have it read by a screen reader, or the ability to download it, perhaps, in PDF form at some later point, is sufficient.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00228b3fc1e131b03e6de90a924ebfa1a6da\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000546\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228b3fc1e131b03e6de90a924ebfa1a6da\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair, and just also to signal to the Chair that my previous question was in relation to replacement section 72, inserted by clause 17, and replacement section 75, inserted by clause 19, in terms of accessibility.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000547\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThank you for that response, Minister, but I guess this is a broader conversation for the House to consider when it comes to publishing in dual languages. Again, other countries\u2014I mentioned Canada, but also other regions, I guess: Canada and also Wales are already doing things like that and they have no issues in terms of publishing in two languages.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000548\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI guess my trivia for the day for the committee is, indeed, even in British or English legislation, they currently still use Normandy French because Law French goes back to the courts in the 13\u003Csup\u003Eth\u003C/sup\u003E century. That is something that we are seeing, that multiple languages, understandably, are used within the British Empire.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000549\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI guess, my second question to this\u2014now I\u2019m moving on to replacement section 73, inserted by clause 19, and I want to pick up on new subsection (1A), which I know is a new addition from the select committee stage. I just want to make sure that the Minister in the chair has the same interpretation for how we look at it, which is, currently, on the legislation website, if you go to the \u201CVersions\u201D tab, you will see the different versions both in terms of primary but also in terms of potentially some of the Parliamentary Counsel Office - drafted and - published secondary legislation. For this particular clause, my understanding is that, under the new website, there is also an obligation for agency-drafted and -published secondary legislation to also have the ability for someone to go back and check the previous versions. I\u2019m seeing nods, which is great, so I\u2019m guessing that has been clarified.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u0022b12b8f3ded270459a206d91b2343fd52\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000550\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b12b8f3ded270459a206d91b2343fd52\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (16:40)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019d invite Dr Xu-Nan to maybe just reframe that question in the next call, because I was nodding in understanding of his position, not necessarily in response.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022345b73c55eaf889f108dcffd2c2c112c\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, the nods are from the officials.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227a01f99e3159cc54b704e92305317920\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, the nods are from officials. Well, look, I\u2019ll take the member\u2019s word that the nods are from officials. So take that as a yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000553\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll just address the question from Vanushi Walters from before. If I turn the member\u2019s attention to clause 20, clause 20 is the provision which states that secondary legislation doesn\u2019t commence until first published. There are a couple of exceptions to that, but that will, I think, solve or remedy the question of should there be a mandatory requirement or a publication date. I think the fact that the secondary legislation doesn\u2019t come into force until it\u2019s published kind of takes care of that. If the regulator wants the rule to be enforced or regulatable, they should publish it and bring it into force.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226f607d4079164946af0eb589f5753d1b\u0022 data-id=\u002227f07b6ee8c3dc2f8fb89628f03c9c0c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000554\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226f607d4079164946af0eb589f5753d1b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002227f07b6ee8c3dc2f8fb89628f03c9c0c\u0022\u003EVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (16:41)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you to the Minister for that response. I\u2019m just looking at the new section 76, inserted by clause 19, which is \u201CAlternative obligations if publication exemption applies\u201D. The first is a general question about exemption. So when I spoke to exemptions more broadly earlier, I talked about the fact that sometimes you might not be able to wait until publication for certain secondary legislation to come into force, and that could be times of emergency, etc. But what about the possibility of having subsequent publication requirements where there is an emergency initially, so you do want the secondary legislation to commence, but in due course you also want it to be published\u2014whether there\u2019s anything that I\u2019ve missed in the current bill that speaks to that; and, if not, whether it would be a useful addition for that to potentially be included.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000555\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew section 76(b)\u2014I think this is a brilliant new section of the bill\u2014requires the administering agency to publish details as to the availability of anything that has been exempt. I think that\u2019s an excellent thing so people can try and find a way to access that secondary legislation. I\u2019m just wondering whether there ought to be an obligation to also publish the nature of the exemption, just in terms of transparency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAt new section 76, I just wanted to make one more quick plug for my amendments, which speak specifically to this. Again, I have no issue with commencement beginning on publication date. The issue I pointed to the Minister who was in the chair was that should that secondary piece of legislation fall off a website, it would still be law, regardless of people not being able to access it. So my amendment\u2014and I\u2019ve proposed a couple of alternatives\u2014could go some way to addressing that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000557\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESection 78, amended by clause 21, along with it replacement section 79, amended by clause 23, speak about the official versions of legislation, and then the legal status of official versions. This is where, essentially, the Parliamentary Counsel Office may identify official, electronic, or printed versions of legislation. For all those many people eagerly listening at home, I wonder if the Minister could speak to the effect of having official versions of legislation and what their legal status is, versus the legislation that individuals would be accessing from home via the new portal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u0022dc5053e4f98a9a97e0f07e404d75edcb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dc5053e4f98a9a97e0f07e404d75edcb\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (16:44)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll stand to be corrected, but my instinct would be that the legal status of any secondary legislation or, in fact, legislation, would be that the Order in Council or the regulation which is signed off by the Minister or the Governor-General is the one that is the final version and has legal force, in the same way that the statute which is given the Royal assent is the final version, but I\u2019ll take some advice if that\u2019s to the contrary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000559\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EOn the point around exemptions when you can\u2019t wait, again, I\u2019ll take some advice as to whether or not this isn\u2019t the case, but if you combine new section 76(a) and (b), inserted by clause 19, that does require the agency to both make the legislation, or part of it, available in a way which meets the requirements and also publish details as to its availability. A combination of them both may well, in effect, solve that issue of whether or not something has been published. I think the question from the member is: \u201CShould there be a requirement to publish an exempted piece of secondary legislation on the official website at some stage or within a certain time frame?\u201D I\u2019ll grab some advice from the officials on that, but the reassurance from new section 76(a) and (b) is that a similar effect will take place, and it would be good practice, in my view, if we are trying to get all secondary legislation in one place, to have that on the official record at some point. But I\u2019ll get some advice as to whether or not there is a requirement to do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022ff9315c6022a228ae6f1fb9f8557d476\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ff9315c6022a228ae6f1fb9f8557d476\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:45)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Yes, just to acknowledge the fact that the nod before was from the officials around the consolidation. I think a really important aspect maybe for people who don\u2019t spend as much time on the legislation website\u2014particularly, I think, when we\u2019re looking at it from a judiciary sense\u2014it\u2019s really important for agency drafting and published secondary legislation to be able to track some of those version histories. Particularly when it comes to cases, the ability to quickly go through previous versions is important when you identify the specific timing of whether something has been commenced or is in effect or not. So I think that\u2019s a really fantastic, quality-of-life improvement to the way we look at agency drafting and published secondary legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMoving on to a new part\u2014speaking of consistency\u2014I want to check with the Minister in terms of clause 27, new sections 83AA to 83AC. I\u2019m sure others may also have\u2014I\u2019m seeing nods from Vanushi Walters. I think we\u2019re thinking very similarly in terms of the areas that we want to touch on. I guess my question to the Minister is that Inland Revenue occupies a very peculiar space in terms of the drafting of legislation, where my understanding is that it is, essentially, the only department that is able to draft its own bills.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the recommendations that was had as part of the select committee stage was for the drafting of relevant Inland Revenue bills to go back to the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) for consistency, as opposed to remaining with the Inland Revenue Department (IRD). I guess the context of this is while this has been in place since the 1990s, that was at a time when PCO may not have had the capacity to do some of the drafting, which is not necessarily the case nowadays. So I wondered, to the Minister\u2014rather than having that level of consistency approach, which we have seen throughout this bill\u2014why was there the intention to continue this anomaly of IRD drafting its own bills, and then giving, I guess, further directions in effect to it under clause 27, these new sections 83AA and 83AC.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u00224df3a76cb2f62535f94104de1cc70d13\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000563\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224df3a76cb2f62535f94104de1cc70d13\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (16:48)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019ll address the question from Vanushi Walters around that exemption. Essentially, the publication exemptions in new section 76, inserted by clause 19, would, in most circumstances, if not all, I think, be temporary. So, because they\u2019re temporary, they would also be required to be presented to the House. I\u2019m advised\u2014if I can read this correctly\u2014they will be published by matter of process, once the exemption ends, because they are only temporary exemptions. That is, of course, unless they are exempt by the Act under Schedule 3. So that\u2019s, I think, the last bit of answer to that question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226f607d4079164946af0eb589f5753d1b\u0022 data-id=\u00226870cfeac205c1f31ebf883376e995c4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000564\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226f607d4079164946af0eb589f5753d1b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226870cfeac205c1f31ebf883376e995c4\u0022\u003EVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (16:49)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the Minister for that response, although it does sound like there may well be cases where there are more permanent exemptions in place. Potentially, the argument still stands, and just to support the question from my colleague Lawrence Xu-Nan, that was a question raised by the Law Commission, as well, in terms of why it was that we had the unusual situation where we have one department that is drafting primary legislation while the rest is done through the Parliamentary Counsel Office.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI am looking at new section 83AB in clause 27. This is a part that regards directions that the Attorney-General may give to support a consistent approach across agencies. My first question is in relation to subsection (4), which specifies the situations where the Attorney-General can give a direction. It says that \u201CA direction may be given only\u2014(a) to 1 or more categories or types of administering agencies\u201D, and then it says, \u201Cor (b) to a group of administering agencies\u201D, with the group being made up of \u201Cat least 3 administering agencies;\u201D. It just seemed odd to me because, in fact, that would mean that if the Attorney-General wanted to give directions to two administering agencies, he or she would then need to do that separately, as opposed to doing it as a group. So I was just wondering what the logic was to defining that as three agencies. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m then looking in clause 29 at new section 83A, \u201CAnnual report on legislative practices\u201D, which I think is fantastic, and I look forward to being able to read these. In subsection (2), it says that \u201CA report may include\u2014(a) recommendations for the repeal of redundant or spent legislation or provisions of legislation;\u201D and a series of other considerations, as well. My question to the Minister is whether there was consideration given to making that mandatory. I\u2019ve certainly heard comments from a number of senior academics\u2014and the Law Commission, as well\u2014who have suggested that a broad review of legislation and secondary legislation that should be taken off the books is done, and so if we make it a mandatory reporting consideration under the annual reports, that could go some way to then giving us a methodology to be able to embark on that process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u0022c18982fb38c3c4a2718030ae808035eb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000567\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c18982fb38c3c4a2718030ae808035eb\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (16:52)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019ve just quickly looked up clause 29, which is inserting new section 83A(2), which the member referred to. I think the issue would be that the new section says that \u201CA report may include\u2014(a) recommendations for the repeal of redundant or spent legislation or provisions of legislation;\u201D. If it was \u201Cmust include\u201D, then, therefore, the report would be legally required to include recommendations on something that it might not have a recommendation on. A report has the option of including a recommendation, but it doesn\u2019t have to do it, or otherwise you\u2019d be requiring it to report on something that it might not be recommending. That\u2019s the reason why it\u2019s a \u201Cmay\u201D rather than a \u201Cmust\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000568\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll go back just to round off the question around the publication exemptions to which new section 76 in clause 19 would apply. We had a quick think about how regularly this would apply and to what kinds of rules it could apply to, but they would be very rare and very few and far between. One example that we could think of would be, for example, rules around market access conditions requirements. Those rules would only be made available to the participants to whom they applied and, therefore, they wouldn\u2019t be published. That\u2019s the kind of exemption that would tend to be put in place for that, and there is a list of the exempt Acts under Schedule 3\u2014which I was trying to dig around for. It\u2019s actually the new Schedule 3 in Schedule 2 of the bill, if anyone needs to find it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000569\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust to tidy up another couple of points, there was a question around official versions. The term \u201Cofficial versions\u201D means that a printout of the website is taken to state the law. That makes it easier to use in court proceedings. If you are presenting the court with a printout of the website, that will be accepted as what is the law. However, courts do routinely use aids to publish legislation, and so using the word \u201Cofficial\u201D makes it easier. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen there was the question from Dr Xu-Nan about the IRD, and whether we could go back to the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) for consistency. As he reflected, they have been doing this since 1995. There are benefits in having separate policy and drafting responsibilities. The IRD, or Inland Revenue (IR)\u2014although I think it\u2019s been the IRD for a while\u2014has the ability to require particular expertise and dedicated resource. This bill will actually enhance existing systems, which will enable PCO\u2019s and IR\u2019s drafters to collaborate in order to align their drafting practices. IR\u2019s drafters do use PCO\u2019s drafting and publishing systems, and the bills are published on the New Zealand Legislation website. Hopefully, that addresses Dr Xu-Nan\u2019s questions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022da8f8bc4e34a6d015dbda73cb16c4b2a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000571\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022da8f8bc4e34a6d015dbda73cb16c4b2a\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:54)\u003C/span\u003E: Just moving along, we do have a few more parts to Part 1, and I want to move to a new clause, which is clause 31. Actually, let\u2019s take clauses 30 and 31 together, in terms of editorial changes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000572\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy first question around the editorial changes is this. Assuming that this is in reference to agencies drafting or publishing secondary legislation, I guess that the question here is when we\u2019re looking at new section 86B in clause 31, which is on how the Chief Parliamentary Counsel is able to authorise an editorial change by the administering agencies, I wanted to check with the Minister as to how this interacts, for example, when it comes to the power granted by the Regulations Review Committee when it comes to making changes or seeking changes or disallowing secondary legislation under the Legislation Act, as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000573\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen we\u2019re looking at consistency and when we have the Parliamentary Counsel Office and the Chief Parliamentary Counsel asking an administering agency to make editorial changes, and then you are getting, for example, the Regulations Review Committee also having the mandate under the Legislation Act to ask the administering agency to make different editorial changes, which department trumps which in those kinds of situations, where you have the possibility of multiple people seeking to make editorial changes. That\u2019s, essentially, my main question on this particular part. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u00226ac57617dc47f8fed49c3e24cca17fa5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000574\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226ac57617dc47f8fed49c3e24cca17fa5\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (16:57)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll have to think about the interaction between the powerful Regulations Review Committee and the Parliamentary Counsel Office\u2019s editorial change ability. Somewhere in the back of my mind is the thought that the threshold for Regulations Review Committee complaints or inquiries into the validity of regulations is relatively high under the Standing Orders. I\u2019d have to rack my brain, and probably more experienced and clever people than me in the Chamber could tell me whether or not issues with maybe a typo or an editorial change in a regulation meets the threshold for the Regulations Review Committee to make recommendations or disallowance motions on them. So I can\u2019t exactly comment on that at the moment, but I will get some advice from officials.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000575\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll just address Vanushi Walters\u2019 question previously on the Attorney-General\u2019s directions. That power that\u2019s in there mirrors the whole-of-Government directions that exist in other legislation, and what it\u2019s doing is it\u2019s ensuring that the Attorney-General can\u2019t direct particular agencies about a particular matter. That responsibility is for the Minister responsible for the particular statutes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u0022ba4bdc815d3d82faa9bc3a2de8b9de94\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ba4bdc815d3d82faa9bc3a2de8b9de94\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (16:58)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I know that in his inimitable way, Mr Xu-Nan is going very methodically through the legislation, but there is a point that I would like to raise, and it is skipping ahead a bit. It\u2019s about revision bills, which is clause 37, and one of the cornerstones of this piece of legislation is broadening what a revision bill is, because it was the view of the Attorney-General and the Justice Committee that revision bills weren\u2019t being used to full effect. Having said that, new section 96(3) in clause 37 does broaden it quite a lot, and I would actually invite the Minister to express clearly perhaps the Government\u2019s view as to how broadly they should be interpreted, because under the Legislation Act as it stands, for example, it says that a revision bill may also make minor amendments, and in this draft the word \u201Cminor\u201D has disappeared.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000577\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat I would really like to look at, though, is clause 37, \u201CSection 96 amended (Revision powers)\u201D, new subsection 3(b), in general, because looking at that, there is a risk, on one analysis, that you can do sweeping reforms. It\u2019s clearly not intended, and I\u2019d like to hear the Minster say that, because if you think of a kind of red-tape - focused Government, and you say that you can \u201C(b)(i) make amendments to reduce or avoid unduly onerous or burdensome requirements: (ii) unnecessary compliance costs: (iii) unnecessary costs of administering the legislation: [and] (iv) conflicts [between other legislation]\u201D\u2014particularly those first three\u2014it could look like a reform programme. But we know that that\u2019s not what revision bills actually are about. They may be about when there was an oversight or a slip or, perhaps, something a little more than that; failing to anticipate a future circumstance, which has led to an unnecessarily burdensome requirement, and then, perhaps, you can go back and tweak that by revision or an unnecessary compliance cost. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000578\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut I don\u2019t think that this revision bill\u2014noting that it has to be certified by parliamentary counsel, I think the Attorney-General, and president of the Law Commission\u2014they\u2019re actually the people that this guidance is for; to say, \u201CWell, look, when we say that, we\u2019re not saying you can go and sweep in at a ministerial kind of whim, have a reform package, which is changing substantially the regulatory regime that\u2019s been imposed, because, in a political kind of view, it\u2019s unnecessarily burdensome.\u201D But I think if it\u2019s a somewhat more objective view where the reasonable bystander would say, \u201CThat\u2019s actually not what was anticipated by the draft of legislation; it\u2019s not its purpose and intent.\u201D, then that\u2019s a different kind of thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo I\u2019m inviting the Minister, essentially, to recognise that and give some guidance from the Government. I mean, certainly in the Justice Committee, that\u2019s the discussion we had. There was some concern around this language, and there\u2019s a process around it. But I\u2019d also invite the Minister to just give us his reflections as to exactly what particularly those three items under new subsection (3)(b) refer to in respect of revision bills.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u00221d196d076ca9143768597330db916088\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221d196d076ca9143768597330db916088\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (17:02)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019ll address Dr Webb\u2019s question in a second, after I\u2019ve had time to recover from a piece of work I did on a revision bill when I was a practising lawyer, and spent many hours trying to go back and forth about what the definition of \u201Cminor\u201D could be with a client and whether or not they could have recommended this particular change because it was minor or not. So I\u2019ll address that in a second, once I\u2019ve had some expert advice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EBut to go to\u2014I think it was Vanushi Walters\u2019 point, or was it Dr Xu-Nan\u2019s point around editorial changes?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f3da477a17a4d05689f263acf0cab490\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan talked about editorial changes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000583\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002283643f85d3b25818c41eb48b86c6be75\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER\u003C/span\u003E: It was Dr Xu-Nan\u2019s point about editorial changes. I said I\u2019d come back to him on the interplay between the Regulations Review Committee. So the editorial changes can only be made if it\u2019s clear that the law doesn\u2019t change. I think it would be highly unlikely, having sat on the Regulations Review Committee, one of Parliament\u2019s most powerful committees, that they would recommend or spend their time inquiring into an issue which wouldn\u2019t result in an actual change to the effect or functioning of the law. But, in saying that, if they were to make recommendations to the Parliamentary Counsel Office about making an editorial change, then the process for which to make that change\u2014it would only be a recommendation\u2014would be administered under the legislation as it\u2019s enacted, or, if it is enacted, when it goes through.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000584\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of whether there\u2019s a hierarchy, recommendations from the Regulations Review Committee are just those: they\u2019re recommendations that they often make just in writing to agencies. Of course, they could make a report to the House and they could recommend that the Government look at or address that report, and the Government would have to respond in its normal response requirements under the Standing Orders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut in terms of the interplay, there is no real hierarchy. It sort of works on a bit of a back and forth between the work that the Regulations Review Committee does and that of agencies, and making sure they\u2019ve got good, high-quality regulation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022147a9699bab73a9fb38d4cbcfaa165c4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000586\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022147a9699bab73a9fb38d4cbcfaa165c4\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:04)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Just to pick up on the revision bill, I think the revision bill aspect is probably the most substantial and\u2014well, all of this bill is substantial, but it\u2019s probably the part that we don\u2019t have certainty from the Minister on in terms of how it\u2019s going to function.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000587\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, following from what the Hon Dr Duncan Webb said, I do have three tabled amendments on clause 37(5), replacement section 96(3) to (4). In terms of my amendment, I understand where the Minister is coming from in terms of the definition of \u201Cminor\u201D, but I think \u201Cminor\u201D is an important keyword to be placed back into this particular part of the revision bill. The reason I think it is really important is, though it is outside the scope of the committee stage, a lot of the concern that we have in terms of revision bills comes down to Standing Orders 276, which is on revision bills.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, for context, revision bills do go through a much greater process within the House. So, for example, in Standing Order 276, on revision bills, 276(3) states, \u201CFollowing the bill\u2019s first reading, the question is put, without amendment or debate, that the bill be considered by a subject \u2026 committee nominated\u201D; \u201CFollowing \u2026 the committee\u2019s final report\u201D\u2014this is Standing Order 276(4)\u2014\u201Con the bill, the Business Committee determines arrangements for the passage of the bill.\u201D; \u201CFollowing the bill\u2019s second reading, the House proceeds to the third reading immediately,\u201D; \u201CThere is no amendment or debate on the question for the third reading.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000589\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo, essentially, it goes through first reading; truncated, potentially, select committee stage; it goes through second reading; no committee stage; and third reading. So if there is a possibility or if \u201Crevision bill\u201D is open to interpretation to something that\u2019s way more substantial, we skip this whole process that we\u2019re doing here right now. And that is a concern.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart of the submission\u2014for example, the Law Society submission was not just to the select committee but also proposed that a select committee writes to the Standing Orders Committee as part of the Standing Orders review to relook at the way that we balance Standing Order 276 in response to this particular bill and, potentially, a widening scope of this bill. The reason why this, potentially, is also important, I guess, as a point currently is we\u2019re also seeing the ability, using the Standing Orders or various forms of the Standing Orders, to expedite legislative process in this House, as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo, I guess, again, for reassurance in the context of how we look at Standing Order 276, I ask the Minister: is there a way for us to have the reassurance that, though it is not specified, the intention of \u201Cminor\u201D remains? Otherwise, under the existing process whereby if you do something that\u2019s more than minor to put in an Amendment Paper to a revision bill, which then would potentially still have a committee stage, this, currently, is already allowed. I can see the Minister is waiting to respond, because this is something the Minister possibly has experience in, as he said previously.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000592\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo I would ask the Minister to consider my amendment, which is dated to 9 March 4.57.01, 4.57.02, and 4.57.03.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u0022bcbfb5d7ad061336d195139acf9b2bd8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000593\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bcbfb5d7ad061336d195139acf9b2bd8\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (17:08)\u003C/span\u003E: OK. Let\u2019s tackle the \u201Cminor\u201D\u2014or not\u2014issue. It does go back to the example I raised before, and I\u2019ve just dug through my papers and looked for some examples, and the examples raised around these requirements did mention the Valuers Bill. The Valuers Bill was a bill that I did a piece of work on in the past. Essentially, the intention is to avoid those long back and forth debates on whether or not a change is minor or not. You could think of examples of legislation that might be over 100 years old, where the change in updating the language could be seen, by some, to be quite substantial, but, by others, to be actually required in order to make the legislation work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo in order to avoid that back and forth debate over whether a change is minor or not, bearing in mind that Parliament, or the House, in essence, has the ultimate say over what amendments can or can\u2019t be made to legislation\u2014and that\u2019s reinforced in replacement section 99\u2014nothing in the Act prevents the House from amending a revision bill for any purpose. Now, that comes with the caveat that this place operates on convention and common understanding. And I don\u2019t want to put on the record in the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard \u003C/span\u003Ethat the intention is to take out the word \u201Cminor\u201D, but to leave it implied, because some enthusiastic young law graduate, at some point, will look up the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E and try and make an argument in the court that the things that we say in Parliament, whether it\u2019s at 5.10 a.m. or 10.10 at night, are true and proper intentions of what Parliament intended. Sometimes they are just the somewhat lengthy ramblings of a junior Minister, and sometimes the better way to look at what the intention of Parliament is when it passes a statute is to look at the words in the purpose in the context of the statute. In this instance, I would encourage those who have concerns about the removal of the word \u201Cminor\u201D to look at both section 92 of the Act, which sets out the purpose, and look at new section 98, which is around the certification of revision bills, which requires that the certifiers are satisfied that the powers in section 96, which is what Dr Webb pointed to, have been exercised appropriately, having had regard to the purpose of section 92.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll also just finally make reference to those qualifiers in clause 37(5), which is replacing section 93(3)(b)(i), (ii), (iii), and (iv). I think that if you look at the words \u201Cunduly\u201D and \u201Cunnecessary\u201D in (ii) and (iii) and \u201Cconflicts or adverse interactions between legislation\u201D, those do a significant amount of lifting to try and address some of the concerns that Dr Webb had of maybe some nefarious Parliament or House trying to slip through a substantive piece of legislative reform under the guise of a revision bill. I just think there are too many safeguards in the legislation as it stands for that to be a realistic opportunity. Of course, there are the political constraints on that kind of action, which inevitably constrain the House and Parliament and Government from doing all sorts of things in terms of legislative reform, which they technically could do but don\u2019t do, due to convention or due to the political boundaries within which they operate. I acknowledge the member\u2019s amendments, but we wouldn\u2019t support them for the reasons that I\u2019ve outlined.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022 data-id=\u002262b8886f3fa31d1ccdc00651ffdc4e42\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002262b8886f3fa31d1ccdc00651ffdc4e42\u0022\u003ETOM RUTHERFORD (National\u2014Bay of Plenty) (17:12)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022a34da6e4c5e2567ce7aba3f56940595d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000597\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a34da6e4c5e2567ce7aba3f56940595d\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I just have a quick follow-up question\u2014actually two quick follow-up questions\u2014to this. I understand where the Minister is coming from, and there are some very strict requirements currently because of the interpretation of \u201Cminor\u201D when it comes to revision bills. To my knowledge, the Valuers Bill is one of them, and there\u2019s only been, I think, two other instances of revision bills that have actually met the threshold.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWe already have mechanisms to make some of those other changes\u2014for example, the Statutes Amendment Bill was a really good example of having those consequential changes across the board to different legislation that updates on some of the outdated language, granted that the statutes bill is proposed from a Minister\u2019s perspective, whereas the revision bill is something that can be proposed by the Parliamentary Counsel Office. If the mechanism already exists using a statutes bill, as an example, or even other forms of omnibus bills, like a regulatory systems bill that we have seen a number of times in this House, why then do we need to expand the scope? I do acknowledge, going through the select committee stage, that clauses 38 and 39 have changes made that added additional safeguards, but I still want to know why there is such a variation in the first place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u002289a946bfe2d99dfa3be9cf3e996e8463\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000599\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002289a946bfe2d99dfa3be9cf3e996e8463\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (17:13)\u003C/span\u003E: Thanks, Mr Chair. Look, I think the member raises a couple of really good points. To have two bills go through in 14 years since the system\u2019s been available is probably not a great reflection of its accessibility and usability. Part of the reason for these changes is to provide a bit more flexibility and scope for revision bills to meet the threshold for certification. I don\u2019t know the ins and outs of the certification process for specific bills, but my guess would be that questions and queries around the word \u201Cminor\u201D probably have done some work in knocking some of those revision bills out. This is a way of trying to utilise an existing process to tie up the statute book. Of course, the mechanism itself will be less and less usable over time as we become better and better about keeping the statute book updated by using things like regulatory systems amendment bills and by using things like statutes amendment bills. It could be the case that there would be an argument in the future to amend the Standing Orders to remove the need or requirement for revision bills and remove this part from the statute, but we do have it. It is a tool available at the moment to help tidy up the statute book. If this bill goes some way to encouraging one or two more bills to go through the system and do that, then we think that\u2019s a good thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022768a52ca0e0b5f54811b7581d9d320e3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000600\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022768a52ca0e0b5f54811b7581d9d320e3\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for that, Minister. I\u2019m now moving on to, I think, probably the last few clauses of Part 1. I\u2019m going to move on to clause 45, in terms of \u201CConfidentiality\u201D, and then I want to move to clause 49, in terms of \u201CRegulations\u201D. Starting with clause 45, we updated this particular part in the select committee stage in terms of the definition of \u201Ccounsel\u201D. I want to check with the Minister\u2014and this is specifically, I guess, from the Minister\u2019s perspective\u2014in reference to 45(2)(c) under \u201Ccounsel\u201D. We had a discussion around a contractor or secondee of the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) who\u2019s working under supervision and who is a counsel under paragraph (a) or (b) and how the confidentiality is applied to them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000601\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI guess the question that we didn\u2019t manage to tease out is: for a contractor or secondee to be a part of that, would they also, then, in terms of confidentiality, be part of a confidential network\u2014i.e., a digital infrastructure that is within the PCO? Or, let\u2019s say we get a contractor from a law firm, for example: are they able to have that confidentiality extended to their digital infrastructure? We understand in terms of the specific personnel, but it\u2019s the system confidentiality requirement that we didn\u2019t manage to touch on during the select committee stage. That is my first question. Can I just check if the Minister is going to respond to that and if we need to move on to the next one. Is he seeking some advice?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227786e0fbfbce7063e1ef01404bfa7792\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: He\u2019s writing something.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022407e4cfd20787789ae017ac594e095a5\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: OK. I\u2019ll leave that because the second one is a completely different clause.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EOh, I\u2019ll keep going and just give the Minister a little bit more time to seek some advice and also to jot down some notes. I guess in terms of clause 49, \u201CSection 147 replaced\u201D, and in terms of \u201CRegulations\u201D, there are parts of this that attach on to the new Regulatory Standards Act. One of the things that we haven\u2019t been able to, again, tease out, even as part of that and also in this clause when we\u2019re looking at section 147, is that now the interaction of \u201Cthe Governor-General may, by Order in Council made by recommendation of the Attorney-General, make regulations\u201D, which is the standard phrase when it comes to regulations, and the process that will be required for that regulation to go through both the Regulatory Standards Act but also the scrutiny process of the Regulations Review Committee. I wondered if the Minister wouldn\u2019t mind just speaking to how this new process will look and will be lined up under these new facets of how regulations could be made.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u002233fbcd145bdf758b207d2ca294ad0cad\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000605\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002233fbcd145bdf758b207d2ca294ad0cad\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (17:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Maybe I\u2019ll take one more call, but on the question around confidentiality, I\u2019m not quite sure what the thrust of it is. It might be a technical question around when a contractor is using a system to communicate with the Parliamentary Counsel Office, is the system covered by the confidentiality requirements? I\u2019m just not quite sure what member\u2019s getting at, so if you can just give me a clear steer on what the actual question is and what you\u2019re trying to determine. I\u2019m sure the officials can help me out with that one too.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen, just on the second one, my understanding is that clause 49, which replaces section 147 with a new general regulation-making power, is, essentially, a form of modernising the regulation-making power. I just need to check my notes on this one too, but in terms of how it interacts with the Regulatory Standards Act and the regulations review process, there would be nothing in here that I can see off the top of my mind that would change how that Act or the Standing Orders apply to the scrutiny of regulations as they are promulgated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000607\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI can talk specifically around regulations review: whenever a regulation or a piece of secondary legislation is published, those regulations are automatically scrutinised by the Parliamentary Counsel Office and the Regulations Review Committee for consistency with the Standing Orders, and, funnily\u2014or a lot of fun for us on the committee\u2014are brought to the attention of the committee regardless of whether they comply or not. So members of that committee will always get a rolling maul of regulations that have been both promulgated and published, and also a check on whether or not they\u2019re consistent with the Standing Orders\u2014or, actually, consistent with the law or not, essentially.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000608\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of the question around its interaction with the Regulatory Standards Act, I don\u2019t have anything really to add beyond that it wouldn\u2019t have any different interaction than other regulations promulgated under other pieces of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022bd0e8fe7f6079a76b45610aba417fb8d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bd0e8fe7f6079a76b45610aba417fb8d\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:21)\u003C/span\u003E: Just on the Minister in the chair\u2019s advice in terms of the clarification, I guess when it comes to contractors, particularly when we\u2019re looking at confidentiality, they will only be invited or be part of the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) system when they are doing the work as a contractor for the PCO, which then will cover the confidentiality. Like, you\u2019re not going to be able to have someone who is working off an external system, for example like a law firm, etc., where other people on that digital infrastructure are able to also access that information, which then wouldn\u2019t be covered by the confidentiality, for example. But I think that there is\u2014again, I\u2019m seeing nods from the officials, so I think that does actually clarify that question. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cf22a832d14a4c99ab5dfd16e24446e5\u0022 data-id=\u0022c579103088c529d5783991073a434402\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf22a832d14a4c99ab5dfd16e24446e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c579103088c529d5783991073a434402\u0022\u003ERIMA NAKHLE (National\u2014Takanini) (17:22)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000612\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000613\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000614\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000615\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000617\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226de2393ddc70ad00187815a5ffb3113e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Vanushi Walters\u2019 tabled amendments to the amendment to clause 29 and deleting new clause 29A in Amendment Paper 506, relating to a 20-working day period of non-publication of secondary legislation, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000618\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments to the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000619\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000620\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000621\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000622\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000623\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000624\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222a32e7b5f4a06be51b9ce63642b2588e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Vanushi Walters\u2019 tabled amendments to the amendment to clause 29 and deleting new clause 29A in Amendment Paper 506, relating to a 40-working day period of non-publication of secondary legislation, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments to the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000627\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000628\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000629\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000631\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223a117debb5b52876668f3b1cc12611cc\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Vanushi Walters\u2019 tabled amendment to the amendment to clause 41 in Amendment Paper 506, inserting new subsection (4) to invalidate secondary legislation not presented within 40 working days, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000632\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment to the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000633\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000634\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000635\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000636\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000637\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000638\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a307b5ef5f001b7744b532b781173010\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Vanushi Walters\u2019 tabled amendment to the amendment to clause 41 in Amendment Paper 506, inserting new subsection (4) to invalidate secondary legislation not presented within 60 working days, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000639\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment to the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000640\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000641\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000642\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000643\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000644\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000645\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221b88f63dab492887542d47cddd6c9709\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Vanushi Walters\u2019 tabled amendment to the amendment to clause 41 in Amendment Paper 506, inserting new subsection (4) to invalidate secondary legislation not presented within 100 working days, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000646\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment to the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000648\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000649\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000650\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000651\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000652\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002227ebb4dcbea11a46497dd194f65ded48\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Part 1, set out on Amendment Paper 506, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000654\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 102\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000655\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000656\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 21\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000657\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000658\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000659\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220ab86f7e819d6a0b682b5c334415fede\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: In accordance with Standing Order 305(3), I have grouped three amendments from Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan to clause 37(5).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000660\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s three tabled amendments to clause 37(5), amending new section 3(a), (b), and (c) to insert the word \u201Cminor\u201D, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000661\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000663\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000664\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000665\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000666\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000667\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Part 1 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000668\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 108\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000669\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000670\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 15\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000671\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000672\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 1 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000673\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b2ce1bfc752a690841e81fa4e225af6f\u0022\u003ECommittee of the Whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000674\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022fec58766f19d38883363698d8c88050f\u0022\u003EPart 2 Related amendments to principal Act and other legislation, and Schedules 1 to 4\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000675\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f8c51d85c6b396a9ce9e540ec64846ea\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 52 to 58\u2014\u201CRelated amendments to principal Act and other legislation\u201D\u2014and Schedules 1 to 4. The question is that Part 2 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u0022152a46b194c95d88294c068f695ffc98\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022152a46b194c95d88294c068f695ffc98\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (17:32)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. We come to the part which makes, as you well read out, other related changes to the principal Act and changes to other pieces of legislation. If members browse through clauses 52 through to clause 58, they will see that they generally amend schedules in other Acts. So, very, very quickly, they are a range of amendments around transition and savings provisions. If you look at clause 52, it amends Schedule 1 of the principal Act, which sets out the transitional and saving provisions to provide an orderly transition of agency published legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000677\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI will draw the member\u2019s attention to, say, clause 53, which amends Schedule 1A, which lists secondary legislation made by royal prerogative to add a reference to orders that establish royal commissions of inquiry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 54 amends Schedule 2, which provides for the incorporation by a reference. Essentially, the changes clarify how material may be made available for inspection and provide that if the material is available on the internet or an internet site via the internet free of charge, there\u2019s no separate obligation to make it available for purchase.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000679\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 55 replaces Schedule 3. We referenced this before, briefly. That\u2019s the schedule which outlines the Acts that are exempt from presentation or from disallowance. It largely carries over the existing schedule, with some amendments to take into account other amendments made by this bill\u2014amendments to Schedule 3 that were enacted after the Secondary Legislation Act 2021\u2014and to narrow some of the exemptions. For example, the publication exemption under the Financial Markets Conduct Act has been narrowed to cover only exemptions published by the Financial Markets Authority. So to the point before, there were some concerns around exemptions. Some of those statutory exemptions have actually been narrowed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000680\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 56 amends Schedule 4, which is a consequence of the amendments that we\u2019ve already agreed to in clause 42 related to secondary legislation subject to confirmation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 57 repeals some amendments relating to centralised publications that were included in previous Acts, including the Legislation (Repeals and Amendments) Act 2019 and the Secondary Legislation Act 2021. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000682\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, clause 58 amends various Acts to promote consistency with the decentralised publication system proposed by the bill. That includes removing bespoke publication requirements, ensuring that instruments that have legislative effect are appropriately identified as secondary legislation, and clarifying the effect of provisions relating to secondary legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022c44dc987b50c85d0e1ac3bab3d5bf1fa\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000683\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c44dc987b50c85d0e1ac3bab3d5bf1fa\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:35)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for that breakdown, Minister. I do have a few questions around Part 2, but I\u2019m going to go and start with my first question. I have quite a few follow-up questions. The Minister has rightfully pointed out that, potentially, particularly with clause 52, we\u2019re looking at some of the transitional measures of updating the secondary legislation in particular from the previous requirement to the new requirement. What I want to check with the Minister is around the quantifier for revocation under clause 52(8), which replaces clause 15(5) in Schedule 1\u2014I think I got that correct. For benefit of doubt, we\u2019re looking at page 37, starting with line 23. That might be a more helpful reference.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000684\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227db5ef47b73d9379ff3dcaf33c32afe6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Which line?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000685\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228257a97036650098502f4616858a8312\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Page 37, starting with line 23, and I will be referring to a few other sections.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000686\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo this section talks about \u201C(5) The secondary legislation is revoked on a date specified in the regulations if\u2014(a) the requirements that apply under subclause (2A) have not been complied with;\u201D. And if we\u2019re looking at subclause (2A), which is now page 35, I\u2019m assuming, starting with line 37. On the top of page 36, it also quantifies some of these. My understanding is, under the new requirement for secondary legislation consistency across the board, if they don\u2019t want to be revoked, if they are to be in effect, they need to be updated to the new requirements, which explains paragraph (a)(i) of subclause (2A).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000687\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut I want to check with the Minister on paragraph (a)(ii) on the consolidation of secondary legislation that incorporates all of the amendments. That comes down to the question I had for the Minister before in terms of the intention of consolidation. Can I just clarify, if an administering agency who is both drafting and publishing the secondary legislation hasn\u2019t also got their consolidation up to scratch, the whole secondary legislation would also be considered revoked under that new part\u2014can I just check with the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000688\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnd also seeking guidance from you, Chair. Part 2 is very technical. That, potentially, will require both the Minister and also officials to kind of go back and forth, so are we able to allow for a moment of pause just while the Minister is getting advice, but also, potentially, from the officials, but also knowing which section I\u2019m referring to?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u00226b587c68a1dac3542deaae65137eb61e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000689\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226b587c68a1dac3542deaae65137eb61e\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (17:38)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll ask the officials to back me up if I\u2019m wrong, but I think we could work through it. So the new let\u2019s call it subsection (5), I think\u2014no, they\u2019re calling them clauses. Anyway, replacement section 15(5) in Schedule 1, inserted by clause 52(8) on page 37\u2014yep. Talking about secondary legislation being revoked\u2014essentially, a sunset clause. It\u2019s sort of a statutory sunset clause that is revoked on a date specified in the regulations if the requirements have not been complied with. Those requirements are the ones pointed out in subclause (2A) by the member. That is that the administering agency must publish in accordance with section 73 and 74, which we have covered off before, particularly in and around the consolidation of secondary legislation that incorporates all the amendments made by every amending instrument.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000690\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ESo my reading of that\u2014and I\u2019ll get the officials to tell me whether I\u2019m right or wrong\u2014would be that the secondary legislation that is proposed or that has been passed or enacted or signed off by the Governor-General or whoever it might be is the thing that is up for grabs; not necessarily every prior amending instrument. If it\u2019s a consolidation, my understanding would be that the consolidation would be the thing which is automatically revoked, not the underlying instruments or initial regulations, but I will actually get that double-checked because unlike my slightly tongue-in-cheek remark before around the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E, this one might actually make a difference. I\u2019ll get that checked, but that would be my reading of it: it\u2019s the consolidation that wouldn\u2019t be enforced rather than the underlying regulations. I\u2019ll get that checked. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00223967046ba5960ce684f8965a7a6dae1c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000691\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223967046ba5960ce684f8965a7a6dae1c\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:40)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Advice would be appreciated because, otherwise, I think the ministerial intent would then be even more important in the context of the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E, because subsection (5) on page 37 says the \u201Csecondary legislation is revoked\u201D, not the consolidation\u2014I mean, previous versions of secondary legislation or primary legislation, by nature of being a previous version, is revoked and is no longer in effect unless it covers for that particular time period.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000692\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI guess, to expand on this question that if indeed the previous version of the secondary legislation of the consolidation is revoked, from a judiciary perspective it is also important to know that the current version, the live version, or potentially the official version, is the one and only version that is going to exist, which means any potential cases in a matter of court that challenge a previous version, or a time period that would have fallen in the previous version of secondary legislation, are no longer also covered in some ways if the consolidation is revoked, if that makes sense. I do see nods from the Minister in the chair, the Hon James Meager, so I think that is an important part to tease out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000693\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m now going to go on to my next two questions. This covers clause 55 and clause 57 and they are very similar in nature, which is how I\u2019m going to do the two of them in one go. Clause 55, \u201CSchedule 3 replaced\u201D, is where Schedule 3 is replaced with \u201CSchedule 3 set out in Schedule 2 of this Act\u201D, which is really, really straightforward and really clear and accessible. But I guess my question to the Minister is: if the list of exemptions is detailed in primary legislation\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E]. Sorry, just checking, Mr Chair, that everything\u2019s OK? [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EChair gives a thumbs up\u003C/span\u003E]. Yep, cool. If the list of exemptions for publication, minimum legislative information, presentation, or disallowance under this Act is specified in the primary legislation, it also means that it will require further primary legislation to make any changes to the schedule in terms of exemptions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000694\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI wondered if there was any consideration on why this needs to be retained in the primary legislation, whether there is a provision to allow this list to be altered by Order in Council or it requires further primary legislation to make changes to the list of exemptions. Potentially there is, but I don\u2019t know the intention or the nature of Schedule\u00A02, which is to replace Schedule 3 under this Act in terms of the ability for one to change it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000695\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOn to clause 57. This is very interesting\u2014it may not look like it\u2014because usually revocation is done as secondary legislation as well, but not necessarily as part of primary legislation. For example, at the end of last year, the Parliamentary Counsel Office did revoke a number of pieces of secondary legislation, but also as secondary legislation. The reason I know that is because it came up in the Regulations Review Committee just last week. But I\u2019m curious to know that when we\u2019re talking about that particular Legislation (Revocations) Order 2025, by the nature of it being secondary legislation, there are certain provisions that are attached to it, including a self-revocation clause within that revocation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000696\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI wanted to check again within what we are now seeing with clause 57. I understand that when the Acts are repealed, in which case it will require a primary legislative instrument\u2014i.e., the House or a primary bill for that to be revoked or repealed\u2014but in here it also revokes certain secondary legislation, but not as part of what I assume would be a revocation order, which is also in itself secondary legislation. So, I guess, is that the correct order of doing things: to revoke secondary legislation as part of primary legislation? Those two are my two blocks of questions for the time being.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u00226f60cc7bb36f71e0554a44ebd9763753\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000697\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226f60cc7bb36f71e0554a44ebd9763753\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (17:45)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I find this exciting. I don\u2019t know about every other member\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000698\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022218416a5c38af73e827059b7cfe0ce03\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: It is very exciting!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000699\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e3ba2551bda8072eb454291da0f97146\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014but Mr Xu-Nan and I share enthusiasm and excitement for regulations review and for the rule of law. Look, I think I understood the last question. If we say there is existing\u2014I don\u2019t like using the word \u201Cregulation\u201D because we\u2019re trying to consolidate all the terms. So let\u2019s say there\u2019s existing secondary legislation \u201CA\u201D, there is a regulation \u201CB\u201D passed to revoke \u201CA\u201D, and \u201CB\u201D has a self-revocation clause in it that says that the regulation is revoked on this date if it\u2019s not published correctly. That would therefore say that secondary legislation \u201CA\u201D is revoked if secondary legislation \u201CB\u201D is properly published. If it\u2019s not properly published, it self-repeals and secondary legislation \u201CA\u201D remains in force, if that logic follows.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000700\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI think that goes to the point before made around consolidation of secondary legislation. It is the case that if a piece of secondary legislation is needing to be published, which provides a consolidation of all secondary legislation that incorporates all of the amendments made by every amending instrument\u2014if it doesn\u2019t meet the requirements of publication, it is all repealed. So I have to correct that: it is all repealed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000701\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223f7e6e797fd3c159392840abaa6f3b40\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Wow!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000702\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220b700af78bb4ba7655005f5ecc691ba3\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER\u003C/span\u003E: However\u2014ha! Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s very excited about that\u2014the piece of secondary legislation, which would be being published, itself has to have the revocation clause and the date by which it will be revoked if it\u2019s not published correctly. It has to contain, in itself, \u201CIf this isn\u2019t published correctly, it will be revoked by date \u2018X\u2019.\u201D It\u2019s not sort of a catch-all statutory provision whereby if secondary legislation is not published by a date, it will be revoked. The default is if it\u2019s not published, it\u2019s not in force, but the sunset clause sort of description I gave it only applies if it\u2019s actually contained within the regulation or the secondary legislation itself, which is what the member referred to in the example we used before.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u002210983664b59cbd4554cb6bcda8d7653c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000703\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002210983664b59cbd4554cb6bcda8d7653c\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:47)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair\u2014and thank you, Minister, because it does clarify it because I think the key definition here, when it comes to clause 52(8) and replacement clause 15(5) of page 37, is \u201Con a date specified in the regulations\u201D. I assume that the date specified in the regulation is to do with the commencement date in itself and not a specified date of a built-in revocation clause. So I think that clarification is an important one because what that means is if a piece of secondary legislation hasn\u2019t met the requirement of subclause (2A), it is not just automatically revoked carte blanche as part of that. It has to have that built-in revocation clause which then limits the number of pieces of secondary legislation that you will have.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000704\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EJust seeking also the response of the Minister in the chair, the Hon James Meager, on some of my other questions, but I\u2019m actually going to go on to my next question with this particular section, and that is Schedule 4, which is clause 58. There\u2019s only one particular anomaly that I\u2019m noticing, and I find that the way that it\u2019s been drafted quite interesting and unusual. This comes under page 53, Schedule 4, let\u2019s say line 8, which is the Civil Aviation Act 2023. The reason I picked up on this is I want to check with the Minister that section 63(4) is a standard clause that you will see. You know, \u201CAn order made under this section\u2014(a) is secondary legislation (\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003Esee\u003C/span\u003E Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements);\u201D, but I have never seen this second paragraph, \u201C(b) is not to be drafted by the PCO under section 67(1)(d)(i) of that Act.\u201D Is there a reason? I\u2019m genuinely curious. How prevalent is something like that, and is there a reason why it is specified explicitly that it cannot be drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel Office?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u0022653fcfda25d70bbf76cc4aef55e75ce8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000705\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022653fcfda25d70bbf76cc4aef55e75ce8\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (17:50)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll get an update on that one because the Civil Aviation Act is very relevant to me and the portfolio I hold.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000706\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll just clarify to the member, I\u2019ll get an update on our back and forth around self-revoking secondary legislation. It\u2019s come to my attention that we\u2019re actually talking about clause 52, which is transitional arrangements. So we\u2019re actually talking about the requirements for republishing by, I think, the end of next year, secondary legislation under the current existing provisions. So I\u2019m going to get the officials to provide me some advice that I will read clearly and consistently so that we don\u2019t jump back and forth.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000707\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, in terms of the Civil Aviation Act, I will get some more advice on this, but my instinct is, having had some experience with the orders that are drafted, that it is possibly to do with a similar situation that the IRD falls under, in that there is particular expertise within civil aviation, in terms of the regulation, it being a regulator there, that would encourage or require those to be drafted by those certifiers or those officials. But I\u2019ll get back to the member.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022 data-id=\u0022b982c0323dbd044bab770d455cccf7e4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b982c0323dbd044bab770d455cccf7e4\u0022\u003ETOM RUTHERFORD (National\u2014Bay of Plenty) (17:51)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022c28944abdf58b74eaefc9fb74b943327\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000709\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c28944abdf58b74eaefc9fb74b943327\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:51)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Just also to clarify that I\u2019m still seeking and the Minister in the chair is still getting some advice for this\u2014so if an opportunity arises that we close this part of the debate, if the Chair would be so kind as to allow the Minister to respond to my questions in a subsequent section, I wouldn\u2019t mind that, because I think it\u2019s genuinely important for us to get this right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000710\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI agree with the Minister that this is a transitional arrangement, but it still, then, I guess, comes down to, when we\u2019re looking at revocation, if it doesn\u2019t get updated by the end of next year, is it just a consolidation\u2014i.e., the previous version that\u2019s revoked, or the entirety of the secondary legislation that\u2019s revoked if they don\u2019t meet the standard by the end of next year? Again, even though there\u2019s a long period, there is also a lot of secondary legislation, and there is secondary legislation that is not even available, sometimes, on the website of particular agencies. So it would take the agencies a little while. That 20 months seems like a long time, but, potentially, not as much. So clarification would be helpful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000711\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI acknowledge what the Minister said in terms of civil aviation having specific expertise, but that\u2019s also the intention of secondary legislation, which is that, often, people who do draft secondary legislation\u2014particularly when we\u2019re looking at agency-administered, agency-drafted, or -published legislation\u2014do use specific expertise within that agency or within that broader sector, but none of them specify that this clause is not to be drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO). So I\u2019m still curious as to that level of specificity. Has something happened in the past that\u2019s been drafted by the PCO that hasn\u2019t quite gone right, which is why we need a level of specificity? Those are my only questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u002280365dcb53bb4b6538ebcc419d65f9ef\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000712\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002280365dcb53bb4b6538ebcc419d65f9ef\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (17:53)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll answer the question around the transitional provisions. The transitional provisions require all existing agencies\u2019 secondary legislation to be republished. So everything needs to be republished. If an agency fails to republish, regulations can be made under the Legislation Act, which can provide the possibility that the legislation is revoked. However, those regulations haven\u2019t been made at this stage, and, in all reality, it would likely only be made after the transitional period is finished. So, in a sense, it\u2019s a little bit\u2014I don\u2019t want to say it\u2019s a redundant argument, but it clarifies, I guess, the purpose of that procedure to account for the possibility that regulations could be made under the Legislation Act to revoke, and what would happen in that situation. But given the nature of the time that this stuff takes, it\u2019s, basically, unlikely and it\u2019s, essentially, just a housekeeping exercise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000713\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ENow, I will seek some further advice, and even if we move on to the title and commencement, I\u2019m happy to address the Civil Aviation Act question that the member has raised. But I will note that it\u2019s an amendment to the Civil Aviation Act to say that \u201CAn order made under this section \u2026 is not to be drafted by the PCO under section 67(1)(d)(i) of that Act.\u201D So I would have to just quickly look up and see what section 67(1) of the Civil Aviation Act says and what it actually is referring to. Despite my intense passion and love of that particular piece of legislation, I haven\u2019t yet committed them all to memory, so I\u2019ll take a chance to look it up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cf22a832d14a4c99ab5dfd16e24446e5\u0022 data-id=\u002259252d9c013197b74fe33cece85d4c2f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000714\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf22a832d14a4c99ab5dfd16e24446e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002259252d9c013197b74fe33cece85d4c2f\u0022\u003ERIMA NAKHLE (National\u2014Takanini) (17:55)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000715\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000716\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000717\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000718\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000719\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000720\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022943888218f3398858cd8b52ef89e0ae5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 506 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000722\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 108\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000724\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000725\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 15\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000726\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000727\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000728\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Part 2 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000729\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 108\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000730\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000731\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 15\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000732\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000733\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 2 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000734\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Schedule 1 be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000735\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 108\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000736\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000737\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 15\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000738\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000739\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000740\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223d2f335c7597ee7fee8b6f6e4a46176f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 506 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000741\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000742\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 108\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000743\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000744\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 15\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000745\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000746\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000747\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Schedule 2 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000748\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 108\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000749\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000750\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 15\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000751\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000752\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 2 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000753\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Schedule 3 be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000754\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 108\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000755\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000756\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 15\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000757\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000758\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 3 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000759\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220684b99c68baadf892011e4ee108dfaf\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Schedule 4 set out on Amendment Paper 506 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000760\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000761\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 108\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000762\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000763\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 15\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000764\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000765\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000766\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Schedule 4 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000767\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 108\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000768\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000769\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 15\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000770\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000771\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 4 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000772\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223521b9177eccf80b98cddeeaff3131aa\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7.30.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000773\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterItalicsCentred\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 6.03 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000774\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022055a0300b3ec84508d4ea91c72558ab0\u0022\u003ECommittee of the Whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000775\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u00224e4850aa7cf3b3be2bebca1390a4f7ee\u0022\u003EClauses 1 to 3\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000776\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002211de0d115888fe4fb7bcfce8253598d4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, good evening, members. When we finished, we\u2019d just completed Part 2. We now come to the debate on clauses 1 to 3\u2014\u201CTitle\u201D and \u201CCommencement\u201D and \u201CPrincipal Act\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u0022dd9b0d082c1106e6d6bb8aa0f02fc6f7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000777\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dd9b0d082c1106e6d6bb8aa0f02fc6f7\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (19:30)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. When we left off, we voted, and I didn\u2019t get an opportunity\u2014well, I mentioned that I\u2019d come back to answer Dr Xu-Nan\u2019s question around a particular provision which was to do with the Civil Aviation Act and, essentially, a prohibition, in a sense, on the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) drafting the orders. I checked the principal Act, and I also checked the section it referred to. So the principal Act itself already has this section in there, essentially, and what this new section does is it combines the requirement for the secondary legislation as well as, essentially, the old section provided the choice between the ability to draft the civil aviation orders by the agency\u2014rules written by the Minister\u2014or by PCO. In practice, most if not all of the orders that I\u2019ve come across, and all of the orders in recent history, are drafted by the agency, which is the Civil Aviation Authority, and enacted by the Minister, and PCO doesn\u2019t get involved in the drafting. So this was simply to reflect that fact and to say from henceforth it\u2019ll be the agency that drafts the particular orders. This is not uncommon in the transport sector: there are similar provisions in the Land Transport Act and the Maritime Transport Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000778\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EJust before we go to some questions, we are on clauses 1, 2, 3: \u201CTitle\u201D and \u201CCommencement\u201D and \u201CPrincipal Act\u201D. I\u2019ll just talk to clause 2, which is\u2014actually, we\u2019re only on clause 1, aren\u2019t we? We\u2019re 1 to 3\u2014all of them?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000779\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d6c8d7ade4857ca95e96e199fe9489e9\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: All of them\u20141, 2, 3.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000780\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223d8a1667890ef0c36cb49518b44821bb\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER\u003C/span\u003E: 1, 2, and 3. So, commencement: it\u2019s slightly, probably, more complicated than most commencement provisions. You\u2019ve got, essentially, a default provision in clause 2(1), which is the \u201CAct comes into force on a date or dates set by Order in Council.\u201D\u2014so, as opposed to Royal assent; that the entire Act will come into force on dates set by Order in Council\u2014except for, in subclause (2), the specific sections; I won\u2019t read them out, but they\u2019ll come into force on the day after Royal assent. So some will come into force straight away; some will require regulations or secondary legislation to bring them into force.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000781\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen there are, essentially, some backup provisions. So in subclause (3), \u201CAny part of the Act [apart from] sections 9, 20, and 52 \u2026 that [haven\u2019t] come into force 6 months after Royal assent comes into force [by] then.\u201D So, essentially, if under subclause (1) no secondary legislation is passed to bring those provisions into force, they will come into force six months after Royal assent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000782\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnd then for subclause (4), that just takes care of clauses 9, 20, and 52\u2014same situation, but that gives a five-year anniversary from Royal assent rather than six months. That is, essentially, to provide for leeway for different provisions to come into force at different times based on, essentially, the transition time needed to be able to bring those provisions into force. If the members refer to all those various sections, they\u2019ll be able to make themselves aware of some of the reasons for that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022b7d127f8b394b88ceb87045461e132d3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000783\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b7d127f8b394b88ceb87045461e132d3\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (19:33)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Minister Meager, for that brief explanation as well. And thank you for the response from the previous section around the Civil Aviation Act\u2014I think that\u2019s really, really helpful and good to know.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000784\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve got two questions on commencement. Picking up from where the Minister left off, I want to specifically focus on clause 2(4), which is the five-year aspect. Now, clauses 9 and 52 are reasonably straightforward, but I want to pick up on specifically the rationale for clause 20, inserting new sections 77 and 77A, which is \u201CSecondary legislation does not commence until first published\u201D. By it being Order in Council and having a five-year threshold, what I\u2019m assuming\u2014and the Minister can clarify\u2014that we\u2019re looking at is when different agencies will have different ability to be able to be compliant with that clause, and the five years is a grace period, but five years is also quite a long time. I don\u2019t think I\u2019ve ever seen any other legislation\u2014at least not the legislation that I\u2019ve had the privilege of contributing to during committee stage\u2014that has a five-year, I guess, anniversary. So I wondered: were there any particular agencies or particular aspects of that in mind when this was drafted where the five years is required as kind of a prudent measure? So I just want to check with the Minister, if the Minister is able to provide an example.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000785\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy second question is, I guess, when we are looking at subclause (2) or (3), one of the things that is, I guess, a good, positive consequence of this particular bill is the fact that we\u2019re going to get a new legislation website, but the new legislation website has already come online as of, I believe, last Friday. I just want to check with the Minister if there\u2019s any retrospective element that\u2019s required for that legislation to be live currently, or is the new website simply an extension of current provisions and doesn\u2019t require a degree of retrospectivity within this bill? So those are my two questions for clause 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u0022a31cba111edd4315bdc5ce3927aa0baa\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000786\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a31cba111edd4315bdc5ce3927aa0baa\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (19:36)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chair, thank you. My understanding is that the current website won\u2019t require retrospectivity. I think, generally sprinkled throughout, it is a requirement for secondary legislation to be published on an internet site, and, you know, unless something drastic happens, the current site will be the site. They\u2019re expensive to create and they\u2019re expensive to maintain, and I\u2019d be surprised if we go for a whole new one again. So, no, we don\u2019t need retrospectivity for that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000787\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust for the first question, I\u2019ll rack my brain, but I have done a bit of work in the past on the Incorporated Societies Act when that came into force. From memory, that\u2019s the Incorporated Societies Act 2020, and I think there was sort of a fallback provision of being five years or six years after Royal assent for some of those provisions. I have to check, but I do have a memory of similar kinds of provisions being in place. But the fact is that\u2019s the longest possible time. It\u2019s essentially, for instance, things like the publication requirements under clause 9, whereby if something\u2019s not published, the regulation itself would be deferred or not commenced. That\u2019s a pretty big imposition to put on an agency who want to publish something but for technical or operational reasons haven\u2019t been able to get to that point where they are regularly publishing them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000788\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo it gives agencies time to transition into this new approach\u2014into a new, slightly more high-stakes approach, I would say, with secondary legislation. The five years is more of a fallback position to say, well, we think that by at least five years\u2019 time, or in a maximum of five years\u2019 time, agencies should have gotten to the point where they are able to do this regularly. If we can get to the point where we can do that more quickly, then an Order in Council can be passed to enact those final provisions even sooner.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000789\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat clause 1 be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000790\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 108\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000791\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000792\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 15\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000793\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000794\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000795\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022612d4c6a3f63ff170adaea3449a584e6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 506 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000797\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat clause 2 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000798\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 108\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000799\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000800\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 15\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000801\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000802\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 2 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000803\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat clause 3 be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000804\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 108\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000805\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000806\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 15\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000807\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000808\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 3 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000809\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill to be reported with amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000810\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ab186a3cafdca054e00885c5ee23991c\u0022\u003EPublic Finance Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000811\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002238acb99f349646dfb45223da68210ee9\u0022\u003ECommittee of the Whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000812\u0022\u003EDebate resumed from 5 March.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000813\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u00226f8b1653d0ef144cd4c4d5b8b590be12\u0022\u003EPart 2 Amendments to rest of principal Act, and Schedule\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002283369de722b2032dbfda4bd7653797fd\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to the Public Finance Amendment Bill. When the committee last debated the bill, we\u2019d just begun the debate on Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 31 to 43\u2014\u201CAmendments to rest of principal Act\u201D\u2014and the new schedule inserted by the Minister\u2019s Amendment Paper 502. The question, again, is that Part 2 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022 data-id=\u0022e401c29a7e6b88b64cece2048a728d72\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000815\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e401c29a7e6b88b64cece2048a728d72\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (19:41)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Unfortunately, I was ill last week, so I missed the debate on the first part of this bill. I\u2019m a sufficiently sad sack that I actually tuned in to see some of it\u2014devotion, devotion. I could have watched Scottish noir detective fiction or something instead, but I chose the Public Finance Amendment Bill. Now that we\u2019re on to Part 2, I do want to ask just a couple of questions, really. If I could direct the Minister\u2019s attention to clause 33 of the bill, which amends section 40 of the principal Act, it\u2019s talking about the requirements for strategic intentions. A lot of this is just quite technical. It\u2019s looking at how to extend reporting on strategic intentions to\u2014what do we call them?\u2014interdepartmental executive boards, which are quite a useful tool for us.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000816\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do actually want to direct the Minister to clause 33(1)(ca) and the particular phrase \u201Cexplain how the department proposes to manage its organisational health\u201D. I just find that a slightly puzzling phrase in terms of legislative drafting. It feels like management speak when we start talking about organisational health. I\u2019m guessing this doesn\u2019t mean the health of the individual employees in the organisation, because that would be a curious thing to be reporting on, but it is talking about organisational health. Looking at the phrase \u201Corganisational health\u201D, I, of course, then looked for a definition of \u201Corganisational health\u201D. Actually, to be fair, I haven\u2019t checked the principal Act, but if there is a definition there, that would be helpful. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000817\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019d like to understand what the Minister thinks would be comprehended within the term \u201Corganisational health\u201D and what it is that we are looking for the organisation to report on there. Is it its resilience? Is it the health of its balance sheet? Is it the capability of its employees? Exactly what sorts of things are sitting in there? We have a report on strategic intentions\u2014that\u2019s quite a good thing\u2014but I want to understand why the Minister thinks it\u2019s necessary for the organisation to report on its organisational health within the strategic intentions document. I would have thought that the reporting on an organisation\u2019s organisational health\u2014whatever that is\u2014would actually come through in the annual review, in the annual financial statements, and in the annual report of the department, so what\u2019s the particular flavour or nuance that makes sense to ask the department or the agency or whatever\u2014mutatis mutandis\u2014to report on its organisational health in respect of its strategic intentions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000818\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELook, the other thing that is sitting in new paragraph (ca), the next one down, is \u201Chow the department proposes to assess its performance;\u201D. Of course, the performance of the department, again, is already assessed in the annual report, and we already get departments in and have a go at understanding what they\u2019re doing in the whole Budget cycle every year and so on. What is added here? Why are we adding this extra bit of reporting that sits within the strategic intentions? I can see the nuance here, but if the Minister could just set it out for us, that would be very helpful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00221c3c7905c798146d5a9fa00bba1fb3f6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000819\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221c3c7905c798146d5a9fa00bba1fb3f6\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (19:45)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. The last time we debated on this, we finished with Part 1, but in terms of Part 2, I want to start with clause 32, \u201CSection 38 amended\u201D. When we debated Part 1, it also happened to be the same day that we were debating on the National Infrastructure Plan. One of the things that piqued my interest in that plan\u2014and that I want to check with the Minister around\u2014is, I guess, 4.1 on page 74, which is \u201CStrengthening long-term asset management and investment planning\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000820\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the recommendations of that, recommendation three, is to introduce or amend the Public Finance Act 1989 to require capital-intensive central government agencies to produce and publish a 10-year asset management plan and investment plan every three years. Looking at this section, I wonder if this is the best place for it to fit under\u2014where \u201CDepartments must provide information on strategic intentions\u201D\u2014because that was something that is in the plan and we have a bill and there is an Amendment Paper that the Minister already introduced, which we\u2019ll come to a little bit later. I wondered if that\u2019s the appropriate place for us to consider adding in\u2014also amending section 38\u2014a 10-year asset management plan. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000821\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPotentially, Labour\u2019s finance spokesperson, the Hon Barbara Edmonds, might also have a similar idea because I managed to pick up a copy of her tabled amendment, which is dated to 4 March 2026 at 3.30 p.m., which indeed amends section 38 with a new addition, which is \u201Cafter section 38(1B), insert (c) a 10-year asset management plan.\u201D The first question to the Minister is: if we\u2019re talking about how a department must provide information on strategic intentions, which is covered under clause 33, would the Minister be open, for example, to the idea of incorporating part of the National Infrastructure Plan in that as well?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000822\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI can ask another question while the Minister thinks about those questions and potentially seeks some advice. My next question is on clause 33, which is \u201CSection 40 amended\u201D. I note that this section is very similar in format to a previous section, but what is different over here is new subsection (5), which is \u201CIf the department is the nominated relevant department for an interdepartmental venture that, for the period to which the information relates, is not required to provide information on its own strategic intentions (see section 41(3A)),\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000823\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI did have a have a look at section 41(3A), and I believe that might be the section where the relevant Minister may grant a specific agency a waiver of the requirement. Minister, you mentioned before, in an earlier part, that one of the changes we made in an earlier part in the bill was so that you don\u2019t have to continuously give exemptions, etc. That\u2019s an extra step in the process that\u2019s not required. I want to check, in alignment with section 41(3A) of that particular part, if the ministerial waiver is automatic or if the nominated relevant department has to actually apply to, or seek approval from, the Minister for such a waiver under section 41(3A).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022 data-id=\u00221fb63a0746be745ae35f680d948e22ea\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000824\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221fb63a0746be745ae35f680d948e22ea\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (19:49)\u003C/span\u003E: In answer to the Hon Deborah Russell\u2019s question about clause 33, the definition of \u201Corganisational health and capability\u201D is a product of aligning the requirements for departmental strategic intentions under the Public Finance Act with the more comprehensive requirements that already exist under the Crown Entities Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000825\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo answer the member\u2019s question about \u201CWhat comprises organisational health and capability?\u201D, it\u2019s, basically, how well a department is set up to achieve its strategic objectives\u2014so things like capability, people, institutional knowledge, information, systems, processes, assets, legislation. Managing risk, resilience, and agility are also components of organisational health.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000826\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo answer her question about the difference between this and the annual report: strategic intentions are set out in the expectations they want to meet; the annual report reports on actual performance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000827\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo address the question from Lawrence Xu-Nan about 10-year asset management plans, this is something that I am very sympathetic to. There are Cabinet circular requirements already requiring this sort of planning from Government agencies, but it was our observation coming into Government that that has not been a well-delivered practice across Government agencies, and that, generally, Government agencies need to pull up their socks when it comes to asset management plans, asset registers, basic aspects of how they manage their capital infrastructure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000828\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI have previously said to this House that this is a narrow set of amendments to the Public Finance Act, but it is my intention that we consider further amendments in the future, particularly given the Finance and Expenditure Committee\u2019s consideration of overall performance reporting that occurs, and the deliberations that the Finance and Expenditure Committee have been doing on how well our Government accounts are set up to report on achievement against our appropriation objectives. I\u2019d suggest that this question of whether or not 10-year asset management plans should be in the Public Finance Act is one that is worthy of a proper legislative consideration and process. I\u2019d suggest that rather than a last-minute amendment, that\u2019s something that could go through a future public finance bill for consideration, including a full select committee process. But, as I say, I\u2019m sympathetic to the idea.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u002291e4c498bcb89458540e0342c5e46b8d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000829\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002291e4c498bcb89458540e0342c5e46b8d\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (19:52)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for that response, Minister. My next question is actually on Amendment Paper 502, from the Minister of Finance. This is quite interesting because what was part of \u201CAmendments to rest of principal Act\u201D is now \u201Cconsequential amendments to other legislation\u201D, and the \u201Cother legislation\u201D being the Education and Training Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000830\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI guess I want to specifically pick up on the part that is proposed to be amended, and that is clause 40 \u201CSection 45J amended (Final annual report for disestablished entities)\u201D. In clause 40, it does specify, for example, that \u201CThe entity must\u2014(a) prepare the final report as if it were an annual report\u201D, the entity must provide an auditor, \u201CThe entity\u2019s Minister must present the final report\u201D, etc. There are a lot of very definite requirements that are expected, in clause 40. But that\u2019s not what we\u2019re seeing in terms of Amendment Paper 502. The reason I say that is because, in 502, the Schedule \u201CConsequential amendments to other legislation\u201D, to the Education and Training Act, \u201CIn Schedule 1, replace clause 106(1)(b) with: (b) the Minister may specify\u2014(i) the contents of the final report;\u201D; whereas, in clause 40, it says, \u201CThe entity must\u2014(a) prepare the final report as if it were an annual report\u201D, including certain specific requirements; whereas now we\u2019re seeing the Minister may direct or may specify what is in there, and the entity may not need to, for example, report on certain things. The change between clause 40 and this particular aspect, I feel, is a substantial one and it doesn\u2019t quite link up perfectly. Also, to reinforce that, in the Schedule in Amendment Paper 502, (b)(ii), \u201Cthe information in the final report that is required to be audited;\u201D. So, again, when we\u2019re looking at disestablished entities for the Education and Training Act, and, in this case, it might specify, let\u2019s say, for example, the disestablishment of Te P\u016Bkenga, that in their final report, the Minister can choose what to include and what information goes in there, which, I feel, is considered comparatively vague compared to the rest of Part 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe rest, for example, does make sense. So (iii) to (v), in that, in these areas, in terms of \u201Cthe date by which the w\u0101nanga must provide the information \u2026 the date by which the auditor of the w\u0101nanga must provide the audit report \u2026 [and] the date by which the w\u0101nanga must provide the final report\u201D. Those are comparable to what we\u2019re seeing in clause 40 of the bill, but the first two things in the Amendment Paper Schedule are not. I just want to check with the Minister on where those two came about and whether that should be removed or specified to be more in line with the explanatory note around clause\u00A040.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022 data-id=\u0022085009bfff196906bbbfc1bd9d3270bc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000832\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022085009bfff196906bbbfc1bd9d3270bc\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (19:55)\u003C/span\u003E: In response to the questions from Dr Xu-Nan, in terms of the waiver, which you asked about earlier, that would be given by me as the Minister of Finance, if I am satisfied that it is appropriate for that information to be covered by the strategic intentions of the host department, I can grant the waiver. If I\u2019m satisfied, \u201CWell, the host department\u2019s already covering that off in their own strategic intentions doc, and there\u2019s no need to repeat it.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000833\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn terms of the question about the Amendment Paper and clause 44 that it adds: this cross-references back to the Education and Training Act 2020, which sets out the requirements of final reports for w\u0101nanga specifically that cease to be Crown entities, and what those final accounts have to be that they prepare, and it cross-refers to the final report requirements in the Public Finance Act for entities that disestablish and are being amended by clause 40 of this bill. It\u2019s a consequential amendment necessary for consistency, and so the Amendment Paper creates a new schedule in the bill, which is just a consequential amendment to other legislation, updating the heading to Part 2, as well as the proposed amendment to Schedule 1 of the Education and Training Act 2020.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022 data-id=\u00227b29525fca227dee080eabfa095a450a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000834\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227b29525fca227dee080eabfa095a450a\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (19:57)\u003C/span\u003E: I just want to follow up a little bit on what the Minister of Finance has just said in terms of who can grant the waiver, and the Minister of Finance can grant the waiver\u2014just to dot the i\u2019s and cross the t\u2019s, I\u2019ll just square that off for the people who are watching at home. Obviously, we do trust that the current Minister of Finance would not issue such a waiver inappropriately; I know she fulfills her duties carefully. But could the Minister just explain what oversight there is on the Minister, or a future Minister, granting a waiver where it may or may not be appropriate? I mean, this might just be within the context of the whole role of the Minister of Finance, but just some reassurance that future Ministers, not this Minister, would not do so inappropriately.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022e164eea425260497decaf4c799081130\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000835\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e164eea425260497decaf4c799081130\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (19:58)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019m just seeking that if the Minister of Finance is going to seek some clarification\u2014and if we do close this part of the debate, whether the Minister still has a chance to, maybe, respond to our questions in the next part?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022 data-id=\u00225f1a1d14e42b1a676a4eb715d6155dab\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000836\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225f1a1d14e42b1a676a4eb715d6155dab\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (19:58)\u003C/span\u003E: I think I already covered this in my earlier answer, but the oversight is, of course, that the notice of the waiver has to be presented to the House, so, therefore, Parliament is able to scrutinise that decision. Look, it\u2019s really simply about reducing the reporting burden on departments so that a single department can do it, rather than everyone involved.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000837\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221eef8a3b49c360600604e573f8d587cc\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 502 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000838\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000839\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000840\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000841\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000842\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000843\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000844\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Part 2 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000845\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000846\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000847\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000848\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000849\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 2 as amended agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000850\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221193e4163537536c76036f8cb902783f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendment inserting a new Schedule set out on Amendment Paper 502 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000851\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000852\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000853\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000854\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000855\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Schedule agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000857\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022731541801125e6a733d5beb6ea250f9d\u0022\u003ECommittee of the Whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000858\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u00226822f1d0d7eaa539690280db60fbfcd4\u0022\u003EClauses 1 to 3\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000859\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022907e090bdf510efa6d0ce34d9ba2d263\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to our final debate, clauses 1 to 3: title, commencement, and principal Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022 data-id=\u002274676ee04ddfc5d7d3c506940cca1171\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000860\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002274676ee04ddfc5d7d3c506940cca1171\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (20:01)\u003C/span\u003E: I just want to have a little bit of a discussion about the commencement date. The ordinary thing is for a bill is that lots of bills just come into force on the day after Royal assent. This one comes into force on 1 July 2026. I wonder if the Minister of Finance could explain to the committee why it is not the day after Royal assent, but, instead, we\u2019ve gone for a particular date, which is 1 July 2026\u2014and the Minister herself will see that it is on that particular day.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000861\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThere are bits of this bill that I do like and I think are quite useful, but I\u2019m appalled by the way that we\u2019ve just totally wiped out all the work on the wellbeing stuff, and in some ways I\u2019m tempted to put in a whole set of amendments to change the date so that we keep the wellbeing reporting going. However, 1 July 2026 it is, according to the Minister\u2014if she could just explain why it is that particular date and why not any other date. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022 data-id=\u0022d0fe59d45b082f71002923b03800f312\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000862\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d0fe59d45b082f71002923b03800f312\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (20:02)\u003C/span\u003E: Quite simply, that aligns with the beginning of the financial year. The member will appreciate that in passing this legislation at this juncture, agencies have time to prepare for the beginning of that financial year, and the reporting requirement in this amendment corresponds with the next financial year.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00220e0cc75807b1d2f9b5a91fd80e500028\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000863\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220e0cc75807b1d2f9b5a91fd80e500028\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:03)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for that response, Minister, but I just wanted to check. If the Act comes into force on 1 July\u2014understanding that it\u2019s the beginning of the financial year\u2014would agencies, particularly in terms of some of the requirements in this such as tax, financial statements, etc., now be kind of preparing for that and be waiting for that to come into effect so that they can, in effect, start enacting some of the things we\u2019re seeing here already?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022 data-id=\u00229854487fe7441348d16ce1d0fbf984fe\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000864\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229854487fe7441348d16ce1d0fbf984fe\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (20:03)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, yes. It may surprise the member to know that of the people that we\u2019ve described as watching this at home, the people who are most aware of this are the officials who will be responsible for implementing it from 1 July.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000865\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat clause 1 be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000866\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000867\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000868\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000869\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000870\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000871\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat clause 2 be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000872\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000873\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000874\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000875\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000876\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000877\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat clause 3 be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000878\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000879\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000880\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000881\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000882\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 3 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000883\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228c887cba5c398e9fb523aeda8675124e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Those observant members would have noticed that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan made reference to an amendment by the Hon Barbara Edmonds. Inadvertently, that was left off the voting sheet. With the leave of the committee, I intend to put that amendment. Is that leave approved? Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000884\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Barbara Edmonds\u2019 amendment to section 38 in clause 32, providing that departments must provide information on a capital management plan, and her amendment to insert a new clause 32A be agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000885\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000886\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000887\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000888\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000889\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000890\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000891\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f330e5a4a88b9754029ab129b7521ee4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the committee of the whole House for their indulgence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000892\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EBill to be reported with amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002206b14e1d9bb4a832e002296c5e83fb08\u0022\u003EPublic Service Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000894\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00224cd59eb3cbfd765ddbcbdd6d188c826d\u0022\u003ECommittee of the Whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000895\u0022\u003EDebate resumed from 17 February.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000896\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022558ebe403bd0bad6b83a5036cf5a092b\u0022\u003EPart 2 Consequential amendments to other Acts, and Schedule\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000897\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f24d527bc590f3d61498640e488adea8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Public Service Amendment Bill. When we were last considering the bill, we had finished the debate on Part 1. We now come to the debate on Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 48 to 67, \u201CConsequential amendments to other Acts\u201D. The question is that Part 2 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u0022d461056d1dc727aeb47761511ca92e6a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000898\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d461056d1dc727aeb47761511ca92e6a\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (20:09)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. We are once again back at the Public Service Amendment Bill, in Part 2. I do note that Part 2 is the consequential amendments, and also, I\u2019m just wanting to double-check with the Clerk that we are also discussing the Schedule, as well, which inserts a new Part 2 into Schedule 1. So perhaps the Minister or the Clerk could confirm that that\u2019s the case\u2014that we\u2019ll also be discussing the Schedule as well in this part? I\u2019ll just see if that\u2019s able to be confirmed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000899\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225d867066726345c4928a50b531fad0af\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022735eec32a2848e60994bd3d163d2231b\u0022\u003EHon Judith Collins\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, we\u2019ll just find our notes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000900\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228022660ad96ab777de6f9f42d618e6f1\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH\u003C/span\u003E: Sure, that would be great.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000901\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do have a question on each of these bills. I have gone back in and had a look at what the changes are that have been made in Part 2. If we start with clauses 48 and 49, these are amendments to the Child Poverty Reduction Act. Looking back at the principal Act, these are clauses which relate to measuring child poverty. The fundamental change is a change which appears in, I believe, three sections in this part: clause 48, clause 57, and clause 62. But the specific question I have in relation to clause 48 and 49, which is a consequential amendment to the Child Poverty Reduction Act, is will this particular clause and the change of section 52 to new section 11A maintain the same independence that is currently in section 52? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000902\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat change has come up, as I said, in clause 57, and that\u2019s in relation to\u2014and it probably makes sense to go through all of those at the moment, if I have time. The second change is in relation to the Education and Training Act, which makes the same, as far as I can see, amendment to replace that particular section. That is in relation to the Chief Review Officer being able to perform certain functions. The third area where we see that change is in clause 62, but related very closely to clause 61, which talks about the chief executives acting independently and the statement of responsibility.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000903\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs an initial question, it is simply asking the Minister to confirm the provisions of section 11A and what differs from sections 11A and 52. That\u2019s my first question to the Minister, in addition to the Schedule. I also have some other questions. I\u2019m not sure if the Minister wants to do short question and answers, or whether she would like me to go on to\u2014OK, she\u2019s indicating that she\u2019d like me to go on to my next question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000904\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy next question is in relation to clause 50, which amends the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002. Now, this is probably more significant and more substantive than the previous three clauses that I referred to, which just replaced a section in 52 with a section in 11A. That is because in this particular provision, it appears that section 58 of this piece of legislation is being repealed. When I looked back at section 58, I found that section 58 actually provides for Public Service agencies to have a plan during an emergency and an additional responsibility for that to be available in writing. Of course, then I thought, well, is this clause replicated somewhere else in the bill? I did find some provisions that appeared to be related in new clause 5C. A question to the Minister is: is clause 5C in the new bill meant to replace the primary bill section 58?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000905\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAdditionally, we\u2019ll all be aware\u2014and I\u2019m sure the Minister\u2019s aware\u2014that the Government is currently repealing or amending the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act, and that is currently before select committee at the moment. If clause 5C is not a replacement for the repeal of section 58, does the new emergency management bill include the equivalent obligations? These do appear to be important obligations, so I think it\u2019s important that we clarify whether that is true. I regret I didn\u2019t have time to check that entire new bill, but I did check clause 5C. I wonder, perhaps, if the officials have an answer to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225d867066726345c4928a50b531fad0af\u0022 data-id=\u002245a315b48e6e8d74e9ffb9504349bf7e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000906\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225d867066726345c4928a50b531fad0af\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002245a315b48e6e8d74e9ffb9504349bf7e\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for the Public Service) (20:14)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, thank you for those questions. I think, if I can just deal with these notes, clauses 48 and 49 amending the Child Poverty Reduction Act is to provide an accurate cross-reference to the new section 11A, which is the principal responsibilities of chief executives. This maintains the existing provision under this Act for the Government Statistician and the Secretary for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to act independently when publishing reports on child poverty. So then that answers that one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000907\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe member has asked about clauses 50, I think, and 51. They repeal section 58 of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act so that provisions in relation to business continuity management for Public Service agencies can be relocated and broadened in scope under the Public Service Act. This provides for plans that ensure continuity during and after any disruption.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000908\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere was another question about\u2014what was the other question?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000909\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223f49a725aaf1f5d54a2af56ab53566bf\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich\u003C/span\u003E: Where is that in the Act? Is that clause 5C or is it different?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225d867066726345c4928a50b531fad0af\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b450c57e5f1947bcddb0a8cd83ebd751\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: That was in clauses 50 and 51. As for 5C, I was just waiting for that one to come through, and I just happen to have the answer. Oh, it\u2019s in clause 45(10). OK, right. So we can do that even if there\u2019s any disruption, not just emergencies. That\u2019s the main point there. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000911\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a88d15aa66facdd58b417c5876720ce7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The member\u2019s question relating to the Schedule\u2014the Schedule was actually part of Part 1 and was debated in there. But thank you for the question. Fernando Hernandez.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022 data-id=\u00229648b40b29cb4fda9eeafa6c4a8e3611\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000912\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229648b40b29cb4fda9eeafa6c4a8e3611\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green) (20:16)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise to take a call at the committee of the whole House stage. My questions are specifically around clause 49, around the replacement of section 52 with section 11A. We can see\u2014and I did check the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E transcript, and this bit hasn\u2019t had discussion yet, because, of course, I have been away across the different O-Weeks across the country. So thank you to my colleagues here for\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000913\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c675c184d873b40d47b19352324264d5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Which is why I got your name wrong, of course, Mr Hernandez!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000914\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e6d35fd3fdadc0f9c53866065ac0f710\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, that\u2019s right. Out of sight, out of mind, Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo 1(a), \u201Dimproving ways of working across public service agencies\u201D, which is in section 52 of the original Act, has been replaced by new section 11A, inserted by clause 11. Section 52(1)(a), I believe, has been translated to new section 11A(1)(g). My question to the Minister is why, instead of having a broader principle of \u201Cimproving ways of working across public service agencies\u201D, has more specificity been added around the new section 11\u2014because that was the replacement of it, under new section 11A(1)(g).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000916\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy second question is around section 52(1)(b), which has been translated to\u2014sorry, hang on. I\u2019ll skip that bit and move on to section 52(1)(c) of the principal Act, which is \u201Cthe operation of their agency, including in carrying out the purpose of the public service under section 11;\u201D. That\u2019s been translated to new section 11A(1)(e) almost verbatim. Section 52(1)(d), \u201Csupporting the Minister to act as a good steward of the public interest, including by\u2014(i) maintaining public institutions,\u201D has also been translated almost exactly word for word. Section 52(1)(f) around giving advice to the Ministers has been translated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000917\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt seems like most of section 52 has literally been translated word for word into new section 11A, with the exception of a few clauses. The one clause that I did spot was \u201Cimproving ways\u201D seemed to have turned into new section 11A(1)(g), which is \u201Cworking to improve inter-operability, co-ordination, and collaboration across public service agencies;\u201D. My question to the Minister is: why was that change made, and have I missed any other transliterations in the change from section 52 to new section 11A, and what were the reasons for these changes? Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225d867066726345c4928a50b531fad0af\u0022 data-id=\u00226ce565731ce9e0c2965d7a6172559bbe\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000918\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225d867066726345c4928a50b531fad0af\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226ce565731ce9e0c2965d7a6172559bbe\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for the Public Service) (20:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Thanks for those questions, too. Perhaps we can just talk a little bit about clause 11, since there\u2019s been some questions about that, which inserts new section 11A, \u201CPrincipal responsibilities of chief executives of departments and departmental agencies\u201D. What\u2019s actually changing with chief executives\u2019 responsibilities is it\u2019s clarifying the chief executives\u2019 roles and bringing them to the front of the Act. The purpose of this is placing emphasis on giving advice to Ministers and implementing their decisions, the efficient and effective delivery of services, and the financial stewardship of their agencies. As the member will be aware, chief executives or stewards of major agencies must be accountable for delivering results, and these changes will hopefully improve transparency and performance expectations while retaining the key aspects of existing possibilities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000919\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think the member might have asked about what was happening and why that was happening. The chief executives are already accountable under the Act for the delivery of their responsibilities, and the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ECabinet Manual\u003C/span\u003E already provides for them to follow the lawful instructions of Ministers. Nothing in this clause changes the current accountabilities of chief executives or the application of the convention set out in the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ECabinet Manual\u003C/span\u003E governing the extent to which the Ministers engage in operational matters.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000920\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere was another question about\u2014what was it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000921\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022774b72469b2074644aabc8e69ea2a31a\u0022\u003EFrancisco Hernandez\u003C/span\u003E: The specific clause change.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000922\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225d867066726345c4928a50b531fad0af\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b7689717314fbb6f81860dfc9b2a6ceb\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, now, that was\u2014which one did you ask about? Oh, I see. The new phrase and ways of working together?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000923\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223605255ba1d1eb28ef4e431a0dd8c0e1\u0022\u003EFrancisco Hernandez\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000924\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225d867066726345c4928a50b531fad0af\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002287612c47771c22ecebe044f5d910476c\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: OK. Well, that was suggested by the Public Service CEs themselves, and the point of that was to help them to know\u2014they want to be clearer about the need to collaborate and to ensure, basically, interoperability as much as possible. So I thought it was quite a useful thing to happen. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u0022f770555d003440f1f9ac6bff62e1e0af\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f770555d003440f1f9ac6bff62e1e0af\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (20:21)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the Minister and the officials for engaging in these questions. I had just a follow-up question. I want to thank the Minister for her answer to my questions to clause 50 and 51. But I did look back at clause 45 in this bill, and I just wondered if, perhaps, she could just double-check if I recorded the right answer to that. So, essentially, my question was: in clause 51, we\u2019re repealing section 58; where are those new duties? I believe that she said they\u2019re in 45, but, when I looked at 45, I couldn\u2019t see where that was, because, essentially, as I understand, in section 58, which is being repealed in the civil defence Act, that is the requirement\u2014I may have got this wrong, but what I had noted down when I thought that I checked that was the requirement for planning during emergencies. So I just wanted to double-check that I\u2019ve got that right or wrong, depending on what the answer is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000926\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy next question is a new question and it\u2019s relating to the changes to the Crown Pastoral Land Act 1998. This is change which is not the same as the change which we\u2019ve already discussed in relation to 11A, but it\u2019s a specific change in relation to including section 11A(1)(j) in the primary piece of legislation. When I looked back at that primary piece of legislation, which I\u2019ve just got a screenshot of here on my phone, that Crown Pastoral Land Act outlines the stewardship duties that are incumbent on the chief executive, and it\u2019s a change of reference to that new section. So I wanted to ask the Minister if there was a substantive change in repealing section 52(1)(d) of the primary Act, and replacing that with 11A(1)(j), in relation to the chief executive stewardship. It\u2019s a slightly different question on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000927\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I\u2019ve got a new area, too, which I would like to ask about in relation to the amendments to the Data and Statistics Act 2022. This is another slightly more substantive change from what I could ascertain, in relation to these consequential amendments. That is because, when I looked at what was being repealed, it appears to be a change to how the Government Statistician is appointed. The change is, essentially, that if you look at\u2014I don\u2019t have a copy of that legislation in front of me, but the primary legislation, when I look back at it, what I seem to be able to see what the purpose of this was, was that, at the moment, there\u2019s quite a long process to appoint the Government Statistician, but this bill will repeal clauses 10 to 15 of that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000928\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo it\u2019s kind of a significant amount of requirements in relation to the appointment of the Government Statistician at the moment. So my question was: what are the reasons for that change? Also, what process will now occur in relation to the appointment of the Government Statistician, under that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000929\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAdditionally, it appeared to me that the clause that was being repealed may affect the definition of the Government Statistician as the chief executive. I might be wrong on that, but I\u2019d appreciate maybe if the Minister could get some advice or she may know whether that does mean that under this bill, the Government Statistician will be considered to be a chief executive, as well, under these changes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000930\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo there\u2019s a few different areas. I won\u2019t use all of my time; let\u2019s see if the Minister can respond to those.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225d867066726345c4928a50b531fad0af\u0022 data-id=\u0022550160200f92f459f51cb511c606b69f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000931\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225d867066726345c4928a50b531fad0af\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022550160200f92f459f51cb511c606b69f\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for the Public Service) (20:25)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll try and get this in some form of order. I think I\u2019ve got out of order for you, sorry. The member has asked about section 45(10), is it? It\u2019s going to the new clause 11 of Schedule 6. The trouble is there\u2019s lots of schedules all over the place and, and I know it is confusing. Questions about the Crown Pastoral Land Act; clauses 52 and 53 amend 22A(1)(a) of the Crown Pastoral Land Act 1998 to provide an accurate cross reference to new section 11A. That\u2019s the principal responsibility as chief executives and that maintains the existing reference to the Secretary of Land Information Stewardship responsibilities in relation to monitoring the implementation of this Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000932\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo questions around the Data and Statistics Act: clauses 54, 55, 56 amend sections 6 and 12 of the Data and Statistics Act 2022 to provide the Government Statistician to be appointed under this Act while retaining some of the process elements of the Public Service Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000933\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo, basically, they must advertise and run a contestable process, but does not require the forwarding of recommendation by the Minister or the approval of the Governor-General; so a slightly different process. Was there another question as well?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000934\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022066df7f49c3b578195862dd9acb219cc\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich\u003C/span\u003E: It was just the schedule about the requirement to have a plan and an emergency contingency plan; was that Schedule 6 of the original bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225d867066726345c4928a50b531fad0af\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a79634946c230ecc90b2abd816f28b12\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, I\u2019ve forgotten that one. Maybe I\u2019ll come back to that one\u2014you mean new clause 11 of Schedule 6?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000936\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022155ec1ecf9a03fa115f95643891f3c82\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: It might pay for the member to stand up so we can hear through the microphone.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000937\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e52d4e6f3673be4fa580812c602e56dc\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I did ask some questions around clause11; the Minister is correct. The question I\u2019m just wanting\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000938\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225d867066726345c4928a50b531fad0af\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ac6fbe85e22d77f0fc4e428179e5855a\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: I just, I got too ambitious in receiving the question, sorry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000939\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d3787b180aba686dde48bb0994396919\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich\u003C/span\u003E: These are quite technical questions so I appreciate that it\u2019s not straightforward to answer them. The question\u2014and it may be that I\u2019m missing it. I think the Minister said that in relation to the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act, that there is a provision\u2014and it might be in Schedule 6. I just wanted to check if that Schedule 6 of the primary\u2014I do have the primary legislation in front of me. I just wanted to make sure that there would still being a requirement to put in place a plan for an emergency, which I understand was what was being repealed. I do have some other questions\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000940\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225d867066726345c4928a50b531fad0af\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ee49fdb42b35b4b99505770c88fe7972\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: Can I go now, please, because otherwise I\u2019m going to lose you. I just need to do theses now because otherwise\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000941\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d4469338fdebbe0b893deaaeb80397c1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: These interactions are fine; this is what we want to do with our committee of the whole House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000942\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225d867066726345c4928a50b531fad0af\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bd1eb6ddd08184988526b68be09939c6\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: This is called friendly interaction that we do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000943\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228f8036fe118330fa4e14c9f978dc8ff0\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Watch and note, everyone else, please.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000944\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225d867066726345c4928a50b531fad0af\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229075a1ae5f66ecedd4eb51375fd28be6\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s trying to help with these answers, and, I mean, they\u2019re very detailed questions. I\u2019m very aware of this. The issue around the Government Statistician: so, what\u2019s happening is it\u2019s shifting the appointment process under the Data and Statistics Act to match how these provisions sit for other specific appointees, for example, the Police Commissioner. So the process is not changing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000945\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe commissioner appoints without recourse to the Minister or the Governor-General. So the so it\u2019s the commissioner of, obviously, the Public Service. The Government Statistician is deemed to be the Chief Executive of Stats NZ. So that is not affected.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000946\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESome more questions around the Crown Pastoral Land Act: the Act refers to the existing stewardship obligation in section 52 that\u2019s carried over without substantial change to an 11A(1)(b), is it? So the consequential simply matches that. That\u2019s all that is, and happy to take some more questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u002221b1e06dcce943bce3ba9e0a32bfe942\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000947\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002221b1e06dcce943bce3ba9e0a32bfe942\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (20:29)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. That is helpful. Probably one thing I\u2019m not just 100\u00A0percent sure on is just a civil defence one, but I\u2019m happy to come back to that later. Thanks for your answers around the Government Statistician. It appears that that\u2019s not as substantial a change as it might have appeared, and I think the Crown pastoral land stewardship duties remaining unchanged. That\u2019s helpful to know as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000948\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe next question I had was in relation to the amendment to the Employment Relations Act, which is in relation to, I think, application for judicial review and there\u2019s a deletion there of some of the requirements in relation to, I believe, judicial review. I\u2019ve just been cross-referencing this, and I don\u2019t have that primary piece of legislation. So I just wanted to ask the reasoning for that, and also as well whether that was a substantive change to the judicial review rights in the Employment Relations Act because it was, in fact, a deletion and not a replacement. I assume that that possibly it\u2019s the same. I don\u2019t know, but it\u2019d be good to get that confirmed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000949\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EInterestingly enough, the bill that we were previously just debating in the Chamber, the Legislation Act, is also amended by this Act. Because that\u2019s a change of clause 11A to 52, which we\u2019ve already discussed a number of times, my question is not about that because I imagine the same answer would apply for this section, but it\u2019s more that because we have been amending the Legislation Act, is this amendment still valid considering that, essentially, we\u2019ve been at the committee stage for that bill as well? So just wanting to ask the Minister about those areas.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000950\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do have some more questions in relation to other clauses, but I\u2019ll leave it there now\u2014or I\u2019ll ask them, Mr Chair, right away. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000951\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe next section I had questions on was in relation to the Policing Act, and this is a substantive change by the Governance and Administration Committee and it was actually one of the sections that\u2014I\u2019ll just check with my colleague in the Greens\u2014I believe that all members of the select committee actually supported this change. This is something that\u2019s been inserted as a result of the select committee process and so, I think, it probably deserves a bit of attention. My understanding, and the reason that we, in the Labour Party, although we are not supporting this bill, supported this particular change, was because it seemed to clarify a very important principle which was that in terms of overview in the Public Service, which is of course important from the Public Service Commissioner\u2014obviously, there will be some Public Service agencies or organisations, like the Police, who do have to carry out independent duty but still require some oversight. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000952\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo this is quite an important provision because it means that, I think, the Public Service Commissioner, can have oversight over some aspects of policing, but only in relation to those which are outlined, I think, in section 16(1) of the Policing Act. I did look at that, and the only one that I thought was, probably, open to a bit of interpretation was the last requirement: \u201Clawful ministerial direction\u201D. I think this is an important change that was made at select committee. It would be good to hear from the Minister on this, considering, perhaps, she hasn\u2019t had the opportunity to talk about this particular provision. But just, also, to maybe outline for the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E the reasoning why this, particularly in terms of the Public Service Commissioner\u2019s role and the interaction with the Police, is particularly important, and the wording, of course, needs to be particularly important. It goes without saying, we don\u2019t want ministerial direction into the actual duties of policing, and so I hope that this is sufficient to address those concerns that the public may have, but I definitely support this particular provision in making sure that there is that appropriate discretion. That is another new area and so I\u2019ll leave that there if the Minister wants to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225d867066726345c4928a50b531fad0af\u0022 data-id=\u0022804019b080e897041b025ce559c4d91f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000953\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225d867066726345c4928a50b531fad0af\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022804019b080e897041b025ce559c4d91f\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for the Public Service) (20:34)\u003C/span\u003E: There is a question about judicial review that is still able to be undertaken and that\u2019s to maintain the rights of people to do that. So that\u2019s from Schedule 8 to Part 3 of the Public Service Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000954\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to policing, well, the police, they\u2019re not\u2014the Chair will know this\u2014strictly public servants in terms of taking instruction. In fact, quite the opposite. Policing independence and independence of actions are absolutely inherent in our Policing Act, so the issue, really, is independence versus oversight. The member\u2019s correct, the committee looked at this and said, \u201CWell, what else can we do here?\u201D But we have to make sure that the constabulary functions are not interfered with in any way, shape, or form\u2014such as the choice of how to enforce the law in relation to, I don\u2019t know, crimes or various other things. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000955\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ECertainly when it comes to the appointments of commissioners\u2014having done a few myself over the years\u2014the Public Service Commission, traditionally, is involved in that activity but they do not make the decisions. It\u2019s very much led by the Minister and its appointment by the Governor-General on recommendation of the Prime Minister. So it\u2019s not the standard Public Service appointment, but the Public Service undertakes the work on behalf of the Minister to put together panels and receive applications, to vet people, and then to put the shortlist before the Minister. So it\u2019s quite different from a public servant chief executive in the normal sense of the word\u2014it\u2019s pretty much the same with the Defence Force too, by the way. The Public Service does that work on behalf of the Minister because Ministers don\u2019t have time to do all that and we don\u2019t have the people to help us to do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000956\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think that was the questions asked on that one\u2014yes. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022 data-id=\u00229e404a58a65dd42a4112d75f418ede56\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000957\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229e404a58a65dd42a4112d75f418ede56\u0022\u003ELEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour\u2014M\u0101ngere) (20:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you, Minister. I just wanted to come back to ask a question under the new section 11A, inserted by clause 11, item (f). I\u2019m interested, Minister, if you could explain, just in terms of the \u201Cfinancial stewardship of their agency, including building and maintaining a financially literate workforce\u201C. I\u2019m just really interested in that \u201Cfinancially literate workforce\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000958\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn terms of the responsibilities: will that be streamlined in terms of the Public Service role or is it better risk management to do with financial obligations to ensure that that specific financial stewardship is an important role, not just to manage all the different obligations? If you could explain, Minister, it would be helpful to understand the principalities around it, but also to unpack that and explain to me the function for the workforce to have them financially literate and really comprehensive. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225d867066726345c4928a50b531fad0af\u0022 data-id=\u00222ec95d52500220bfcc8fac4f972fdeb7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225d867066726345c4928a50b531fad0af\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222ec95d52500220bfcc8fac4f972fdeb7\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for the Public Service) (20:38)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, thanks for that question. It\u2019s very interesting. So one of the things that we\u2019re really wanting to make sure is these agencies, Government departments, everything else, have a lot of money through budgets and they, of course, always want more\u2014but any taxpayer would think there\u2019s a lot of money.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000960\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIt is very important that the chief executives understand their obligations, including the ability to keep the books as such\u2014financial books\u2014in order. So the financial stewardship, which says that they\u2019ve got to have that, \u201Cincluding building and maintaining a financially literate workforce\u201D, is actually critically important to getting the best value, but also really ensuring that the staff working in these agencies add skills\u2014get skills for themselves\u2014because pretty much anybody\u2019s work is going to be improved if they understand the numbers behind those decisions and also what these decisions mean in terms of the budgets. So I actually see it as a really good point, not only for the chief executives to have to be financially literate, but for them to help their staff to gain skills that they may not have, because, obviously, not everybody comes into Government agencies with those skills, but it is a critical part of the work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022 data-id=\u00224358563d183c2442f81766d952c342a0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000961\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224358563d183c2442f81766d952c342a0\u0022\u003ELEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour\u2014M\u0101ngere) (20:40)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you, Minister. Just in terms of unpacking that, Minister, I appreciate that chief executives of various Public Service agencies are required to have those financial skills, but I just wanted to understand what the level would be. Would it just be the chief executive and those who are in senior public roles in terms of the staffing, or will that go to a certain point all the way down to different levels? What would be the expectation in any Public Service agency? Thank you, Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225d867066726345c4928a50b531fad0af\u0022 data-id=\u0022edd16083bb5a7fb9dd09a66463fe5129\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000962\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225d867066726345c4928a50b531fad0af\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022edd16083bb5a7fb9dd09a66463fe5129\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for the Public Service) (20:40)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chair, I think quite a few of these questions are actually relitigating over Part 1, but I\u2019m happy to say that I\u2019d expect that Part 2 is just consequentials; changing cross-references to the Part\u00A01 provisions have already been dealt with. But I would say that I expect chief executives to use their common sense and their knowledge in understanding their staff, if that would be helpful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000963\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ccb1ae9c9b3d1d648889a584fb09fcb0\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: I just confirm that with references to new section 11A, please ensure that you reference them with something in Part 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u00228dc91abb6d209e8dcd0a019c66de0ec7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000964\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228dc91abb6d209e8dcd0a019c66de0ec7\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (20:41)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thanks to the Minister for her answer, especially in relation to the Policing Act. I did just have a brief read of section 16(1) of the Policing Act again, and it does appear that it is looking at some of the overall performance issues. And so I do hope that that is sufficient, but I would be interested to see\u2014hopefully, I assume that there\u2019s been some consultation with the Police and that they\u2019re happy with this change; it\u2019d be good to know that. But, anyway, as I said, we support it, so it\u2019s not something I\u2019m relitigating, but I just think it would be helpful to have that put down for the record.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000965\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI know we\u2019re not debating Schedule 1, which talks about the move to a single deputy commissioner, but I did just have a question in relation to clauses 63 and 64, which we haven\u2019t touched on yet. And that is the change to the Remuneration Authority Act. It appeared to me from looking at the website of the Public Service Commission that this change may have already been structurally implemented in terms of one Deputy Public Service Commissioner. Well, at least on the website, it looks like there\u2019s one and not several. I just wanted to ask about how that has worked, considering that this change to the Remuneration Authority Act has not yet been passed. If the Minister for the Public Service could confirm that\u2014it does appear to me that the Public Service Commission has already implemented this new change, which is open to them. They don\u2019t obviously need an Act of Parliament to do a restructure, but I assume they are, as they are senior public servants, subject to the Remuneration Authority Act, and that\u2019s why it\u2019s mentioned here. So I just wanted to ask about the mechanics of whether that has occurred, and if the Minister wanted to make any comments about whether that has in fact already happened and whether it\u2019s effective.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225d867066726345c4928a50b531fad0af\u0022 data-id=\u0022d131121b311d319ac8038729859bfd74\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000966\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225d867066726345c4928a50b531fad0af\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d131121b311d319ac8038729859bfd74\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for the Public Service) (20:43)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. In relation to the Policing Act, the Police have been consulted, and they support this change. The other answer is around the deputy, Rebecca Kitteridge, a fine woman. She resigned and she was obviously appointed in a new role at the University of Oxford, commencing in early November last year. She finished her term as deputy on 10 October last year. The vacancy in the second deputy commissioner role was kept under review because, basically, we thought the progress of this bill would eventually come through and an appointment process was not progress; we thought it would be not a good use of taxpayer money to appoint someone and then to unappoint them. So that\u2019s what that is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u002267627c583f1ee5e5b16033ce92e1e8d1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000967\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002267627c583f1ee5e5b16033ce92e1e8d1\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (20:44)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair, and I won\u2019t drag this out too much longer. There is one clause we haven\u2019t touched on, which is the change to the Security Information in Proceedings Act 2022. This, to me, looked like\u2014and the Minister for the Public Service can confirm this or not\u2014just a moving around of the definitions. But I did want to ask why the changes to definitions were in reference to the 2020 Act, and I wanted to just double-check that that was the amended primary piece of legislation that would include these new clauses 5B and 5F in the definition.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000968\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EFrom my reading of that, and I didn\u2019t look at it for too long, it seemed to be just moving interpretations around, as amended by the Act, and nothing more substantive than that. But I would appreciate it if the Minister was able to just confirm that that is correct and that these new definitions are the ones that have been inserted through this new piece of legislation. I think that means that we would have covered most of the sections here. I\u2019ll just see if the Minister is able to get some advice so we can have our questions answered. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225d867066726345c4928a50b531fad0af\u0022 data-id=\u0022cc7e06d6c0e2f4e0ab23c04d23c8bf03\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000969\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225d867066726345c4928a50b531fad0af\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cc7e06d6c0e2f4e0ab23c04d23c8bf03\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for the Public Service) (20:45)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. The change to the security information ensures that the commissioner can rely on classified information when restricting the use of products and services in the Public Service, and making sure that that information is kept safe in proceedings. If you think about the fact that we have cyber-security issues that we\u2019re dealing with, I could put another hat on now and say it\u2019s a constant issue. It\u2019s really important, particularly as we digitise more, that the commissioner has the ability to say that we will not be using that sort of brand or that sort of thing, because we obviously have a lot of secure information, including people\u2019s private data, and we do not want to have that compromised. So it\u2019s giving the commissioner that power to say, \u201CLook, for security reasons, we\u2019re not doing that.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022443f23de4cbd464f91833e6c466c98c0\u0022 data-id=\u0022b65e6328c71ee94959488905020525ec\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000970\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022443f23de4cbd464f91833e6c466c98c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b65e6328c71ee94959488905020525ec\u0022\u003ETODD STEPHENSON (Whip\u2014ACT) (20:46)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000971\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000972\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000973\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000974\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000976\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000977\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Part 2 be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000978\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000979\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000980\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000981\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000982\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000983\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Schedule be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000985\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000986\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000987\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000988\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000989\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022fed95d929da6cf9224f7f06741f50d62\u0022\u003ECommittee of the Whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000990\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c59430eecda405fb57448f08ea37a99d\u0022\u003EClauses 1 and 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000991\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022133b34737f3cbd1fba8109dd379d27b0\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to the debate on clauses 1 and 2: the title and commencement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u002287116f167c1a14aec0fccfa4cd991040\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000992\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002287116f167c1a14aec0fccfa4cd991040\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (20:49)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m happy to see others take a turn and ask some questions too. I have questions in relation to the commencement clause. I have put forward a number of amendments to clause 2, around the commencement, and the reason I put these forward is because\u2014as I\u2019m sure the Minister for the Public Service agrees\u2014this is an important piece of legislation from a constitutional perspective, and there are a number of changes that have been significant. Specifically, the first change I wanted to mention is in relation to the quite significant change\u2014I can\u2019t just remember the number of the long-term insights briefing that we had, that we\u2019re moving to. I know we\u2019re moving to one but I think we might have had 34 or something? Someone can, hopefully, correct me on that if I\u2019m wrong.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000993\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat is a substantial change, and recently we have been in select committee with the Public Service Commission. In our last Governance and Administration Committee meeting we had a really interesting discussion with them around integrity and that long-term insights briefing on integrity and independence of the Public Service. It was really such an interesting topic, and it\u2019s hard to imagine that that type of topic would be produced unless there was a need for organisations like the Public Service Commission and, of course, a lot of other public agencies to produce these long-term insights briefings. So simply stopping them and requiring the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) to do one overall long-term insights briefing is particularly concerning and it did come up in select committee as an issue where a number of submitters had concerns.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000994\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe amendment that I have put forward is to change those particular clauses, 45 and 46, to a longer commencement date, and that would allow, in fact, what comes after the long-term insights briefing to be considered, and for, perhaps, those agencies to think about how they might work better with DPMC\u2014that is a significant change. I\u2019ve also suggested that there might be a longer period of time before this is implemented. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000995\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve just had the Employment Leave Bill tabled in Parliament this week. It has a commencement date that is two years after it receives the Royal assent. This is not an unusual provision. It\u2019s one that\u2019s been tabled in the House this week, and so because of the constitutional significance of this bill, because of the significant changes and the importance that the Public Service works effectively, I\u2019m interested to know what the Minister thinks about that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000996\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think I\u2019ve got another amendment that gives 12 or 18 months\u2014anyway, there\u2019s a plethora of options tabled in relation to amendments to the commencement if the Minister was of a mind to accept them. I think there are good reasons for that. Although these commencement provisions are not always made in the best of faith, I do feel that there is precedent for this particular type of commencement date to be put in place. And apart from, perhaps\u2014as the Minister mentioned in her previous contribution\u2014some of the employment issues around the deputy commissioners, which perhaps could come in earlier, we could definitely work on an amendment to do that, but I do think that this is an important bill. It is regretful that we weren\u2019t able to reach a consensus to have bipartisan support for this bill because of its importance, but I do think a later commencement would allow the changes to bed in and allow everyone to be able to assess those changes and get to grips with them. And, of course, if there was a change of Government, it would also give the next Government an opportunity to assess them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225d867066726345c4928a50b531fad0af\u0022 data-id=\u00226056e48d897f4d784f2f1ab79a45947b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000997\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225d867066726345c4928a50b531fad0af\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226056e48d897f4d784f2f1ab79a45947b\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for the Public Service) (20:54)\u003C/span\u003E: I noticed a little smile on the member\u2019s face as she sat down. Look, I think it\u2019s pretty clear, and my colleague the Hon James Meager said previously when he was in the chair on my behalf during the debate on Part 1, that the long-term thinking can be provided through a range of other channels and regular advice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000998\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe don\u2019t need 34 different long-term insights briefings to overlay and duplicate everything. I certainly know that some of our smaller agencies for which I\u2019m the Minister responsible find this a hugely onerous task for them to undertake, and I would rather they got on with their jobs and let the Ministers know in their weekly briefings about issues that are coming up, and also to be thinking about these rather than putting the enormous amount of effort into it. The fact is that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is going to be undertaking all of these for them. They can collate what the thinking is and put it into one rather than every one on its own.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0000999\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to comments around the date of commencement\u2014well, good try, Ms Belich, but no. There is no reason to delay this. This amendment bill has been in the works for well over a year. The provisions do not impact individual rights or impose significant compliance costs. Most provisions are enabling provisions that will be utilised as and when relevant, and they don\u2019t require immediate practical action to implement or anything like that. The Public Service Commission has also appraised the Public Service of the content and the intent of the amendments. The agencies have been brought along with this process. This is not a surprise to them. They are fully aware of it and they are ready for it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022 data-id=\u0022f0eda9c44b0f8d630a0caa9a4abc9733\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001000\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f0eda9c44b0f8d630a0caa9a4abc9733\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green) (20:56)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I need to stop taking leave because the presiding officers clearly forget my name when I\u2019m around the country, but thank you for the recognition, Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBefore I begin my questions I just wanted to thank the Minister for the Public Service for engagement during this stage of the bill. I suspect this might be the last committee stage she will be doing as Minister and we\u2019ve appreciated the engagement on this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001002\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to turn to the points that my colleague Camilla Belich has raised. This is indeed a constitutionally significant bill, and we in the Greens do support the various amendments that she has proposed, and we have some of our own as well. The constitutional significance of this bill shouldn\u2019t be understated. To quote the words of Professor Jonathan Boston:  \u201CChanges to legislation of constitutional significance, such as the Public Service Act, should ideally be based on a careful, independent analysis of the issues and options, in-depth public consultation and broad cross-party agreement.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I will give the Minister credit where credit is due. I think two of the three criteria in Professor Boston\u2019s analysis have been met. There has been careful independent analysis of this bill through the select committee process, and, again, I commend the Minister and the Government for, at the very least, not rushing through these changes under urgency. There has been quite extensive public consultation and quite extensive public submissions and we had a chance\u2014I was a guest on the Governance and Administration Committee\u2014to ask those many expert witnesses what their opinions are.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e06819768b3ca659bdeaa79ee77808eb\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Does the member have a suggestion or a question?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022717a2e1b2e4c92c7eca9ce974d2baaf5\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, yes\u2014I\u2019m about to get to it, Madam Chair. There has not been broad cross-party agreement on this. Every single political party in the Opposition is voting against it, so my amendment, which is, I think, labelled \u201C4.25 p.m.\u201D tabled on 10 March 2026, is on the second-to-last page and it proposes a change to clause 2. So instead of the Act coming into force on 1 July 2026, which is just four months away, I proposed replacing it with \u201Cthis Act comes into force on with 7 December 2026.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI have changed that because, as people will recognise, that is one month after the general election. What that basically does is this gives an opportunity for it to basically go on the ballot, so then there can be no doubt\u2014if the commencement date is delayed to one month after the election\u2014that this will definitely have a mandate for it. As experts such as Jonathan Boston have already articulated, this is a bill that does not have cross-party support, and this is a bill that is constitutionally significant, so there ought to be an extra layer of checks and balances associated with it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf it\u2019s impractical to do 7 December 2026\u2014of course, negotiations might still be ongoing at that stage to form the next Government\u2014I\u2019ve put an alternative date of 1\u00A0January 2027. I\u2019m presuming that the negotiations will have concluded at that stage. Again, for the reasons that we\u2019ve already articulated\u2014the constitutional significance of this bill and the lack of cross-party support for it\u2014we respectfully ask the Minister for the Public Service and also the Government benches to consider our amendments to delay the commencement date for this bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022 data-id=\u00222bf6efa25cb37bd46453e7a0670e187d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222bf6efa25cb37bd46453e7a0670e187d\u0022\u003ETOM RUTHERFORD (National\u2014Bay of Plenty) (21:01)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001011\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002274d7bb54209a271f1f0d83ccdc1b1f5f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Francisco Hernandez\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 1 changing the title to \u201CPrivatising the Public Service Amendment Act\u201D is ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Francisco Hernandez\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 1 to insert  \u201CMerit-based appointments and role clarification\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001021\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220442af65b67cfbb130abef8e942d8d67\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Francisco Hernandez\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 1 to insert \u201CCapability enhancement and role clarification\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001028\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002207823bdaeadf5a5ba329a559be054771\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Francisco Hernandez\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 1 to insert \u201CPublic Service Role Clarification and Performance\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001035\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228cfb75f17cf83377140fa0031fa4a7a3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Francisco Hernandez\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 1 to insert \u201CSecurity, capability and clarification\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001042\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat clause 1 be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001046\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002279e2e3f3c9ee57e015e42068658edb7a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Francisco Hernandez\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 2, \u201Cto commence after a commission of inquiry has been held\u201D, is ruled out of order as referring to an indeterminate event and not providing sufficient certainty.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 2 to stagger the commencement of Parts 1 and 2 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001056\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228353967b64842a2b8a76f841bca8ed99\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 2 to change the commencement to 24 months after assent be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001063\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022805f792c84d914791fda85a2f4ed7d72\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 2 providing for clauses 10 to 34 to come into force 18 months after assent be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001070\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225ceab42839d9d14bc9cb2e3490cc80dc\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 2 providing for clauses 45 and 46 to come into force 18 months after assent be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001077\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022be4e3c331ca010d10bdbcf5adfe9e556\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Francisco Hernandez\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 2 changing the commencement date to 7 December 2026 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001084\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a817bf66ffae3a2a1e93699e86d13494\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Francisco Hernandez\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 2 changing the commencement date to 1 January 2027 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001091\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat clause 2 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001095\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill to be reported without amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002220f160aa756f772036058b010065e49b\u0022\u003EOnline Casino Gambling Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00228e32f69893b042ee0d321aa6cf7901d8\u0022\u003ECommittee of the Whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u00220741e770b0752229c86492360a26e733\u0022\u003EPart 1 Preliminary provisions\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c940f1944a9f00507582b5d0bac2004b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to the Online Casino Gambling Bill. We begin with Part 1, which is the debate on clauses 3 to 7\u2014\u201CPreliminary provisions\u201D. The question is that Part 1 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022 data-id=\u00223c3d3cad2c502de15cd97310b169501e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223c3d3cad2c502de15cd97310b169501e\u0022\u003ELEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour\u2014M\u0101ngere) (21:14)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. It gives me great pleasure to talk about this bill, especially the preliminary provisions that are before us.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do want to talk first about the purpose. We\u2019ve gone through the first reading and second reading with the Minister of Internal Affairs. We do agree with the intent. However, what we disagree with are the provisions in the bill, and so I just want to talk about the third clause\u2014the purpose. We had a number of submitters who put forward the reasons why they were submitting on this Online Casino Gambling Bill. Whilst it\u2019s important to recognise those submitters, we heard over and over and over again about the reasons why we need to have a regulated system in Aotearoa. The purpose of this bill is really important to get right, in terms of the Online Casino Gambling Bill. From this side of the Chamber, what we want to highlight is in terms of the purpose, which must be right. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EEstablishing a licensing regime of the Online Casino Gambling Bill: there\u2019s going to be a huge change, and we heard that over and over again from submitters. I do have an Amendment Paper, which I\u2019ll speak about shortly, but it\u2019s to prohibit the conduct and advertisement of unlicensed online casino gambling, and, more importantly, is to prevent and minimise harm. One of the things we heard from many submitters\u2014in particular, those from our vulnerable communities and, in particular, our young people\u2014as we understand it, when they came through the submissions, was to talk about, even though we don\u2019t have a regulated online casino gambling Act or system at the moment, however, it needs to be strengthened; it needs to have the provisions of harm minimisation but, also, protect consumers with the online casino gambling.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the things we did hear, and the question that I have, is: is the Minister confident that the regulations before us, or the provisions before us, will actually tackle harm minimisation and consumer protections? Because we heard that whilst the wording is there, Minister, it is not enough. The question that I have to the Minister is\u2014we heard from many of the submitters with regard to consumer protection and, in particular, harm minimisation. How will our young people, who, on their current devices, are being saturated with advertisements, etc.\u2014I want to ask the Minister: what advice did she get from the officials with regards to harm minimisation provisions and consumer protections?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u0022715c23139a460d9b24d8d60efe37b529\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022715c23139a460d9b24d8d60efe37b529\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (21:17)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have many, many questions for the Minister of Internal Affairs, coming at it from a slightly different angle, which is as the mental health spokesperson for Labour.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust to provide some context to the questions that I will be asking\u2014it\u2019s really around the right and the left hand. So, we\u2019ve got the Internal Affairs department, but we also have the Ministry of the Health that was\u2014that is\u2014responsible for the harm minimisation strategy. This does relate very much to the purpose that is specified in clause 3(a) to (e). My questions are around the architecture of why, for example, is establishing a licensing regime for online casino gambling listed as subclause (a)? Are these all equal in hierarchy? And, if it is about preventing and minimising harm, why is that done in subclause (c), and then we have community benefits in subclause (e)\u2014and I\u2019ll ask specific questions about them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI preface my questions by referring to an Official Information Act response, H2024049689, where\u2014and I quote Michael Woodside, who was the group manager, mental health, addiction, and suicide prevention then\u2014it was in the first half of last year where it says, \u201CThe Department of Internal Affairs has work under way to regulate online gambling, with the goal of preventing and minimising the harm it causes, whilst work that the department had under way to develop a regulatory framework to address online harms is no longer progressing.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is about the architecture, and the question of how we are to read the purpose when we have clauses\u2014and if I look at the purpose, and then we read it against clause 39, which is around harm minimisation; clause 75, levies for regulation; and then, clause 78, fees; and then, clauses 80B and 80C, which raises duties associated with licences from 12\u00A0percent to 16 percent, and provides a ring-fence of 25 percent for a Department of Internal Affairs bank account. All of that looks to be very much about the establishment of a licensing regime, and very little about protecting those who have gambling issues from further harm or, indeed, from falling into harm.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen we look at the architecture, we can see that consumer protections further on in the bill are also enforced or reinforced. Then there is an amendment that came in late in the piece, which I\u2019m sure colleagues will have questions about, regarding community benefit, but there is very, very little that is around the online harm prevention. My specific questions are: with that architecture, is it deliberate to put establishing the licensing regime first? Does that reflect her priorities? What measurable harm reductions will be available when the bill is enacted? And if there are no regulations enacted, will the bill still be able to come into force\u2014will the market still exist? That is the litmus test of what the purpose of this bill really is. I would contend that this is much more about creating an online casino gambling market and expanding it, while then also purporting to reduce harm, which provides a real tension.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA third question is why does the bill contain a detailed framework for regulations by 1 December 2026 but no explicit deadline in the bill for harm minimisation? Again, this is relating to the purpose and the prioritisation in the purpose. Does she accept the optics that the advertising settings, which are provided for in so much detail, versus health protection, which has so scant detail, is not a good look when it comes to the stated purpose of harm minimisation\u2014that this is much more about creating a market?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat really comes to another question of what, in her opinion, is the core purpose of this? Are these all to be given even weighting? The bill certainly doesn\u2019t do that. If they are to be, then will she be looking at some of the amendments that we intend to introduce to bolster some of the other purposes that are listed there?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust signalling, Madam Chair, that I have some more questions just on this particular provision. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022b931b37871ced72debc27989bb591fae\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b931b37871ced72debc27989bb591fae\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (21:22)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I\u2019ll try and tidy away two of the contributions already today, because I think Part 1 of this bill is actually quite narrow in its scope. I note that two of the questions so far have just related to the overall purpose of the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen, firstly, to Ingrid Leary\u2019s question about why it is that the bill actually has five different distinct purposes. Well, I hate to say it, but I think it\u2019s quite self-explanatory that in order to have harm minimisation standards and prevention of harm from online casino gambling, there is a need to establish regulations and a licensing regime in order to do that, so they all kind of follow on from each other. It\u2019s not that there is a particular hierarchy in any of the purposes, because you\u2019d see that it\u2019s \u201Cestablish a licensing regime for online casino gambling; and prohibit the conduct and advertisement of unlicensed online casino gambling; and prevent and minimise harm from online casino gambling; and\u201D\u2014and I could keep going on, but you could easily just flip them around and they do the same sort of thing with the overall purpose. I think it\u2019s quite an arbitrary distinction about which one in particular comes first. But if you want to have harm minimisation standards, we need to pass this bill, which has a regulatory licensing regime, in order to have those regulated standards.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of the question from Lemauga Lydia Sosene about the advice that we\u2019ve received around advertisements, look, once again, this purpose talks about prohibiting the conduct and advertisement of unlicensed online casino gambling. It is true that we are prohibiting unlicensed advertisements and allowing for prohibited advertisements, but I\u2019d also just point to the fact that a lot of the detail, then, about how we limit harm through this bill is not actually referenced in this part; it\u2019s referenced further in the bill as we start talking about harm minimisation and actual details of the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019d also highlight the fact that throughout the policy process, when we were developing this policy with officials, we walked through quite a lot of regulations that will also come into force. The regulations have been approved by Cabinet. So to the second question from Ingrid Leary, there will be regulations that come into force with this bill for the licence regime.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u0022fef80c58412010773ac61f637f2d84b7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fef80c58412010773ac61f637f2d84b7\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (21:25)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Good to be able to address Part 1 of this bill. The question I have in relation to the purpose clause\u2014and I appreciate the Minister\u2019s comments around Part 1 being narrow, but it does set up the framework for this entire bill, and so it is very relevant to have some substantive discussions about it. Not only does it set up the framework for this bill; it has all the definitions that therefore make the bill workable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve got some questions in relation to clause 4, but I just wanted to ask, around the purpose, is this bill an improvement on the status quo for New Zealand? If the purpose of this bill is\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ab32b09663ea48b199aa59e4d88f77e4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db57a9bca0189e13a131bba97078ed1e\u0022\u003ETim Costley\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228a409df526308dee476540068dba137c\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, that is a genuine question that I have\u2014and I\u2019m very happy to elucidate on that a little bit more for colleagues\u2014because at the moment we have a system where, of course, we\u2019ve got online casino gambling which is not regulated. As my colleague said, the purpose of regulation in and of itself is not objectionable, but the purpose here, as outlined in this section, talks about all of the different factors that go into establishing a licensing regime. It also, as mentioned, talks about important regulations that will come into effect around minimising harm.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, the Minister has brought those regulations into this debate and has said that they\u2019ve been approved by Cabinet. I wondered, because we are debating this now in the committee, if she\u2019s willing to make those regulations available, because one of the big concerns I have about the purpose of this bill is will New Zealand be in a better position having gone through this regulatory regime than it is at the moment? At the moment, of course, we have this happening in an unregulated manner, but very importantly\u2014and this is important in relation to the purpose clause in 3(b)\u2014we don\u2019t have legal advertising.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is a really key point in this bill, because if we have advertising for online casinos\u2014now, we know that everyone is in an online environment, that they\u2019re utilising their phone, that they\u2019re picking up their phone, and if they see something which is potentially addictive, like gambling, there\u2019s a high chance that they\u2019ll participate in that. We have real concerns that the regulations around managing that and making sure that those advertisements as listed in the purpose are sufficient. As colleagues have said, an issue with this bill is a lot of the stuff that protects New Zealanders is contained in the regulatory regime, which is separate to this bill. In select committee and during this process in the House, that is somewhat frustrating, because, of course, we can\u2019t balance the fact of seeing the regulation as a part of this bill with seeing whether the benefit of regulation would be put forward.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe last thing I want to say on purpose is that clause 3(e) was inserted by the Governance and Administration Committee after the Minister and the Government changed their perspective in relation to community funding. I know that, obviously, we\u2019ve had this back from select committee, but I think because this is a new purpose and it was not in place when we had the regulatory impact statement, it was not in place when we had the departmental disclosure statement, it was not in place when we were able to call for submissions; it is important to make sure that (e), \u201Censure that money from online casino gambling benefits the community\u201D, is properly interrogated. Now, we have concerns that it isn\u2019t sufficient, that the amount, although we support the idea of a community benefit and money going back to the community\u2014whether that percentage is sufficient. I\u2019d like the Minister to answer, really, is she satisfied by this purpose, because it has to be sufficient.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do have some questions in relation to clause 4, which I will ask possibly in a different call. But overall, is the Minister satisfied that New Zealanders will actually be in a better position and there won\u2019t be a huge influx, which we are genuinely concerned about, in online casino gambling because of the legalisation of advertising?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022f398a68c22390ea56ebbac6dee212473\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f398a68c22390ea56ebbac6dee212473\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (21:30)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for her questions. The member asks whether or not this bill is going to be an improvement of the status quo, and absolutely it is because it\u2019s not a shock to anyone that this Government cares about regulating the online casino market and we are acting on it more so than the previous Government did, who recognised that there was an issue but never actually passed any legislation to deal with this issue. So that\u2019s what this Government is doing, which is that we are going to regulate a currently completely unregulated advertising online for casino gambling issue that we face at the moment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill will actually restrict advertising and it will restrict quite a lot of what is happening with online gambling at the moment. The difficulty is that in order to have a licensed regime that is legal, there also needs to be some incentives for people to want to participate in the legal market, which means that you can allow for controlled advertising that will raise consumer awareness of who is a licensed operator in the online gambling space, and that provides choice to people who genuinely do want to gamble and who want to participate in that market.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat will actually help when people are faced with online gambling into the future, that there will be a prohibition on advertising for any unlicensed operators. But for those who are licensed, there will be very strict advertising requirements. I\u2019m surprised that the member hasn\u2019t seen it, because I think it\u2019s been online for quite a long time, but I\u2019ve proactively released the Cabinet decisions about regulations and I think those went up, potentially, last year. But the final approvals will go through Cabinet with the intention of May this year. So, there\u2019s that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022 data-id=\u0022c2ce3598b3352aa9dce11c02e69b58f8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c2ce3598b3352aa9dce11c02e69b58f8\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (21:32)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to also touch on clause 3, as well, because I think it\u2019s a really important topic. My call will probably be short because a lot of it has been covered, but I guess it\u2019s focusing on clause 3(c) as well, and the actual \u201Cprevent \u2026 harm from online casino gambling\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s a strong word, \u201Cprevent\u201D; to stop. I guess what you just said earlier was how do we limit harm? The Minister said, \u201CHow do you limit harm?\u201D So, immediately, we go into that, basically, we can\u2019t prevent it. So I\u2019m just wondering, when I read through this, I can\u2019t see how we actually prevent harm. So I\u2019d love to know the Minister\u2019s thoughts on actually how we prevent harm based on clause 3(c), especially when the Minister just said how do we \u201Climit\u201D harm.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAlso, I just want to talk to an amendment that I have on clause 3(c), which is actually to add a sixth purpose, which was a suggestion from Lotto NZ, and that was just to seek to control the growth of gambling. So that Amendment Paper 539 was to add another clause to limit or reduce the growth of online casino gambling. Because I think it\u2019s really important that, actually, if we want to truly reduce harm, we don\u2019t want to keep expanding online casino gambling. I\u2019d love the Minister to consider that and also talk to actually what is meant by \u201Cprevent harm\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022 data-id=\u0022d33eddb481ee1b45261fe2e4da6f8ed0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d33eddb481ee1b45261fe2e4da6f8ed0\u0022\u003ELEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour\u2014M\u0101ngere) (21:34)\u003C/span\u003E: Thanks, Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to ask further questions. Minister, you\u2019ve talked about advertising and minimising harm, etc., and it\u2019s really helpful that you also remind members where the information is online to help us further understand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMinister, I want to focus my questions on advertising. Because I appreciate that you\u2019ve pointed us to the information in terms of advertising, but I want to question, firstly, how the officials provided the advice around advertising, because advertising is one word but can mean a lot of things. I want to ask, in terms of things like standards, in terms of the targeted advertising, in terms of having an unlicensed forum at the moment, moving into the online, what\u2019s been taken to Cabinet and also what you have provided in terms of select committee questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAdvertising is a big area, and the concern that I have is if we don\u2019t get it right\u2014particularly offshore advertising\u2014young people have told select committee members that they are getting bombarded at the moment and saturation. I want to ask around the officials and the advice that they\u2019ve given and the controls, and how will there be specific wording, specific tools, specific regulations on advertising? Because when the approval goes out, in terms of this bill, up to 15 licences from offshore companies will have the ability to move their product through advertising. What controls are in place? What is the formula that will be used for advertising and how will restrictions on online casino gambling\u2014because the concern that we have is, at the moment, you\u2019ve got a difference of land-based casinos in Aotearoa. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWith online casino gambling, it is going to be a product that is available 24/7 in the leisure of your own home, individually. You don\u2019t have to go physically, so it\u2019s important that the restrictions and regulations for advertising\u2014and specifically targeting what are the controls that are going to be in place and how stringent will they be? I appreciate that it is in the provisions and interpretation, but what does that mean and what advice did you receive?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u00226169801818c1b8ef49c1814a9386eb52\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226169801818c1b8ef49c1814a9386eb52\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (21:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Look, I think we\u2019re already starting to get off track in terms of the parts of the bill that we are talking about. You\u2019ll note that Part 5 deals with the regulations and the minimum standards, with specific mention and reference to regulations relating to harm prevention and minimisation, and regulations relating to advertising and marketing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is Part 1, which is dealing specifically with the purpose and the preliminary provisions, so I would prefer if we could keep that to Part 5. In reference to Mike Davidson\u2019s comment about whether or not we should have a new provision within the bill about limiting or reducing the growth of online casino gambling, I don\u2019t believe that is necessary because ultimately the online casino gambling market, at the moment, is completely unregulated. The overall purpose of this bill is not to increase online gambling; it is simply to put ring-fencing around it, and safety provisions and consumer protection standards that don\u2019t currently exist on that online space.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think, as we go through this debate, it also must be said there are genuine Kiwis who do wish to gamble online, who should be allowed access to that provision under the law because they are not problem gamblers. But, where people do have issues with gambling, that\u2019s where the harm minimisation standards and the consumer protections do come in. This is not about prohibiting online gambling; it\u2019s about a safer, regulated space for it to occur. That is not part of the overall purpose of the bill\u2014to increase online gambling\u2014so, therefore, I don\u2019t believe it\u2019s necessary to also have a purpose to reduce the growth.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225c77e78c7f2f7f7f3e05b14ab3893fbf\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, before I take the next call, can I just alert you to the fact that we have had five questions on clause 3. They are explored in a huge amount of detail further in the bill, so I\u2019m looking to move on from clause 3.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u0022f19773aad5bde8fb7f153f44354fe36c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f19773aad5bde8fb7f153f44354fe36c\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (21:39)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, thank you very much. I just want to respond to a couple of things that the Minister has helpfully provided. One is, Minister, you have said that there is no hierarchy in the subclauses (a) to (e), which is very helpful\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223f564e04e43fdc59397d494e1580ac3c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Are you on clause 3?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228f75b6be87a0acc94f5d984ee33b2b03\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY\u003C/span\u003E: I am on clause 3.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002201c071315e015fbca00c7a01ae71f104\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: After I\u2019ve just explained that the detail is explored further in the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022652d36090bf710b46a354a161b327587\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, if you will indulge me, the Minister, herself, has just said there\u2019s no hierarchy. What I would like to ask her about is why there is so detail in some of the definition sections about things pertaining to consumer protections rather than the harm minimisation, because she herself has also just talked about consumer protection and harm minimisation interchangeably. I would like to understand from the Minister what the difference is in her mind and what evidence she has received about the difference between consumer protection, which is certainly set up in this bill, versus harm minimisation, which has been the subject of many of our questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is highly relevant because what we are seeing here is a bill that simultaneously regulates a market while trying to expand it. The territorial provisions in it, which we will be coming to next, are very difficult to enforce, which, again, goes to the question of: what is the purpose? This is why we are so interested to find out what the authentic purpose of the bill is. The definitions are narrow and operator focused, and so, again, that speaks to the creation of a regulated sector more than the harm minimisation that she herself has said is equally as important in clause 3, in the \u201CPurpose\u201D, and the ecosystem that drives gambling may be left, largely, untouched. We\u2019ve heard that from the Minister, where she is saying, \u201CThis is going to be better for New Zealanders.\u201D and she has refuted the suggestion that by creating a competitive, regulated market, which will incentivise people to advertise in New Zealand, that harm minimisation will not increase as a result of increased gambling.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, these are all really important and significant questions, and I could draw the Minister\u2019s attention, if you like, to the definition section where were look at \u201Cadvertisement\u201D and we see how narrow it is. Why are influencers or streamers not included in that definition? Why is there no reference to affiliate marketing? Why is it all about direct marketing? We know that technology and gambling marketing is becoming increasingly diverse and sophisticated. By keeping that definition really narrow, again, it speaks to a regulated industry more than it does to harm minimisation. It\u2019s very much about the inputs and outputs of the regulated sector, rather than what the outcomes will be of this bill. That is why we have questioned so thoroughly on the purpose.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other thing, just as an aside, while we support the community benefit in subclause\u00A0(e), I\u2019d like to know from the Minister whether she perceives that there are perceptions that this could, therefore, look like a normalisation of gambling for the purposes of generating tax revenue. Certainly, that is one interpretation that I have seen in the submissions that went to the select committee, even though I didn\u2019t sit on it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other questions I have are just in terms of the territorial part, which allows operators to operate in New Zealand from offshore\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ab32b09663ea48b199aa59e4d88f77e4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002267e3f4149630ff1a6af24a253d4f73c8\u0022\u003ETim Costley\u003C/span\u003E: Which part are we on, Tom?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e0086ec60d0a9c3351b4cc14c08ad3ae\u0022\u003ETom Rutherford\u003C/span\u003E: Part 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002254a0b5053e3f72685a4b831ee50bdce5\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich\u003C/span\u003E: This is the next section, which we haven\u2019t discussed at all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022949833c9a63b5c6fe6809d100c17a44c\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m talking about clause 4. I mean I\u2019ve got heaps more questions on clause 3, but I\u2019ll take Madam Chair\u2019s guidance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOn clause 4, which is about the territorial application, how does she expect this regime to be enforced when operators will have no legal presence in New Zealand? What are the specific enforcement mechanisms, given that her colleague, the Hon David Seymour, said on Radio New Zealand\u2014inaccurately, actually\u2014that the bill would contain technical blocking mechanisms, which is just not true. Did she give any consideration to things apart from blocking ads or payment that make it easy to bypass the system?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019d like to understand much more clearly from the Minister how she is going to enforce these provisions, both for the regulated licence holders but, equally, for those who are not regulated, because the net result of creating this competitive market is that all operators will be incentivised to advertise in New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u0022ba0f1155c3d0e850678b824f085d6378\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ba0f1155c3d0e850678b824f085d6378\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (21:44)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I want to speak to my Amendment Paper 542, which is in relation to clause 5. I don\u2019t know if anyone else other than myself and Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan are gamers\u2014and Fran\u2014well, right now, in the Chamber, but I generally want to engage in this amendment constructively with the Minister, and I\u2019d love to get her view on expanding some of the definitions to include \u201Cloot boxes\u201C. This is an Amendment Paper 542. It changes the definitions in clause 5 to include \u201Cloot boxes\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, if the Minister is not a gamer, loot boxes are\u2014I don\u2019t know if she is. Is she? OK, great. Well, that\u2019s good. If she is, that\u2019s great. Maybe she\u2019ll understand the subject matter. Basically, the idea is that expanding clause 5 to include \u201Cloot boxes\u201D will allow the incorporation of a really problematic element in video games that relies on people, basically, relying on chance to be able to acquire in-game items that can only be acquired through in-game purchases. Now, loot boxes can often be a way to prey on gamers, particularly young gamers, to entice them into making microtransactions to acquire rare items, often with a very minute chance of them being able to get them. We have received feedback from concerned gamers, as well as parents, that these microtransactions and loot boxes can lead to addictive behaviour, and it\u2019s, effectively, a form of gambling. It\u2019s quite a genuine issue within online spaces, and it is a form of modern online gambling.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis amendment would allow for loot boxes to be incorporated into what we considered online casino gambling technology, and I have provided in that amendment specific definitions of what a loot box would be considered to be, as well as the definition of a video game, with the intent of genuinely engaging constructively with the Minister to see whether she\u2019s received feedback or heard about the damage that loot boxes can create in families and young people as a relatively new form of online gambling.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn my amendment, I have put two quite narrow lines to define what we consider a \u201Cloot box\u201D. It talks about how it \u201Cin relation to a video game, means a virtual container, however described, that\u2014(a) can be purchased or unlocked within the game; and (b) rewards players with an in-game digital item, where the exact reward the player is to receive is not disclosed to the player prior to purchase\u201D. This is particularly where the harmful components are. In video games, often, you\u2019ll be told that there\u2019s the chance that you could get an item that is considered rare, very rare, or legendary, and that will be a way to actually invite people into spending money in these microtransactions. Because this is set by chance, this is where the gambling component comes into place. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWithout adding loot boxes to the definition of \u201Conline casino gambling technology\u201D, I\u2019m worried that we\u2019re leaving behind a growing area of harm in our communities; one that is actually quite broadly spoken about in online spaces and particularly within parent circles that have children who are gamers. I\u2019ve seen firsthand within the gaming community how, particularly, young people end up getting drawn into gambling by starting off with loot boxes as the first point of contact into gambling, which can then mean that they end up participating in other forms of online casino gambling.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI wanted to ask if the Minister would be supportive of the idea of incorporating \u201Cloot boxes\u201D as a definition of what we considered online casino gambler technology and as a genuine issue that our communities are facing\u2014one that is genuinely creating harm and addictive behaviour in our communities and one where we would have the genuine opportunity to actually have this piece of legislation reflect the modern behaviours that we are seeing in online spaces, including within the gaming community. Loot boxes genuinely cause harm, and I want to bring this amendment forward in the best good-faith approach possible in the hope that we can modernise our definition of \u201Conline casino gambling technology\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b6cffa24287f4f34d8b44917cd219705\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for his contribution. I was a little distracted while I did some research with the Clerk about what a loot box was. Thank you for that education.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022dfdd0041ee5c4a4c884cd337e5a93844\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dfdd0041ee5c4a4c884cd337e5a93844\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (21:49)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, I wouldn\u2019t want to excite too many members of the public about my knowledge of gaming, so I\u2019ll try and keep my personal life to myself in this contribution. However, my understanding of the issue is that this relates to potential regulation of video games, which would be outside the definition of online casino gambling that Cabinet had agreed to, so therefore it would actually be outside the scope of this bill. For that reason, I don\u2019t believe it\u2019s appropriate to ban these products through this form of legislation, which is setting up a licensing regime for 15 online casino gambling licences. It\u2019s not touching gaming.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u002200e2591d2e22299f1884600cbfabbd22\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002200e2591d2e22299f1884600cbfabbd22\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (21:50)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to make a contribution in relation to clause 4, \u201CTerritorial application\u201D. This is really important, and the reason this is so important is because, under this bill, as I understand it, there is no necessary benefit that will flow to New Zealand companies from the regulation of this market. This is something that did come up in the Governance and Administration Committee a lot\u2014and, in fact, was one of the primary submissions from BusinessNZ. They concluded, in relation to this bill, that \u201Cgiven that the bill, as it currently stands, envisages up to 15 licences\u201D\u2014which is still the case\u2014\u201Ccould be granted to allow the operator of online gambling casinos in New Zealand, without any requirement for the licensees to have a physical presence in the country, it is difficult to have confidence that its aims and goals will be fully met.\u201D This is BusinessNZ saying that there should be some element of New Zealand companies benefiting from this change.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhatever we all think about gambling\u2014and I happen not to be a particular fan\u2014if we are going to make a regime that benefits companies, and these 15 licensees will have a benefit, there could be, as BusinessNZ has advocated, myriad options that could mean that there is more likely to be those returns coming into New Zealand. The Minister of Internal Affairs has obviously decided not to have that as a particular part of this bill, and I\u2019d be interested to know why that is the case. She may be able to confirm that the majority of online casino gambling that happens now is from overseas. Of course, we\u2019re going to be clawing a little bit back with the community buy-back, but generally, as far as I\u2019m aware, this could be all overseas companies that gain these 15 licences, and the majority or all of that money, mainly from vulnerable New Zealanders, will go overseas. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 4, in relation to its territorial application, is important because it does set out who it applies to in terms of the fact that it applies to people, whether or not they are outside New Zealand, engaging with one of the licensees that have this, but there\u2019s no requirement for the owners of those companies to be here in New Zealand. The Minister said to me, in the last contribution, that all of the details of the regulations are online. I\u2019ve had a good look for those; I don\u2019t know if she\u2019s referring to the overall policy decisions that were in 2004, prior to the inclusion of community buy-back, that don\u2019t in fact detail a lot of the areas that we\u2019re interested in, which relate to the minimisation of harm. It could be that, I don\u2019t know, I don\u2019t have the correct link, but it would be good to know that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ECertainly, we were not provided with information about the details of regulations at the Governance and Administration Committee. That is my role in this; I\u2019m not the spokesperson for this area, but I was on the select committee, and we were not able to see details of those regulations in advance. It could be that it\u2019s published somewhere and I just haven\u2019t found it, but I think it would be helpful to know that, and also to know why the decision was made not to have a New Zealand base or more of a New Zealand connection for these particular online casino gambling operators, because that is a particular concern of the business community and could bring benefit to the country. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u00227a4bfac8a3693c46905a5f7642742f96\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227a4bfac8a3693c46905a5f7642742f96\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (21:54)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, thank you. I think I might be taking the last contribution for the night, potentially.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ELook, I don\u2019t know what information the member was referring to about information from 2004. I\u2019m not sure I have read that one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bf04ba449056e990f6918587c564d2c0\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, 2024.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002286c27ed9f766dc26fd8a47335bfc6a6d\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, 2024. As far as I\u2019m aware, the Cabinet decisions about the regulations have been uploaded online. I\u2019m happy for you to chat to my officials afterwards to try and find the link\u2014that\u2019s no problem at all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of the licensed operators being from New Zealand or having a New Zealand base, there\u2019s kind of two different distinct points to this. Firstly, the bill does enable both offshore and domestic operators to apply for a licence because it\u2019s reflecting the reality of the status quo, which is that most online casino gambling in New Zealand is currently provided by offshore operators who operate outside of New Zealand law. I know there will be a number who will potentially be interested in being part of a legal regime. At the moment, there are people spending money online with those overseas companies, but there is also an international obligation that comes into play, which is that some of our free-trade agreements actually restrict us from prohibiting the licences to be only offered to domestic operators. It\u2019s really important that we are upholding our international obligations in that regard.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn respect of the actual New Zealand addresses for New Zealand companies or for offshore companies, it\u2019s also just a reflection of the way that the modern world operates. Modern online gambling markets operate across borders. Requiring a residence here in New Zealand does not prevent offshore providers from offering their products to people in New Zealand via the internet currently. It seems like a strange restriction to say that in order to do something that happens on the internet, they need to have a location in New Zealand. A market that is currently domiciled in New Zealand would shrink the pool of applicants, it would reduce competitive pressure, it would reduce consumer choice, and that would potentially channel consumers to more attractive options in an unregulated market. We also have to provide for a competitive online market that\u2019s regulated. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f8d060f9a3594c0d45537c71eec9abb5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee is suspended, and I will resume the Chair at 9 a.m. for the extended sitting. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterItalicsCentred\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 9.57 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022072cf4ddcc9d71c888e3aafa760ef2f8\u0022\u003EExtended Sitting\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e1434a3916d64b0740a3661e394d59d8\u0022\u003EWednesday, 11 March 2026\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022058b13e42af5dd7211b203ea3b4c4dbf\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00228fe2aeea332785be3b1859fe87480bd5\u0022\u003EOnline Casino Gambling Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b45ec6db38e2d712dc55a4c21a4a23ba\u0022\u003ECommittee of the Whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001182\u0022\u003EDebate resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u00220f0d1a7f73eee5167d580d3a49eb2105\u0022\u003EPart 1 Preliminary provisions (continued)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b5b29994b7564b6abc6550e57039364f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Good morning, members. When we finished last night, we were on the Online Casino Gambling Bill, Part 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022 data-id=\u002246c052766b868611ae2699df70d1ba2e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002246c052766b868611ae2699df70d1ba2e\u0022\u003ELEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour\u2014M\u0101ngere) (09:00)\u003C/span\u003E: Thanks, Mr Chair, and good morning to you all. We did begin Part 1 last night in terms of the online casino gambling, and my colleague who will join us shortly spoke about territorial applications. She covered a lot of questions just in terms of the fact that it is important that the licences will be undergoing an auction process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI wanted to ask the Minister: in terms of the applications that would be considered under the process with the secretary for Internal Affairs, there was not, in the bill, the requirement to be domiciled in New Zealand\u2014I\u2019m focusing on clause 4\u2014so the provisions apply regardless of whether the person is in or outside New Zealand. So what that, basically, means in terms of the licence, as I interpret it, is that the licensee, or the persons that will be setting up operations, will have the opportunity to make that decision based on operations, based on their industry, etc.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy question to the Minister is: what benefit will that have for New Zealanders in terms of this new online casino gambling? The concern is, and we heard this through a number of submitters, that if that requirement is that you do not have to be located in New Zealand with your operations, where is the economic benefit, or further economic benefit, for New Zealanders, particularly around employment? We know from statistics, and from a number of contributions in other bills, that a number of roles have been lost. So my question to the Minister is: what advice did she receive from officials in terms of that aspect or that component under this provision?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESecondly, I have quickly read the Cabinet papers, and there was a discussion\u2014the reason I ask this question again, or want to reinforce this specific provision, is that in these economic times it is quite difficult for many Kiwis across the board. So, through the submission process, where we heard oral submissions on that specific requirement, what does New Zealand get out of it\u2014not just the taxes and the levies that will be paid by the licence holders once they go through that whole process. I\u2019d like to ask the Minister that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESecondly, in terms of the provisions, how does that attract the dollars to remain in New Zealand if you\u2019re going to be a licensee\u2014I\u2019m just going to quickly talk this through. So why was that decision made\u2014on the basis of what New Zealand gets out of it. So we will receive the tax dollars and the levies, etc., in terms of that economic equation, but what about the relationship, especially when licence holders are going to be coming in from overseas\u2014obviously they\u2019re a big industry because they can make those decisions economically for their operations. I want to know what advice was received, and specifically around further operations located in New Zealand. So it\u2019s not just that you\u2019re coming through to set up your business but what about the other spin-offs, the good spin-offs\u2014what advice did the Minister receive?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022d5c9dc35df0e0896ddbb0673538a09cd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d5c9dc35df0e0896ddbb0673538a09cd\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (09:04)\u003C/span\u003E: I hate to say this because it\u2019s the first contribution I\u2019m making today, but a lot of that contribution was already made by me yesterday, and I\u2019ve addressed quite a lot of the member\u2019s questions in response to her other colleague.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut just to flesh it out further, the overall benefit of doing this is that we end up with a regulated market; whereas, at the moment, it is completely unregulated. Once again, I just reiterate that last night I said that our free-trade agreements restrict us from prohibiting licences to be only offered to domestic operators. Then the question is: well, will some of them who go for a licence through the auction potentially be based here in New Zealand? Possibly, possibly, but if that\u2019s what the rules, through our free-trade agreements, wish us to do. I\u2019m sure there will be some New Zealand - based companies that would like to put themselves forward for an auction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut the important point is that we need a competitive market, and if there are thousands of offshore unlicensed operators currently active in the unregulated market, it is important for us to retain a competitive market, because the difficulty is if you just allowed for a number of small New Zealand - based licence holders, a lot of people would not find that competitive and have the range of offerings that would happen because there would still be thousands of black market offshore operators around.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo it\u2019s about channelling people into a market that they\u2019d actually like to participate in, but putting those harm minimisation and consumer protection standards around it so people are better off than they are now, following no progress made by the previous Government for six years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022 data-id=\u00226d31b5b5587be4e1800743cd065ad8c2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226d31b5b5587be4e1800743cd065ad8c2\u0022\u003ELEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour\u2014M\u0101ngere) (09:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, it is important to recognise that when you\u2019ve got some information through the bill\u2014you know, we\u2019ve gone through a whole process\u2014there\u2019s a lot that we don\u2019t know, hence the questions that I ask. I appreciate that you\u2019re elaborating in terms of the fact that some of the licence holders, once they go through the auction process, possibly could be locating their operations in New Zealand. But that does not give me comfort in terms of the requirement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo it\u2019s going to be up to an overseas industry company that\u2019s been successful overseas, and they\u2019re going to choose to go through the auction process, and they may be successful. The point I want to stress is that there should be accountability\u2014and, yes, I\u2019ve seen the provisions that are outlined here, but to attract some of the companies that will be going through the auction process, there needs to be a stronger requirement to New Zealanders that if you\u2019re going to do these operations and you\u2019re going to set up shop, that\u2019s a good thing, but what we don\u2019t know is how much capacity you are going to bring through New Zealand doors. Sure, you\u2019re going to have to be paying taxes and levies, with all the different laws that are going to be set up under this bill, but you don\u2019t actually have\u2014or we don\u2019t know that you\u2019re going to have\u2014a relationship in person with your company, etc., and your set-up, and that you\u2019re going to help New Zealanders through this very large process. There\u2019s a lot that we don\u2019t know.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo I\u2019m asking the questions on behalf of the submitters that came to see us, or came through the submission process: why are the successful licence holders not having to be located here in New Zealand? It\u2019s not just about their online operations; they\u2019ve got a commitment to New Zealand consumers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u00221cb6cc97d5b86824af18de621531934b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221cb6cc97d5b86824af18de621531934b\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (09:08)\u003C/span\u003E: I do hate to state the obvious, but in a modern online world, a lot of people don\u2019t need to be based in the physical world in order to have a relationship within one country. A lot of countries are across borders, or multi-jurisdictions, and we do have the ability to have online meetings to hold people accountable\u2014not necessarily face to face; we can do this in the online world. So I don\u2019t necessarily believe it is important for us to have a physical presence in New Zealand when we\u2019re dealing with a completely online market.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002286e8fa1fb46730ef9fa580badd8e50c0\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chair?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022523336f84a41261b76febc230589847e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan. I just need to say, members, that a new day and new speakers does not mean that the material we\u2019ve done yesterday is somehow disregarded. We are starting to get a little bit repetitive and we\u2019ll be looking for some new information, bearing in mind that the debate did go on for some time yesterday.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022cbe0ba319893c5350d21813eb76359b0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cbe0ba319893c5350d21813eb76359b0\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (09:09)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair, for that direction. I have a question for the Minister regarding subclause (6) of clause 4, and then I\u2019ll move on to clause 5 in terms of the definition.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMinister, yesterday you mentioned the free-trade agreement (FTA), and I think that\u2019s a really important question I want to ask in relation to clause 6. But I guess the broader question is while some of the new agreements, for example, like the New Zealand - United Kingdom FTA, the New Zealand European Union FTA, and the New Zealand - United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) don\u2019t necessarily have investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses, some of the older ones, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, do have some of those clauses. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMinister, you mentioned in terms of the FTAs\u2014has there been any advice been given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade around whether limiting the number of, potentially, offshore registrations for online casino gambling to 15 would imply that there is anti-competitive behaviour, which is what the Minister also mentioned yesterday, that would potentially trigger an ISDS clause in one of our FTAs\u2014if that\u2019s been a consideration?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second question is specifically on clause 4(6), which is the requirement to provide information regardless of whether it\u2019s in or outside of New Zealand. Do we know if there\u2019s any analysis being done on whether that potentially interferes both in terms of the e-commerce chapters of our free-trade agreements and CEPA, or whether other information sharing and privacy jurisdictions of other countries will also play into that? I\u2019m asking this specifically from the angle of subclause (6), noting that the ability for the Secretary for Internal Affairs to request information is further along in the piece. This is the specific overseas angle I\u2019m looking at.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EInto clause 5, I want to start with a couple of questions around the definition for \u201Cadvertisement\u201D. I want to pick up on a question last night from Ingrid Leary that I don\u2019t think we got a response to yet around the idea of streamers and also influencers, and I want to check with you, Minister, on whether those people would be encompassed under the definition, under (a), of \u201Cadvertisement\u201D, under \u201Csponsorship\u201D\u2014would \u201Csponsorship\u201D capture these other areas, if the Minister wouldn\u2019t mind elucidating the committee? That\u2019s my second question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy third and final question for the time being is around clause 5(b)(v)\u2014this is \u201Cadvertisement\u201D. I\u2019m curious about this part. This is an exemption to what is considered advertisement: \u201Cany communication described in paragraph (a) that is made in the course of broadcasting a physical sporting event that is held outside New Zealand\u201D. Let\u2019s take the Winter Olympics as an example. Congratulations to our medal winners. If\u2014oh, I\u2019m blanking on her name.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d45c160b83d6d89643f51c975e50b942\u0022\u003EFrancisco Hernandez\u003C/span\u003E: Zoi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227994e29e199cb24246378b5ee8293db6\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Zoi. Yes. Zoi got two silvers. I was like, it\u2019s \u201Csomething-o-i\u201D; what\u2019s the first consonant?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ENow, in terms of the physical sporting event, can I just check, when we\u2019re talking about \u201Cthe course of broadcasting\u201D, it is, for example, while people are watching the live stream of the Winter Olympics, and the online gambling ad appears as a physical form in the background of an event or is part of the streaming in itself, that is exempted, because we have no control over that. But this does not extend to, for example, if they intersect or interrupt the live stream or the broadcasting of a physical sporting event overseas with an online gambling ad\u2014would that be a correct interpretation of it? Let\u2019s say you go: sporting event; interruption; ads, ads, ads; sporting event. Are the ads part also exempted under 5(b)(v), or is it not? Those are my three questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022 data-id=\u00220895483b04f5229802a40cfb627fe8a1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220895483b04f5229802a40cfb627fe8a1\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert) (09:13)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to look at clause 4(5), and I want to ask some questions about the practicality of actually pursuing an offence under this Act. Now, the first thing I want to ask is\u2014in that clause, we have the use of the word \u201Cperson\u201D, and when I look at the definition section, there is no definition. Is it intended that \u201Cperson\u201D would include any entity, and would there be personal liability? In difficult situations, we often choose to make people personally liable, even if they\u2019re sheltering behind a company. This seems to me to be one of those instances where that is extremely important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen I look at the subpart on the offences which relates to this, I can see that the offence is actually going to have a fine attached to it. I want to know whether it\u2019s intended that for each offence, there would be a separate course of action. You\u2019ve got in this situation, where you\u2019re looking at participating in online harm on behalf of a person under the age\u2014if there is more than one person, is there more than one penalty that is possible under that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m also interested in the limitation that comes into place here of two years. Usually, when we have offences, we limit at six years at the very least, or we have no limit on a criminal offence. I\u2019m not sure about the logic here when I can see that it\u2019s very difficult to prosecute people outside of a country. Wouldn\u2019t we be better, in this situation, given subclause (5), to make that as broad as possible, to cast that net, and to make it uneconomic? If you\u2019ve got people in a different jurisdiction already, you\u2019re going to have trouble, and then you\u2019ve got people sheltering behind a company, if that is the person in this case. It seems to me worrying that we are not broadening this as far as possible, and in fact we seem to be limiting it to two years. I\u2019d be really interested to know about that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe general question behind this, Minister, is my concern that what we\u2019re dealing with is rogues, and they are outside of our jurisdiction. There is a purporting clause here that says we\u2019re going to catch people even if they\u2019re operating off our shores. The Minister is saying we\u2019re doing this because it\u2019s the Wild West, but how attentive have we been to it being the Wild West? How creative have we been about making sure that we\u2019re casting the widest possible net?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPractically, I think New Zealanders would like to know how the Minister intends to make sure that people who breach this law internationally are going to be held to account. What I can\u2019t see are ways that are very practical in terms of\u2014it\u2019s a sort of ambulance at the bottom of the cliff issue, because it doesn\u2019t seem that practical in terms of how we would do that. Pursuing debt outside of a country, or a criminal offence for people outside of the country, or people obscured, is difficult. I\u2019m not saying it\u2019s easy, but there are ways we could do this\u2014through technology, for example. We could block people, etc., and it may be that that\u2019s a wider issue. We could stop them operating in some ways. We\u2019ve done that in other areas of the internet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhy have we gone down this track? How confident is the Minister in terms of how we are going to catch people? Why did we set these limits and these amounts in particular, and who do they apply to? Those are the questions. Thank you, Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u00220798c72c9ef75b8b8326059aad60931c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220798c72c9ef75b8b8326059aad60931c\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (09:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I will firstly respond to Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s questions about our free-trade agreements just to say that the advice that I have received is that we are compliant with our legal obligations and free-trade agreements.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere was also a question about physical sporting events that occur overseas and the advertisements within them. Look, this exemption is because we don\u2019t have jurisdiction over broadcasting that is sourced from overseas for overseas events. Therefore, if an unlicensed company in New Zealand is potentially advertising in a country where they do have jurisdiction and they are allowed to advertise, it could fall that we start banning the ability to see Olympic Games or other events. I don\u2019t think that would be the purpose of this law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo the question, then, from Helen White, the definition of a person and an operator will be used interchangeably in prosecution matters. Ultimately, it depends on liability and on whether a person or an operator is penalised, but she also had questions about the enforcement powers that we do have in overseas territorial applications. The bill itself provides for a range of enforcement tools to ensure that the regime is effective. The Secretary for Internal Affairs will be able to issue take-down notices and formal warnings; use enforceable undertakings; apply pecuniary penalties, including fines of up to $5\u00A0million; and cancel licences where operators fail to comply. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Department of Internal Affairs is already the regulator for gambling in New Zealand, and I\u2019m confident it is well positioned to enforce this new system as well. But given that there is, essentially, a very borderless nature happening in the online environment, the bill does include specific information-gathering and information-sharing powers that do allow the secretary to obtain the information needed to regulate effectively and share relevant information with overseas regulators where appropriate as well. The extra-territorial application will apply to enable the take-down notices and enforceable undertakings even if the operator is based overseas.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u00227675b5a5b73556e911addca3aa6722d6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227675b5a5b73556e911addca3aa6722d6\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (09:21)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. The Minister has raised the issue of competition, and I\u2019d like to do a back-and-forth exchange if you will indulge me. My first question is: how does the Minister see that a competitive environment will impact on gambling uptake in New Zealand? Will it increase or decrease gambling?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022128ccdee35facb4b471e5edcca3eb658\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022128ccdee35facb4b471e5edcca3eb658\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (09:21)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s quite simple. We are allowing for 15 licences. At the moment, due to previous Governments\u2019 failure to act in this space, there are thousands of unregulated companies that people can use in the online world now, so it\u2019s not that we are adding to the competition. We are quite simply putting competition inside a regulated market.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u00229fe4810bf0ff2afb443d12827fe3db2d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229fe4810bf0ff2afb443d12827fe3db2d\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (09:22)\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister previously talked quite eloquently about the virtues of competition. Given that she gave a circuitous answer to my question, I would say that the answer is that competition will increase gambling, and, therefore, I would like to understand how increasing gambling within this regulated market is going to decrease harm. What evidence does she have of that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u00220bb43c6fee764c370d759ab855ff4ded\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220bb43c6fee764c370d759ab855ff4ded\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (09:22)\u003C/span\u003E: The whole purpose of competition within the bill as it is drafted is for choice for people who want to participate in a regulated gambling market online. At the moment, there are thousands of unregulated companies that are offering in the New Zealand market. We are constraining that to 15 licensed providers. However, if you went too low and made it a smaller regulated market, the real trade-off there is that people who do want to gamble online\u2014where it is legal and they should be able to\u2014would have less competition, less choice, and, therefore, there would be more ability or more desire to use the black or unregulated market. Putting 15 companies into a regulated market makes for a safer market.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022 data-id=\u0022b907304b40d18959b75163e295e6dadd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b907304b40d18959b75163e295e6dadd\u0022\u003ETOM RUTHERFORD (National\u2014Bay of Plenty) (09:23)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c937110d6c8985b007542f0e618a6006\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019re getting close. Keep it tight and specific and refer to a section, please.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u0022cc8c9b3a60bf1202bbec2747e4631c1c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cc8c9b3a60bf1202bbec2747e4631c1c\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (09:23)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I do have some new material to go over, and I just wanted to clarify that Part 1 is also covering the first schedule. I believe it is, but I just seek some clarification on that, because that\u2019s obviously an important schedule for us to look at as well. I have some questions around the definition section, which we haven\u2019t\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c182670e6fffbc120a716e166dc413e3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, it does cover the schedule.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e379617e615d1987520238fb00a965a4\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. We\u2019ll need to cover that in this debate as well before we move on. The questions that I have really were around whether the interpretation clause, clause 5, which is part of Part 1, is sufficient to be able to properly be futureproofed in the sense of how quickly technology in this area is moving. Specifically, I wanted to refer to the definition in clause 5(a). Artificial intelligence isn\u2019t specifically listed here, and I wondered whether that would be something that may mean that the definition of \u201Cadvertisement\u201D is too narrow to cover some of the new technologies that might be emerging. I appreciate that it is intended to be written in a broad way, but I do think one of the issues that we will have with a bill like this is the fact that we\u2019re regulating an online space that is changing every day, and it\u2019s not desirable for Parliament to pass a piece of legislation\u2014despite the fact that we disagree with this legislation\u2014that will soon be outdated and will need to be updated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAdditionally, I have a question around a change that was made at select committee, and that was clause 5(b)(iv). This states that any communication for administrative purposes is not considered to be an advertisement. That will, hopefully, be read in a very narrow way, but I would appreciate the Minister\u2019s confirmation of that, because I don\u2019t think we would want a situation where someone was an existing customer of an online casino gambling platform and they were already in communication and actually the administrative purposes for the company were to actually remind that person that they in fact were an option for spending their time and money on. That is a change that has come in at select committee. I just wanted to double check that the Minister feels that that is sufficient. Also, I think it would be helpful to be on the record. My understanding is that it\u2019s narrow and it is purely for transactional communication, but it would be good to get the Minister\u2019s view on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI have another question in relation to the interpretation clause, and that is on the definition of \u201Ccommunication device\u201D. This literally defines a communication device as \u201Cmachine, device, or thing\u201D\u2014or just \u201Ca thing\u201D. In many ways, maybe having a broader definition will allay some of my concerns in relation to the outdatedness of it, but also it appears to be so broad that it could be \u201Ca thing\u201D. Those are the questions I have on the interpretation clause. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do have some questions in relation to Schedule 1, which is, essentially, putting in place the time limits for when this particular bill will come into effect, and we can see that because of some, perhaps, delay or view that this would have gone through a little bit faster, some of the dates have been updated in the version I\u2019m looking at, which is the select committee version, and you can see that what we thought would happen in July 2026 is now happening in December 2026.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EYou will note, Mr Chair, that the question I have for the Minister is: given the fundamental changes in this bill, would the Minister not consider extending those time lines out to make sure that we have all of the regulatory harm minimisations in place and that we have everything set up in terms of making sure that everything is in place before we allow these online casino gamblers to advertise, which may indeed cause them harm?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022391e809236b4f22119a333f686d64634\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022391e809236b4f22119a333f686d64634\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (09:28)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Speaking to all of those questions, I\u2019m also interested in futureproofing for new technologies, and artificial intelligence (AI) is one of those areas. The regulations do actually allow for the regulatory framework to respond quickly to changes in technology, which is why we haven\u2019t been so explicit within the law but we are becoming more explicit within the regulations so that we can adapt to new technology over time. AI is one of those areas where the regulations can give the member some comfort.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere was a question about a change for communications for administrative purposes. The answer to this is yes; it is only for administrative purposes, so the member is correct. She had a concern about the definition of \u201Ccommunication device\u201D being quite broad and referring to any other communication or things, and that, once again, just goes back to the overall issue of AI. It\u2019s intentionally broad to deliberately futureproof for new technologies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of the question regarding the timing of this bill coming into force, I do consider that the time frames are reasonable because the regulations will be in place before people can advertise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022443f23de4cbd464f91833e6c466c98c0\u0022 data-id=\u002280283222d962d2caf770bfb8072fb93b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022443f23de4cbd464f91833e6c466c98c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002280283222d962d2caf770bfb8072fb93b\u0022\u003ETODD STEPHENSON (Whip\u2014ACT) (09:30)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001238\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228d23e570b2496114d6fca60b3d181968\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Mike Davidson\u2019s amendment to clause 3 as set out on Amendment Paper 539 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001247\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221538af4b4a7b0d4739e9af274b153166\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Mike Davidson\u2019s amendment to insert new clause 4A as set out on Amendment Paper 540 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001254\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228cc538e59ee44d266e8726d839536b60\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Mike Davidson\u2019s amendment to clause 5 as set out on Amendment Paper 541 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001261\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223b96c2c6664b8aaa6b274ec0c72db482\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Lemauga Lydia Sosene\u2019s amendment to clause 5 as set out on Amendment Paper 533 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001268\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223854d76fb80eeebb1c5e88631739d2ff\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Mike Davidson\u2019s amendment to clause 5 as set out on Amendment Paper 544 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001275\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226bf8d1094fa9d0e27f1fe1f18862cfc1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Mike Davidson\u2019s amendment to clause 5 as set out on Amendment Paper 543 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001282\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002209bd61732ce9f80484367ac258b34117\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 5 as set out on Amendment Paper 542 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001289\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Part 1 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001293\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f85baad1810728007925c1bb37420818\u0022\u003ECommittee of the Whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022eb3a142100ccae5ecc79c2d1814d07ce\u0022\u003EPart 2 Online casino gambling\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222d87612ea547fe15806680397237989d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to Part 2, the debate on clauses 8 to 36, \u201COnline casino gambling\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=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u00223035f55e62719e0ab5b06e056ad685d9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223035f55e62719e0ab5b06e056ad685d9\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (09:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Part 2 is, really, the part that sets up the regulated regime. I\u2019m going to try a different tactic to try and get through all my questions in one hit, so that I can get some answers. I note that we\u2019ve heard a lot of ideological responses from the Minister about why she thinks certain things will or won\u2019t happen, but the questions have been very much about asking for evidence and modelling.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo I will ask in relation to this section, on clause 9 of Part 2: why has she opted for a cap versus a public health framework? If the public health and power minimisation is indeed one of the core purposes of this bill, which she has reiterated many times, then surely it would have been better to limit the scale, availability, and intensity of the online products rather than simply focusing on the regulation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo if she could please explain what evidence and briefings did she have from officials when she looked at this part, to determine what was the right model: a cap on licensing versus other approaches which would have reduced the scale, intensity, and availability of online gambling; or did she even undertake that exercise?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen I say that, it\u2019s with a bit of cynicism because I can see from a note on 16 January\u2014official advice to Minister van Velden\u2014there\u2019s a whole lot of things here around revenue focus of the briefing that she was given. There were discussions around advertising regulations, there was advertising discussed prior to harm minimisation, there were consumer protections discussed, but there really wasn\u2019t any discussion until much later on\u2014I think it was around March\u2014that the harm minimisation piece came into play.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFurther questions I have are: if harm minimisation is a function of this bill, why is she allowing multi-year licences rather than having the ability to monitor what is happening in terms of harm and then being able to make a final decision about the licences? Under clause 12, the secretary can invite expressions of interest, and there are public notices that must specify a number of things. That includes the number of licences, the minimum amount of capital, and the date by which an expression of interest must be submitted. Why is there nothing in there about the track record of the licence applicant on harm minimisation, and what would happen if they had a bad track record of minimising harm? Clause 12 seems to be completely silent in that regard.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen we look at clause 14, paragraph (ca), which was added\u2014and I believe that was after the Governance and Administration Committee received a lot of submissions around community purpose\u2014it says: \u201Cinformation about any contribution that the person makes or intends to make for community purposes in New Zealand\u201D. Can the Minister please explain how that will be weighted, and, more importantly, where is the accountability for that? If somebody offshore states that they\u2019re going to do a number of beneficial things for New Zealand with their licence, how does she make sure or how does the Secretary for Internal Affairs acting on her behalf make sure that that has indeed happened, or is there no accountability in this bill, which seems to be the case? If there isn\u2019t, should she consider, in the very many regulatory-making powers that are contained later in this bill, something where there could be an accountability mechanism for that? What we see is all these promises of community benefit that have been added, but, like many other provisions in this bill, there doesn\u2019t seem to be any true accountability. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe also look at clause 18(1)(a)(iii), where \u201Charm prevention and minimisation strategy\u201D is one of many criteria that can be considered in information to accompany the licensing application. There\u2019s no mention again of weighting. It just seems to be in a long list of things that could be considered. There doesn\u2019t seem to be any requirement for that information to be released publicly. Would the Minister consider making regulations so that the public can see what paperwork has been provided around that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn my last few seconds, it would just be good to note that the Minister talked about information sharing. Later on, we\u2019ll be asking questions about what information will be going to public health officials to help minimise harm.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u002203e1e30cf5499c32148548c9fb5af035\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002203e1e30cf5499c32148548c9fb5af035\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (09:43)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I will kick off with a couple of the answers to Ingrid Leary\u2019s questions, starting with why we considered a licensing framework. Look, the licensing framework was seen as the best way to limit the unregulated market. Capping the number of licences at 15 struck the reasonable balance between providing choice for consumers and ensuring a reasonably competitive market. With managing regulatory complexity and cost, harm minimisation is a core purpose of the bill, and operators will have to comply with harm minimisation regulations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe next question, in relation to the licence, was: why are we allowing for multi-year licences? There\u2019s a couple of really simple points for this. Firstly, most overseas jurisdictions that do allow for online gambling markets have a duration period ranging from one to five years. The proposed licence duration balances the need to provide certainty for licensed operators investing in the market with opportunities to possibly have new market entrants while managing the regulatory costs. It\u2019s a balancing act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere was also a question about why we do not need a track record of companies and their compliance. The answer is, yes, we do. They do need to know a track record as part of the licensing process. There is a three-step process for granting the licences, and the Secretary for Internal Affairs will be looking and considering a company\u2019s track record.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo the question of why is it that we haven\u2019t weighted any particular harm prevention strategies over and above other requirements of the law: the strategies must show that they follow regulations as a company and would be suitable to hold a licence, and so that is all part of a suite of information that is required for a company to apply for a licence and meet the criteria for licensing. It\u2019s important that the Secretary for Internal Affairs has access to the information, but, ultimately, all of those bits are up for consideration.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022 data-id=\u00220949371d6e75f1bcc045875d93dc09aa\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220949371d6e75f1bcc045875d93dc09aa\u0022\u003ELEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour\u2014M\u0101ngere) (09:45)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for the answers, Minister. I\u2019d like to go back to clause 8, \u201CFunctions of Secretary\u201D. I do have an Amendment Paper that we\u2019ll go through, and I specifically want to look at clause 8(e), \u201Cto maintain a public register with details of operators and licences\u201D. My Amendment Paper wishes to add: \u201Cto maintain the register of persons for online casino gambling established by regulations\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMinister, we had a number of submitters that came through, in terms of the oral submissions. One of the things that this bill will do\u2014and I have heard the reasons you have put forward specific provisions and are working with the secretary in terms of regulations. What I do want to highlight is that we\u2019ve heard from a lot of students\u2014university students over the age of 18\u2014about the saturation of advertising. It\u2019s become quite normalised in terms of gambling advertising. You\u2019ve also elaborated on unlicensed operators, which is why we\u2019ve got the bill before us. However, I do want to ask specific questions as to when the secretary will be considering\u2014and there\u2019s a process that will have to be gone through\u2014and what are the components of the considerations for licensed operators that are coming in from overseas. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019d like to draw your attention to one of the submissions that we received from Te Rangihaeata Oranga Trust, which is located in the Hawke\u2019s Bay region. One of the things that the submitters raised in their written submission was the threat of addiction from more gambling, and while you\u2019ve addressed the number of unlicensed operators that operate currently, we\u2019ve then also got the issue of social media influences. This specific trust wanted to highlight to the select committee that gambling addiction is a significant public health issue in New Zealand as we speak. They also wanted to raise in their submission that the Online Casino Gambling Bill must \u201Cuphold its duty to protect and care for wh\u0101nau \u2026 preventing further harm.\u201D What will be the assessment that the regulator or the secretary makes, specifically when you require a public register so that the public can understand who is responsible for a licence? How can we contact them? We have significant concerns that the harm minimisation or harm reduction plans that will be registered under licensees just don\u2019t go far enough. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere is also the issue around addiction. We have heard a number of submissions that have come through, specifically around how the bill will strengthen harm minimisation and protect New Zealanders from online gambling harm. The worry is, Minister, that while land-based casinos are currently a thing that you go into, online gambling through this bill, through this legislation, will be available 24/7. What protections will the secretary take into account for consumers in terms of what a number of vulnerable communities have raised through this bill? One of the good things about my Amendment Paper that I\u2019ve put through is that it addresses the situation where you\u2019re trying to get a balance of an economic benefit versus social harm minimisation and consumer protections. We\u2019re going to keep asking those questions, because for vulnerable communities that are already being exposed to this type of marketing in terms of saturation, how strong are those protections going to be? How will the public\u2014through these licences, once they go through the processes\u2014be protected, Minister? How will the issue of young people who are at universities up and down this country and the issue of the saturation of advertising that is already coming on their phones be addressed? I would like to ask the Minister those specific questions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022 data-id=\u0022d0c335f578fae6bd5e7bafa58d064e7e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d0c335f578fae6bd5e7bafa58d064e7e\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert) (09:50)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to take on and extend those questions so the Minister can, hopefully, answer my questions at the same time as she answers the questions that were just asked by Lemauga Lydia Sosene, because they\u2019re really coming out of my portfolio. I have the community and voluntary sector as one of my portfolios, and I also have the sexual and family violence portfolio. I visit organisations that are at the pointy end of this\u2014for example, Asian Family Services would be one\u2014where I hear stories of addiction that is actually really harming families. It\u2019s also difficult to capture in data the damage of that, and that\u2019s because communities are quite scattered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy question for the Minister is: how confident is she that we have a capacity to measure the harm caused by this type of gambling versus other types of gambling? The communities that are affected are often younger, but they\u2019re also culturally diverse\u2014so people coming in with a different culture in terms of gambling and with a level of isolation, quite often. The stories that I\u2019ve heard from somewhere like Asian Family Services are completely heartbreaking. They\u2019re about families just totally devastated by a problem gambler in their family, and often that behaviour has been part of their lives even before they\u2019ve come to New Zealand because of the culture that they\u2019ve come from. What I want to know is how much investigation there has been of that aspect and how much confidence does the Minister have that she knows the cost that the New Zealand taxpayer, for example, but also the families are paying for an extension into this area. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen there\u2019s the issue of youth, and it\u2019s been raised a few times, but I don\u2019t think we\u2019ve been specific enough yet on that. Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March talked yesterday about a particular pathway in through gaming, but we know this world of the internet is playing out really differently for younger people because they\u2019re completely acclimatised to it. There isn\u2019t the attraction to going somewhere where those limits are; there is the blending of this with other parts of their online existence. How much did the Minister find out about that changing phenomenon? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve just had an inquiry, which was cross-party and widely supported, into the issue of online harm. What I would like to know from the Minister, in addition to what I\u2019ve asked, is how much crossover was there in terms of that report and that investigation. I think some of the submitters in that inquiry changed the minds and the understanding of those listening to those submissions, to the extent that there was a wide consensus across the crisis that we face in this issue and a desire to really take leadership in this area. What I\u2019m worried about is that this area is actually subject to almost a counterforce in the area of online gambling as we open up to those vulnerabilities and the very same people are being affected in this way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThese are genuine questions. I\u2019m very, very worried about the influence that an international online lack of involvement is having, and I would like the Minister to go further than simply saying that she is regulating, because she is also making money out of these things. This does look like the Minister is going to make money out of it\u2014sorry, not the Minister. It is a motivation here that there will be money made, but if the money, even at a very selfish level of\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ETime expired\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u00229f7bd4eb6d79d990bf8bb48b87b78e3b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229f7bd4eb6d79d990bf8bb48b87b78e3b\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (09:55)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I will answer some of the queries that have come up so far, but I do just want to make it absolutely clear for anyone who\u2019s listening that I am not profiting off this; I am simply the Minister passing through this law. It would be very improper if I was making a personal fortune, and so please refer to the Minister and the Government, rather than myself.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELemauga Lydia Sosene has concerns about advertising for young people and the harm that it can cause. I also share some of those concerns. This bill goes some way to addressing, I believe, the concerns that she has raised because the bill specifies that the regulations will set out arrangements for operators and what they can and cannot do in terms of advertising and sponsorship. The Government has already agreed to the prohibition of sponsorship as part of the regime and, in the regulations, the prohibition of using endorsements for licensed operators\u2019 products. This covers things like social media influencers\u2014people who would be personally profiting by endorsing a licensed operator\u2019s products. I know that concern comes from young people seeing influencers and potentially thinking that could be seen as a good thing if someone is getting paid for promoting a product. That is why we are limiting that social media influence. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the other things that I have heard, though, which I think would be useful to address, is quite a lot of the concern about young people and the ads that they\u2019re receiving on social media for gambling are actually outside of this bill. This bill doesn\u2019t go into sports betting, and I\u2019ve seen a number of articles and concerns in the community relating to sports betting ads, and those are actually external to this regime, because this is not about sports betting. That\u2019s actually a different part of the law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere was a concern about maintaining a register where people can go to get information. The information about operators will be available on a website, and this is likely to be one hosted by the Department of Internal Affairs. There was also a question about what the Secretary for Internal Affairs will consider when they\u2019re weighing up all the information. The secretary will be evaluating all of the information that they\u2019re provided as part of the application process, as per the purposes of the bill and the licensing information required from the companies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHelen White also then asked how confident I am that this will in some way minimise harm. Well, it\u2019s got to be better than the six years that Labour did nothing to regulate this space. It is a completely unregulated market at the moment. One of the really important core components of this law is that, at the moment, the companies that are online are not paying into the problem gambling levy. As part of this law, the licensed companies will be paying into a problem gambling levy that will go some way to helping harm prevention activities. It will fund treatment and support services, community-based interventions, and research and evaluation to limit and prevent online gambling harm. That\u2019s got to be better than the status quo.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022731c2e14080384f4db6f5ec710e66474\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Just before I take the next call, there are six parts to this bill. Obviously, each part is not a new opportunity to revisit the broad issues. They were very much covered in the first part. This part of the bill is very much the mechanics of the bill, so, really, what we won\u2019t be able to do is revisit the broad issues around this in each part. If we can concentrate on the part, please.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u0022f4ca11840b2196fd017fa7eb4576a525\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f4ca11840b2196fd017fa7eb4576a525\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (09:59)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I do have some specific questions in relation to Part 2, Subpart 1. My first question is in relation to the functions of the Secretary for Internal Affairs. In this bill, the Secretary for Internal Affairs is given, essentially, almost the entire responsibility to administer this new regime. They have to administer the licensing regime and investigate breaches. They have to monitor, they have to investigate complaints, they have to maintain a public register, and they have to prescribe minimum standards and approve forms. This is a significant amount of work that the secretary is being provided with.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat I wanted to ask the Minister is what Budget bids has she done to ensure that the Secretary for Internal Affairs will be able to perform these tasks above and beyond what it is doing at the moment. What plans has the Secretary for Internal Affairs provided her with on how this will be run within Internal Affairs? Have any steps been taken in order to allow this regime to be initiated at the time? We\u2019ve already discussed that there\u2019s a relatively short time frame for such a complex bill, so what steps has the Minister taken to ensure that her ministry is in a position to be able to fully implement the tasks, which are far-reaching?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other question I have in relation to that is expertise and skills. This is obviously something which hasn\u2019t been specifically done within New Zealand before, so what assurances has she had from the Secretary for Internal Affairs that those setting up this regime and administering it will have the skills and expertise to be able to make sure that this is done effectively? I\u2019m sure that the Minister would have taken those steps and will be able to respond to me about the steps that she has taken.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second specific question I have, in relation, again, to Subpart 1 in Part 2, which we are on, is on the interaction between this regime and New Zealand lotteries. Now, this is something that came up very regularly in submissions. Although there was generally an overwhelming feeling from submitters that gambling produced social harm in New Zealand and there was a feeling that we did not want to see a proliferation or increase in gambling, there was also a lot of understanding about the fact that lotteries provide a lot to the community within New Zealand, and there isn\u2019t another option in terms of providing support to a lot of these community organisations and a lot of the good work that the lotteries does. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EYou\u2019ll see that that\u2019s reflected in a lot of the changes that the Governance and Administration Committee made to this bill, specifically in relation to clause 9(1)(c). It was specifically excluded from New Zealand lotteries. Then also we see in clause 9(2) that the Lotteries Commission is excluded, so I wanted to ask the Minister what assurances she has had that the cumulative changes to maintain lotteries as a separate regime will be maintained.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAdditionally, even though the select committee did quite a lot of work to ensure that lotteries will be excluded from the ambit of this bill\u2014I think that has been really, really, really clear, and I want to acknowledge the committee and the officials for the work that they\u2019ve done to make sure that that is specifically stated\u2014there was an additional concern that submitters raised around the impact on lotteries that may occur due to more people potentially participating in online casino gambling. So I wanted to ask if she\u2019d had any specific advice that there would be any impact on the existing regulated gambling that we do have in New Zealand. Obviously, of course, we have a lot of goodwill that comes from that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere have been a few comments on the harm of online gambling. I wanted to specifically ask: what in the regulations in relation to clause 10 will prohibit or protect children from being exposed to advertising that is for online gambling?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022b8db956fe8ce6c4f281f99251e95e13b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b8db956fe8ce6c4f281f99251e95e13b\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:04)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a couple of specific questions for the Minister. I guess the first question is that in clause 8, the Secretary for Internal Affairs performs both the function of the regulator but also the enforcer. I wanted to check whether the Minister has received any advice around the idea of one person or one agency performing both roles. As the Minister would appreciate, evidence of good governance is that the regulator and the enforcer often don\u2019t sit under one particular agency. The reason for that is that it\u2019s hard for them to, essentially, self-regulate and self-assess based on rules that they have determined. We see that throughout various other agencies as well, so I just wanted to check if that has been a consideration.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do want to move on to clause 13 and the start of clause 14. We\u2019re looking at Subpart 2 in terms of licensing process. In line with the first question I asked, clause 13(1)(b)\u2014and I know that this appears a couple of times later on. If there is a specific requirement for the public notice, and there\u2019s a specific requirement for a person to express interest within 20 working days of the public notice, what circumstances would permit the secretary to grant a longer period beyond the 20 working days? Is the ability for the secretary to extend that also going to be available as part of that public notice so that way everyone will be able to be eligible to have a longer extended period of time, or will it be a case by case process, in which case how would that be made transparent and made equitable for all of the people who are applying to submit an expression of interest? That\u2019s my second question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy final question for the time being is a new addition after the Governance and Administration Committee process in clause 14(ca), which is information about any contribution that a person makes or intended to make for community purposes in New Zealand. I wondered, when we\u2019re looking at this in conjunction with clause 14(b), which is each key officer\u2019s full name, position, title, physical address, and contact details\u2014we\u2019ve already established previously that a person can be both within New Zealand as well as overseas, so it would be understandable that the physical address could be an overseas address. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut if we\u2019re looking at information about any contribution that the person makes or intended to make for community purposes, would that mean that the person will also need to set up an incorporated society in New Zealand for any of those community-based purposes? Is that a requirement that\u2019s needed? Under the Incorporated Societies Act, it requires at least the director of the incorporated society to have a physical address in New Zealand. I would be interested to know if that\u2019s a likely scenario or interaction that is likely going to happen. Those are my three questions for the time being.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ab32b09663ea48b199aa59e4d88f77e4\u0022 data-id=\u0022f06c075a2f7f7758ac3887df0d366e02\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ab32b09663ea48b199aa59e4d88f77e4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f06c075a2f7f7758ac3887df0d366e02\u0022\u003ETIM COSTLEY (National\u2014\u014Ctaki) (10:08)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226fa35e3d2cd66c884cc7873be6d9bdb6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I don\u2019t think we\u2019re quite ready for that motion. Good try, though.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022 data-id=\u002225ab4e16dc9bdd925d88d5e947fd64f3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002225ab4e16dc9bdd925d88d5e947fd64f3\u0022\u003ELEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour\u2014M\u0101ngere) (10:08)\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, thanks, Madam Chair. I have some questions around the provision in clause 10, and I do have an Amendment Paper on the Table.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019d like to ask the Minister in terms of this\u2014and you\u2019ve touched on some of the prohibitions for those young people under 18. My Amendment Paper speaks to the fact that I want to add in that the operator is enforced with monitoring systems to prevent people under 18 years old from participating in a platform consistent with an obligation in clause 38, which is around consumer protections to ensure gamblers are at least 18 years old.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat I\u2019d like to ask the Minister is: what advice has there been from the officials in terms of actually identifying and protecting our young people, specifically those that are under 18 years old? We know a number of young people under the age of 18 years old do carry around their devices for education purposes, also for contact with parents, and the like. A number of them have devices or their phones. How will the regulator ensure, around the limitations around identifying, that there are going to be very strong protections to protect children? In earlier contributions, there was a real concern from those who actually don\u2019t gamble, because they come across these advertisements pretty much daily.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat I wanted to know is: what advice was given to the Minister around consumer protection, specifically protecting our young people under the age of 18, but also around saturation on devices, etc.? It\u2019s really important that the regulator\u2019s obligations are intact. Will there be restrictions around content? Will there be stronger enforcements around advertising? I recognise that licence holders, once they go through the process, won\u2019t have to be located in New Zealand. Minister, you\u2019ve talked about how a lot of operations can be done online, but in terms of protecting our young people, which is the basis of my Amendment Paper, how will this be done? Has the regulator got strong conditions? If you could explain that based on evidence rather than having ideology, policies, or provisions\u2014how has that been done, and based on what evidence was that provided to internal affairs? Then, moving forward, what will be the review process in terms of the secretary having very robust systems in place?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022 data-id=\u00229feedb9b7d4b683c23ff9e65f83faee4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229feedb9b7d4b683c23ff9e65f83faee4\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (10:11)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a couple of questions. The first one actually relates to an amendment I have, and it\u2019s Amendment Paper 556. It inserts a new clause, clause 8A, to go after 8. It\u2019s to actually ensure that the Secretary for Internal Affairs is obliged to have effective means of seeking the views of others, especially people that are obviously impacted by the harms of gambling. This amendment replicates section 13 of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Act. It imposes that obligation to seek those views, just to ensure that there is meaningful consultation. I actually think it\u2019s a really important component for this Act to ensure that we do try and minimise and prevent harm as much as possible. I\u2019m just wondering whether the Minister has actually sought any advice prior to me putting this amendment in about how the secretary will consult with those affected parties that actually do suffer more from gambling harm than other demographics.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also have a question around clause 29. It talks in clause 29 about how, if the secretary was to propose to suspend or cancel a licence\u2014in 29(1)(b)\u2014they need to give at least 20 working days to respond. I was just wondering what the mechanisms are, actually, if there is a licence holder that is creating significant harm and how that can be shortened so that, therefore, there is not a 20-day working period and so that it can be revoked immediately.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAlso, I just want to quickly touch on the amendments that I\u2019ve put relating to clause\u00A010, because I did notice earlier you talked around the impact of sports betting in social media, and that\u2019s been seen quite a lot. Once we have these 15 licensed operators, then social media is going to not just have sports betting; it\u2019s going to have these online casino gambling sites as well. That\u2019s just going into people\u2019s pockets 24/7. My amendments around clause 10 are to actually prohibit all forms of advertising to really reduce and prevent that harm coming from gambling. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022c9517da6927bfb65eec65cf1eef103bb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c9517da6927bfb65eec65cf1eef103bb\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (10:14)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Look, I will go some way to answer many of the questions that we\u2019ve had this morning. Camilla Belich has asked about the impact that this new regime will have on Lotto. The overall point is that the clauses specified in here about Lotto are that operators will not be able to offer Lotto products, for the reason that Lotto provides a community benefit. It is hard to know what will happen in the future with Lotto, but one of the things\u2014and I\u2019m sure my other colleague in the House Lemauga Lydia Sosene will be able to also talk to her about\u2014is the fact that for the past two years, Lotto has had record level profits and it\u2019s doing better than ever, especially as it has actually moved to its own online or app-based version of its products itself. It\u2019s very much set up for the modern world and competing with people who like to gamble.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich also asked about functions of the Secretary for Internal Affairs and what Budget bids I had done. Look, the operators themselves will pay levies to recover the costs of running the regime. That\u2019s part of the regulations. There are not going to be ongoing, ongoing, ongoing Budget bids in order to keep the regulator working.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich has also asked about the expertise and skills within the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) and if I have confidence in the staff within DIA to regulate the new market. DIA is already an experienced regulator in gambling as well as online environments, because they deal with child sexual exploitation content as well as online terrorism content. Within the money side, they deal with anti - money-laundering, and they are the regulator for that across Government. DIA is the appropriate place with the appropriate skills.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich also asked about the protections for people under the age of 18, which came up with a number of colleagues. The bill does require operators to ensure and verify that gamblers are at least 18 years of age, and it is a breach of licence conditions to allow someone under the age of 18 to be using those platforms.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELawrence Xu-Nan also then asked about independent regulators, once again bringing into consideration the skills and expertise of DIA and whether or not it\u2019s the appropriate place. I did consider some other places for it to be held, but, on balance, I decided that DIA was the appropriate regulator, given its experience in regulating gambling in other forms of gambling in the physical world at the moment as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELawrence Xu-Nan also asked why the secretary would grant a longer period than 20\u00A0days. Look, extending the time frames is at the discretion of the secretary, and that would take into consideration the time frames needed for an applicant to apply. Lawrence Xu-Nan also asked about clause 14 and the contribution to New Zealand and whether or not someone needs to set up an incorporated society. No, they do not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s also questions then from Lemauga Lydia Sosene about the operator and advertising\u2014preventing people under 18 being advertised to. Look, the details of how people under 18 are protected are in the regulations, which I understand can be seen online through proactively released Cabinet papers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMike Davidson\u2014I\u2019ll knock off quite a few here\u2014we\u2019ve got: should the secretary consult with relevant groups before making the regulations? The existing consultation provision is consistent with the Gambling Act, and there are no restrictions currently on who should be consulted, but that doesn\u2019t need to be detailed in the legislation, so the Government will not be supporting that amendment. Should we suspend or cancel licences? Why do you need 20 days to respond? That time period reflects natural justice processes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s also a question about advertising harm on social media and saturation. Look, I totally get it. There are a lot of ads out there, but there are more abilities under the law that we are creating to put in place enforcement to get rid of illegal advertisements and focus people who are in the licensed regime, which is up to 15 potential competitors, to have very specific harm minimisation standards and controls around the ads.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u0022868ace70091c5e7a91f9c5d0bd8d9578\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022868ace70091c5e7a91f9c5d0bd8d9578\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (10:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair, and I\u2019ll just remind colleagues on the other side of the Chamber that, although we appreciate\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222fac275cbc3b991dcfa5af41010e87be\u0022\u003EHon Simon Watts\u003C/span\u003E: Don\u2019t give us a lecture.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022632e9f778fcb82aed3bca2396734e75f\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH\u003C/span\u003E: We would appreciate their engagement, Simon Watts, so if you\u2019d like to take a call, I think some views from the National Party in this debate would be interesting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to talk about licensing. This particular part that we\u2019re looking at, Part 2, has the entire licensing process, which we haven\u2019t gone into in any detail on at all, and that\u2019s just in the first part of it. We also haven\u2019t talked about Subpart 3 at all, and then we have an appeals process we haven\u2019t touched on at all. So I\u2019d just note that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut my questions are in relation to the licensing regime, which is quite detailed, and I have a few questions around how it will be implemented. My understanding is there are a few different tiers of licensing. If we look at clause 11, there is an overview of the process, but then, at clause 11(3), the clause states that the proposed legislation, for the purpose of this, will only be a \u201Cguide and effect of this subpart\u201D. I just wonder, really, how strictly the Minister would be expecting adherence to that, given that that is essentially a guide provision, which is relatively unusual in legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe next step is then the expressions of interest that will be asked for. I note that in clause 13(2), there\u2019s potentially a prescribed fee, and it states there: \u201Cthe prescribed fee (if any).\u201D I wanted to ask the Minister if there will be a prescribed fee under clause 13(2)(c) and what that prescribed fee will be, because that\u2019s not a fee for a licence; that is a fee for an expression of interest almost prior to the licensing regime.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen I have some questions around clause 14(b) and the key officers, which are defined in the interpretation section. Especially if these key officers are, in fact, overseas individuals, to what extent will the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) be checking the validity of the information provided? I think that probably in relation to licensing, making sure of the identity of those individuals and a way to get in touch with them\u2014especially if they are overseas\u2014is important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI had a question in relation to clause 14(d). This talks about existing licences. Now, in New Zealand, we will not be in a position where they have an existing online licence, and so I wanted to understand whether, if that was in the future, when there are future applications for licences, that refers to New Zealand licences or whether this would extend to cover overseas licences that may be held, or, additionally, any other types of gambling licence. So I really wanted to know the extent of clause 14(d).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other thing that I wanted to know is this. In clause 14(h), there\u2019s extensive information which has to be provided around the criminal history or lack thereof of the key officers. I wanted to know to what extent will this information be publicly available, and the steps that the DIA has taken, because they are relatively onerous requirements, which I think is\u2014I\u2019m not questioning that, but the fact of whether or not that will be made public, and that is, in fact, even before they are invited to ask for an expression of interest. So I think it\u2019s probably asking for the validity of whether they could even be in the process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is a complex process. Those are the first questions that I have. I do have some more questions around clauses 15, 17, and 18, but I\u2019ll leave those for later.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022d8b1a2be46ecc40c8ba83c13644a10e3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d8b1a2be46ecc40c8ba83c13644a10e3\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:23)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to move to clause 15, and I have two very discrete questions around clause 15(2) and (3). But just to, I guess, provide another angle to what the previous speaker, Camilla Belich, mentioned in terms of verification process, I would just like to ask, further, how the Secretary for Internal Affairs would verify \u201Csource and amount of capital available\u201D as a part of that criteria process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut on to clause 15(2). This is an interesting clause, and I would be interested to know if the Minister wouldn\u2019t mind providing an example of where an expression of interest would be likely to be declined because it would prejudice trade or maintenance of the law. Noting that we have the idea of the competitive measures, or any competitive measures, in some of our trade obligations, I just wanted to check if the Minister wouldn\u2019t mind providing an example of that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy final question is on clause 15(3), which is around crimes involving dishonesty. This is actually a very significant clause, and it does come down to the competitive nature as well, because the definition that the Minister has given is a New Zealand jurisdiction definition under the Crimes Act, but, as we all know, a person who is expressing their interest can be an overseas person as well. I want to check: do we consider crimes involving dishonesty, and make sure that we know what the overseas equivalent is of crimes involving dishonesty, as well, when we\u2019re assessing overseas applicants, because they could have crimes involving dishonesty in an overseas jurisdiction that doesn\u2019t potentially match up with the definition in section 2(1) of the Crimes Act? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo I want to check with the Minister how would the secretary assess that particular aspect in relation to overseas applicants, and whether there\u2019s any other way of understanding or checking the validity of the submitters when it comes to overseas applicants. That, potentially, will unfairly prejudice\u2014we\u2019re talking about prejudice\u2014New Zealand applicants, because they will be subjected to much greater scrutiny in terms of the ability to track and also align with our crimes law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u0022781a63ca05a93f42dec6519f45ef742c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022781a63ca05a93f42dec6519f45ef742c\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (10:26)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019d like to turn to Subpart 3, which I note we\u2019ve only had about half a question on, I think, some time ago, and it\u2019s quite a big section. I really want to frame these in terms of the risk of regulatory capture, because what we can see from this licensing regime is that there are a number of purposes, including competition in a commercial market, but also revenue gathering for the Government. I\u2019m aware that there will be a tension once this is created between harm minimisation and the ability of the Government to gather revenue, and also the licences that are issued will become valuable assets.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, we know that a lot of the devil in the detail will be in the regulations, but has the Minister received any legal advice for the whole bill but specifically for this part, from section 22 onwards, about the impact of trying to change and tighten harm minimisation in the regulations once these valuable assets have been given to operators? What modelling or advice has she received about the type of lobbying and pressure that will be upon the Government and the regulator, in particular, to keep the regulations narrow or even to narrow them further, and does she accept that it will be really difficult to change the regulations in that environment?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen I turn to clause 27, \u201CDecision on renewal of licence\u201D, the Secretary for Internal Affairs can decide not to renew a licence, but what is the threshold that\u2019s to be applied there? There seems to be silence on that matter. Is the Minister comfortable that in this environment, where there is likely to be intensive lobbying and regulatory capture, the absence of a threshold in statute is safe? Would she either consider telling us for the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E what she considers that threshold to be, or even consider putting in an amendment, which we could draft for her? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other one is that where a licence is not renewed, again, there are questions of transparency: will that information be made public? It seems to me there are many opportunities in Subpart 3 where explicit requirements to make information public would be really helpful in terms of creating social licence for this creation and simultaneous expansion of a regulated market, and so would she consider making those requirements transparent?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen I look at section 30, \u201CSurrender of licence\u201D, and the secretary can \u201Crequest the operator to provide any information that the Secretary considers necessary\u201D. That seems to be an unfettered power. It isn\u2019t any reasonable information and it isn\u2019t any information relating to the issue at hand. We would expect a rational secretary to be asking for appropriate information, but in an environment of intense lobbying, that does expose the secretary, potentially, to allegations of bias or impartiality, and so, for the protection of the secretary, perhaps that power could be limited.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe also look at the secretary being able to get outstanding fees. How does she envisage that that is going to happen? If there\u2019s an offshore operator whose licence is not going to be renewed or has been revoked and who owes substantial fees and has benefited substantially from the pockets of Kiwis who don\u2019t have gambling problems and Kiwis who are very vulnerable and do have gambling problems, what is the mechanism for recouping those fees, or does she expect that those will be written off? If they are written off, will there be regular reporting to the public about how much money is not recouped by the secretary in this environment of offshore licences?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u002228eb4cccb0a5bc139e88c90e19cf46ea\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002228eb4cccb0a5bc139e88c90e19cf46ea\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (10:31)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I\u2019ll respond, firstly, to Camilla Belich. She had four separate questions; one in relation to Subpart 2, clause 11, having the overview of the licensing process. I just want to make it really clear that that is just an overview and the whole process in the legislation must be followed, which is set out in more detail, subsequently.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second question was: will there be a fee? That was to do with clause 13(2)(c). Yes, there will be a fee, but that fee will be a part of the regulations. Ultimately, we\u2019ve put in a fee there because if we didn\u2019t have a fee, there is the possibility that people who don\u2019t actually have true ability to be part of the competitive process might vexatiously attempt to apply, and the poor secretariat and staff would be spending a lot of time going through applications that were not actually as valid as you would hope. A fee is there to dissuade those who are not legitimate from being part of the auction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EQuestion three is: to what extent would the Department of Internal Affairs be checking the validity of the information? It is the role of the regulator to assess the applications.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EQuestion four was: why have we got a part in here talking about how much control someone has over existing licences? Yes, the member is correct. That is for the future allocation of licences.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich also then talked about whether or not we could have publicly available information during the application process for the licence. No, that\u2019s unlikely as a lot of the information that\u2019ll be sent to the Secretary for Internal Affairs should be commercially sensitive and we want to ensure they are having a fair, standard process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELawrence Xu-Nan also asked about clause 15(2). That, in part, was to do with\u2014let me just find that here\u2014\u201Cnot [accepting] an expression of interest from a person if the Secretary considers that doing so is likely to prejudice New Zealand\u2019s international reputation\u201D. That is to ensure that we don\u2019t accept applications from countries that have sanctions against them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELawrence Xu-Nan also asked about clause 15(3), I believe, about the honesty of overseas applicants. All applicants\u2019 histories and how they\u2019re evaluated in equivalent jurisdictions will be taken into account.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIngrid Leary then also asked about the flexibility of regulations and whether or not we needed to have more, I guess, detail in the bill because the regulations might be too flexible. I disagree because, as we\u2019ve been referring to earlier today with some of the concerns from her colleague Camilla Belich about the use of artificial intelligence, having flexible law that allows for modernisation and technological changes, as well as some of the regulations to be updated with the changing dynamics that might happen on social media and the online environment, does require the bill itself to be flexible in nature so that we can adjust to technological developments without needing to go through an entire new Act and law of Parliament. I think that\u2019s just being sensible for the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIngrid Leary also asked about the threshold not to renew a licence. Licence holders must meet the requirements of a licence to be able to get a renewal. If they no longer hold a licence, it will be known that they no longer hold one, as they won\u2019t be on the register. There are provisions for review of any decisions made by the secretary, because I know she was concerned about whether or not the secretary might end up being a bit dodgy\u2014I find that less concerning for the future\u2014but the operators will also be able to appeal some of the decisions through the High Court if necessary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022 data-id=\u0022a2a3be6f588cfdb617ea01ab23637935\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a2a3be6f588cfdb617ea01ab23637935\u0022\u003ELEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour\u2014M\u0101ngere) (10:35)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks, Minister, for going through all the replies to the questions. I do have some questions that relate to Subpart 2, clause 19, \u201CCriteria for granting licence\u201D, because I have a group of Amendment Papers that make some suggestions on subclause\u00A0(3)(b). \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of the licences that will be granted, Minister, you\u2019ve talked about process and criteria. One of the things I do want to put on record, and for those that are at home listening, is that these are overseas companies, and there\u2019s an assumption that they actually understand Kiwis. I\u2019d have to question that, because we won\u2019t, in terms of the public, know about who actually will be successful in getting licences, what background they will bring\u2014sure, they\u2019ll meet all the economic, paying-tax, and meeting-levy, obligations\u2014and what actual relationship they will have with Kiwis in terms of our consumers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EYou\u2019ve also talked about, Minister, the flexibility and modernisation of the bill. One of the things we heard very strongly through the select committee process was: why so many licences? Why 15? Why couldn\u2019t there be a trial period with maybe three licences or five licences so that there\u2019s a testing of the market in terms of this bill? I\u2019d like to know what advice the Minister received with regard to the number of licences. I do recall that there was a formula in terms of Inland Revenue information that was provided to the select committee, but why did the Minister land on 15? What was the formula used for that? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn my Amendment Papers asking for consideration of a reduction\u2014through the select committee process, we heard many submitters talk about why and how you got to 15; why couldn\u2019t there be a trial period? Will there be a review? I understand that, but in terms of gambling harm minimisation and in terms of putting New Zealanders through a number of risks, this bill, in our view, just does not go far enough to protect Kiwi consumers. I\u2019d like to ask the Minister that question. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EYou have stated that there will be very limited information in the public arena because it\u2019s commercially sensitive, so even though the bill will be passed, probably, this year\u2014in terms of the timeline of that, when will the public know what decisions are being made, and will there be further processes where the public can question the Secretary for Internal Affairs in their role?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228b8c026e950f00fe9d56d78f943749e1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Look, before we move on, I\u2019m just starting to hear repetition. I\u2019m encouraging members to bring up new material. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022adc9f7d18d12bea8f971693c6469f895\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022adc9f7d18d12bea8f971693c6469f895\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:38)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Moving on to Subpart 3, the \u201CRenewal, suspension, cancellation, and surrender of licences\u201D, I just want to check with the Minister in terms of the interaction between a few of these areas, noting that if you\u2019re looking at clause 29\u2014which I know that my colleague Mike Davidson has an Amendment Paper on\u2014clause 35 detailed one pathway for an operator who\u2019s had their licence suspended or cancelled to challenge that decision via the High Court, but, usually, there\u2019s a step before that, in some instances, where, within the organisation itself, there is the ability to review a particular decision or a review board that, potentially, may look at that decision as well. I want to check with the Minister if, unless I missed it in the bill, that\u2019s an option that\u2019s available to operators who are having their licence suspended or cancelled, rather than going directly to the High Court or through a judicial review as a particular resolution. The reason I ask this question is that, clearly, there is an option or pathway being laid out in terms of clauses 32 and 33, but that\u2019s in relation to, specifically, the addition or the changes being made regarding further conditions to the licence, but it doesn\u2019t specify in terms of the suspension or cancellation. That\u2019s my very discrete question that I have right now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022cbd7ddd3b373edb307f0f4fc55bde244\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cbd7ddd3b373edb307f0f4fc55bde244\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (10:40)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I will respond to the questions from Lemauga Lydia Sosene, who questioned why we\u2019ve landed at a cap of up to 15 licences for the online gambling market. Look, when the cap of 15 licences was set, the Inland Revenue gambling duty data already showed a highly concentrated market. While more than 15 offshore operators paid gambling duty, the vast majority of revenue was generated by the top 15 operators. Similar patterns were reflected in the 12 months to 30 June 2025, where 26 operators paid the duty, but the top 15 accounted for 99.8 percent of the total revenue. Capping the number of licences at up to 15 for the first licensing period is expected to limit the total regulatory cost, but it also provides a good base for testing whether the settings are working and whether consumers do migrate from an unlicensed operator to a licensed market.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe had further questions from Lemauga Lydia Sosene about how the overseas operators will be relevant to New Zealand. Well, it will be up to the companies themselves to be relevant to the consumers here in New Zealand, because if they\u2019re not relevant to consumers here in New Zealand, New Zealanders may not choose to use them, and so that\u2019s just business. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EShe also asked about the timelines for the bill. The bill will come into force from 1 May this year. At this point, there will be prohibition on advertising unlicensed online casino gambling. Providers already offering online casino gambling in New Zealand may continue their existing operations until 1 December, but on 1 December, online casino gambling providers will be required to cease conducting online casino gambling if they have not applied for a licence. On 1 January 2027, amendments made to increase the online gambling duty in the Gaming Duties Act from 12 percent to 16 percent will come into force.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe also had questions and queries from Lawrence Xu-Nan about Subpart 3, regarding challenges through the High Court of a licence cancellation. Yes, operators can request a review by the Secretary for Internal Affairs\u2014that is in clause 32(1)\u2014and it can also be judicially reviewed. I believe that is everything for now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u00227639f613b4e85e97c0a410c403bb8cf5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227639f613b4e85e97c0a410c403bb8cf5\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (10:43)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the Minister for her engagement in this committee stage. I just had a couple of follow-up questions, and then I want to talk about the competitive process\u2014which I don\u2019t believe has been covered yet\u2014and the process of applying for a licence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis has come up a few times, and the Minister has said that the regulations have been released through a proactive Cabinet paper release, but the question I specifically had was what the fee was. Is an actual copy of the exact regulations that will be in force available now publicly, because the question I had related to what would be in that process? Additionally, she said that matters would not be released if they are commercially sensitive, and so for matters that are not commercially sensitive, I would expect\u2014and it would be good to have her clarification\u2014that information would be available to be obtained by the public under the Official Information Act. I ask if she could confirm that in relation to the application to be part of the competitive process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut I did want to move on. My colleague has covered clause 15. I did have a question on that, but I won\u2019t ask that. I\u2019ll move on to clause 16, which is about the competitive process, and so that\u2019s once everyone has gone through the process of ascertaining whether they\u2019re able to participate, then the Secretary for Internal Affairs will hold a competitive process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI did want to additionally mention this, though. The Minister has made a few comments around whether staff have the appropriate skills and capability, and I wanted to assure the Minister\u2014and I\u2019m sure I speak for those on this side of the Chamber\u2014that those questions are meant to be about us, as the Opposition, ensuring that the key steps in relation to the funding and expertise are available. It\u2019s not a reflection at all on the existing, very competent staff that work in the Department of Internal Affairs. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question I have in relation to clause 16 is, again, a question around the amount payable for the licence\u2014that is in clause 16(1)(b), and that is once the competitive process has been decided. Now, the competitive process clause is a clause that does have a certain amount of leeway for the secretary to determine what it could be\u2014it says here, \u201C(for example, an auction or a tender);\u201D. Are those the only two examples that she can think of for how the secretary would run that competitive process? Are there other methods of running that competitive process in addition to an auction or a tender? If there are not, then perhaps this could be worded as an exhaustive list rather than an example, but I do wonder what that competitive process will be. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen we move on to clause 16(2)(b), and it\u2019s also available for the secretary to determine how that process will be run. I did want to know if the Minister would be informed of this, especially the first time that it occurs, and the decisions that the secretary may make in relation to whether, if it is an auction or if it is a tender, how indeed that competitive process will be run. I wondered if the Minister had, in fact, had those discussions with the secretary and whether she would be able to inform the committee of the nature of that competitive process, because that is quite key in relation to how this will be run.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAdditionally, I had a question around clause 16(1)(b) about the amount payable, and I also have a question around clause 16(4)(b), which requires another fee process. There are quite a few different fees that apply here, and additionally in that process, where, as the Governance and Administration Committee has said, some part of the amount of that licence should be retained if they withdraw their application. I did ask the Minister whether she had requested any money in a Budget bid, and she indicated that she had not because it would be self-funding. But because this is the first time we\u2019ve done that, there will be some set-up costs, and so is the Minister saying that there will be no additional provision made to the Department of Internal Affairs prior to this scheme being paid for through levies\u2014is that what she is telling the committee today? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere are a few questions around that. I do have some further questions around once the licence is actually put forward, which I think will be important to get answers to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u002213e708765da3271d4bed3f8d86fefe85\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002213e708765da3271d4bed3f8d86fefe85\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (10:47)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a very quick question for the Minister, picking up on something that she provided to the committee, which was her response that she had considered other organisations to be the main body Government agency apart from the Department of Internal Affairs. I\u2019d like to understand which agencies or Government departments in particular she considered and whether the Ministry of Health or some part of the public health system was included, including the Ministry of Health.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI say that referring to a Budget-sensitive document that was furnished from the Minister for Mental Health on 24 September 2024, where, in the drafting of their strategy around gambling harm, that was done before the bill was introduced into the House. In point 25, it says, \u201CThe strategy also acknowledges the growth in online gambling and the Government\u2019s recent decision to regulate online offshore casino gambling through a licensing system expected to take effect in early 2026.\u201D That tells me that the strategic framework set up in here, which is all about increasing access to gambling harm support, growing the gambling harm workforce\u2014all of that stuff was done after the decision to regulate the system. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy question is: was Health considered as one of the alternative organisations that could have been the main body to regulate this, and, if it wasn\u2019t, what lines of communication and reporting, and so on, does she see between the Ministry of Health and the Department of Internal Affairs? This relates to questions also around whether the harm minimisation strategies will be shared with Health officials, and also whether the data and monitoring that is done in the sections that set up consumer protections will be shared with health officials in a way where harm minimisation can be effectively tracked. Just quick questions on that, and it would be really helpful to get the Minister\u2019s response. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u00225658937d407049ad01a0d6e12a42fc42\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225658937d407049ad01a0d6e12a42fc42\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (10:50)\u003C/span\u003E: I will just touch on a couple of questions that came from Camilla Belich about public details on the regulations. Look, only the policy proposals have been released. I did mention last night, I believe, that drafting instructions can\u2019t be shared, but the Cabinet decisions have been shared proactively. I also referred to the fact that it still needs to go back through Cabinet in May.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich also asked about what other options we used for competitive processes. Ultimately, Cabinet decided on an auction. That provides for a competitive process to determine who may apply for a licence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c96149a439844ecfa86967f9caf5f50d\u0022 data-id=\u00220893ba06d107a673bc95cb522b7769b7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c96149a439844ecfa86967f9caf5f50d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220893ba06d107a673bc95cb522b7769b7\u0022\u003EKATIE NIMON (National\u2014Napier) (10:51)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001412\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cad295dcfdffed9261e7b5eb8680a138\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Lemauga Lydia Sosene\u2019s amendment to clause 8, as set out on Amendment Paper 534, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001421\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022289a93083dc6d8bf6b9a6282aed7c61d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Mike Davidson\u2019s amendment to insert new clause 8A, as set out on Amendment Paper 556, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001424\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001428\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002228d6c10d63174b56bc323516576cefde\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Lemauga Lydia Sosene\u2019s amendment to clause 10, as set out on Amendment Paper 535, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001435\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bef54b09ccee4e12cf6edf54878a3894\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Mike Davidson\u2019s amendment to clause 10, as set out on Amendment Paper 544, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001440\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001442\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228c766d808415ab87d9067969c44f6aec\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Oriini Kaipara\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 10 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001447\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001449\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001450\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b2c69c087ef0e2eca86a98569968f327\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Mike Davidson\u2019s amendment to clauses 10 and 18, as set out on Amendment Paper 543, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001452\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001454\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001455\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001456\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022780746021002873a927fc1ff8a32cf6c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Tamatha Paul\u2019s amendments to clauses 13 and 15, as set out on Amendment Paper 507, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001463\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022934aa982f9e52296420c79b7a0a65dfa\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Mike Davidson\u2019s amendment to clause 19, as set out on Amendment Paper 545, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001470\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f436fafbd380736413e5e9ff182fd628\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Mike Davidson\u2019s amendments to clause 19, as set out on Amendment Paper 546, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001477\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022482d641a8da775eefe92f20266895411\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Lemauga Lydia Sosene\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 19(3)(a), replacing \u201C15\u201D with \u201C5\u201D, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001484\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002261d2e8f197d865af5d638c6748db0ea4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Lemauga Lydia Sosene\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 19(3)(a), replacing \u201C15\u201D with \u201C8\u201D, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001491\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aa5811c5db01e88b098622a688eb5acb\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Lemauga Lydia Sosene\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 19(3)(a), replacing \u201C15\u201D with \u201C10\u201D, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001496\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001497\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001498\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001500\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b8a4e3edd365626aca3181e8b3a51ffa\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Lemauga Lydia Sosene\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 19(3)(a), replacing \u201C15\u201D with \u201C12\u201D, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001501\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001502\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001505\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001507\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002286a7a7efa037555c467627eb7fd0d534\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Lemauga Lydia Sosene\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 19(3)(b), replacing \u201C3\u201D with \u201C1\u201D, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001508\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001509\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001510\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001511\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001512\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001513\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001514\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Part 2 be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001515\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001516\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001517\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001519\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001520\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a651424961ef2720aa5fb3e7faf39b5c\u0022\u003ECommittee of the Whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001521\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022fb1b65345a088e15ef0e5fcfa3f9c51a\u0022\u003EPart 3 Duties and requirements\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001522\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225ae1795d485f651c1dba677edaec6909\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we now come to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 37 to 49, \u201CDuties and requirements\u201D. The question is that Part 3 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u00229195a880514573ac67e661160dfb6f03\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001523\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229195a880514573ac67e661160dfb6f03\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (11:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I will turn straight to clause 37, which is the duty to ensure the gambling platform is operating and available. My question to the Minister here is that given all her assurances that she is committed to harm minimisation, why do we only have things to do with the availability of a commencement of a licence within 90 days or ensuring that the gaming platform is operating and available for at least 270 days per year, and absolute silence on minimum mandatory duties?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001524\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFor example, did she consider inserting mandatory loss limits into that provision? It would seem to be an eminently sensible minimum duty and requirement that if somebody had lost a significant amount of money online, the operator would provide an assurance that they would not be exposed to further opportunities to gamble. Did she consider cooling-off periods? If somebody has been gambling online for hours on end, wouldn\u2019t that be a good trigger for an operator to have positive duty of care towards them? What about pre-commitment systems?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001525\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI note that through this whole subpart, it talks about consumer protection, but it\u2019s very much about the willingness of the operator recognising and responding to harmful gambling, rather than it having a positive duty of care to people, and does the Minister accept that there is a conflict of interest in the operator having that role? Why didn\u2019t she put in minimum mandatory duties? She could still regulate, as she has said previously, to prescribe what they are, but having the duty bound in legislation would be a real indicator of a genuine commitment to harm minimisation under clause 37.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022 data-id=\u002288713384a8e90454d551e13cbcd558aa\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002288713384a8e90454d551e13cbcd558aa\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (11:08)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a number of amendments to this part and I just want to talk to a couple in a moment, and maybe then I\u2019ll talk to some others a little bit later on. The first one is Amendment Paper 547, and it\u2019s around increasing the minimum age from 18 to 20. I\u2019m just wondering what advice the Minister did get on setting it at 18, which is at odds with land-based casinos, where it\u2019s 20 years. It does seem a little bit strange that we would allow an easier form of gambling, where it\u2019s on your phone or on your computer in your home for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to be available to 18-year-olds. I ask whether there has there been any advice on the actual long-term harm when we enable 18-year-olds to gamble.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001527\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAlso, in relation to that, is my other Amendment Paper, Amendment Paper 548, on the use of the term \u201Ctake all reasonable steps\u201D, which features in clauses 38, 39, 40, and 44. It feels like it\u2019s very weak language. We only have to look at the e-scooter hireage that you see around, which is meant to be limited to over-18s, and the number of younger children who appear to be a lot younger than 18 on those e-scooters\u2014often, many of them on one scooter at a time. I would be guessing that those companies have to take all reasonable steps, and so I would like to know from the Minister what the definition of \u201Call reasonable steps\u201D is, and what advice did they get around that. Actually, would it not be better just to remove those words altogether and just ensure that the operator makes certain that any person that uses online gambling platforms is 18 years old? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022 data-id=\u002277750106ab4605783c025910e4aaa7c3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001528\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002277750106ab4605783c025910e4aaa7c3\u0022\u003ELEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour\u2014M\u0101ngere) (11:10)\u003C/span\u003E: Thanks, Mr Chair. I appreciate the ability to provide a contribution. I have questions with regards to Part\u00A03, clause\u00A037, \u201CEnsure gambling platform is operating and available\u201D, and I do have an Amendment Paper submitted. In particular, it\u2019s with regards to gambling platforms and their hours of operation, and there should be some limitations around that. What I wanted to ask the Minister is: what was the conversation in terms of getting to that specific provision when it is operating and available? Look, I appreciate that it\u2019s an online platform, which is going to be available 24/7. However, through the Department of Internal Affairs, did they give advice in terms of operating hours specific to when young people sleep, are awake, and the activities that they do, to minimise the risk of online gambling?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001529\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe heard through the select committee process that there should be restricted limitations on what is available. I appreciate that it\u2019s a 24/7 platform. However, if we are wanting to reduce harm and minimise the harm and protect our consumers, there should be some strong recommendations. I\u2019m wanting to just check with Minister: were those sorts of cases looked at, and what questions did she ask, and what advice did officials give in terms of these licences that are going to come in and do their thing, because there is not the strong requirement that they need to be based in New Zealand? We don\u2019t want to guess what those provisions will be like in terms of limitations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001530\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI go back to some of the submissions specific to kaupapa M\u0101ori\u2014their concerns in terms of were there conversations with various specialists. We also heard from the Problem Gambling Foundation to do with consumer protections and their worries or their concerns\u2014their strong concerns\u2014as to how these provisions being put forward, how specific the protections will be for our consumers that are here, and, in particular, vulnerable communities, plus those under 18, who will be exposed to the advertising in the provisions that are provided in the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001531\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of Internal Affairs, how far-reaching were their\u2014when they viewed the submissions. In terms of what the select committee process was, we had a number of submissions raise a concern around vulnerable communities. The Problem Gambling Foundation, which I heard at the Petitions Committee, raised concern and questions around viability and, in terms of consumer protections, what that will actually mean and how it will be spelt out. The bill has outlined in this provision that the gambling platform is operating and available. Well, when will it be unavailable, and how will our vulnerable communities be protected? I want to ask the Minister those questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022 data-id=\u0022c173b8d18ed0a7667662bd2942264bb0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c173b8d18ed0a7667662bd2942264bb0\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert) (11:13)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. My questions are specifically about clause 69(4) and (5). When I look at clause\u00A069(4)(a), it talks about how \u201CThe Secretary must give the person to whom the complaint relates a reasonable opportunity to make written comments\u201D. What I\u2019d like to know from the Minister, first of all, is what a reasonable opportunity would look like. I\u2019m not at all sure what that looks like in the\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f14cb9bc12f09425406deadbf0c102c9\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Can you repeat that clause again?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226279d23e9db62f2684a89444ed5d2496\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s clause 69(4)(a). Am I in the right\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001535\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e6f630a94bd3449ff50e63985793ab8e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s Part 4. We\u2019re in Part 3.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001536\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221e5dc6399b7d249856429f7be2595d9b\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you\u2014sorry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u00223c9799305b6ccf4012aac2ca1fc7f310\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001537\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223c9799305b6ccf4012aac2ca1fc7f310\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (11:14)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I do have some questions. I\u2019m disappointed I didn\u2019t get to ask any in relation to Subparts 3 and 4 in the previous section, but on to Part 3 now. I wanted to ask, in clause 38, what the steps are in relation to verification that will need to be taken.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001538\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI wanted to ask, in relation to clause 39, in relation to compliance with the regulations, what will the procedures be that are set out in the regulations to comply with 39 to minimise online harm.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001539\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI wanted to ask about the timing of the exclusion register in clause 40. This is a very important point. This was raised also in select committee. Will the self-exclusion register be available at the time that the main bill comes into effect? We\u2019ve heard that self-exclusion is an incredibly effective form of enabling and empowering for those who have recognised gambling problems to ensure that they are not able to participate in gambling when they themselves do not wish for this to occur, so the timing of that is incredibly important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI wanted to ask, in relation to clause 41, about the registration icon and the nature of this registration icon and why, in fact, it is required that an operator play the registration audio mark, which is another thing. What is the registration audio mark? Will this be, for example, \u201CThis online gambling provider is regulated by the Department of Internal Affairs\u201D? Is that what a registration audio mark is? If that is in fact the case, similar to maybe ads you might hear overseas\u2014or I guess when you have a situation where we have to authenticate or include the address on political advertising\u2014will it be that every advertising piece that is put forward by online casino gamblers is then linked to the Department of Internal Affairs? I\u2019m just interested, if that\u2019s what the effect of this will be, in how Internal Affairs will ensure that under clause 41(3), all of that information is then, if the registration lapses, taken down within 24 hours. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI mean, that seems to be an extraordinary requirement, if there is no longer a licence, for that to be taken down within that period of time, considering that could have been shared quite openly around the internet. I wondered, in that case, whether it might be prudent to include a date, as at the date of a certain point in time or registered to a certain point in time\u2014if that was considered at all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001542\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other question I had was in relation to clause 42. This states that there can\u2019t be any credit for online casino gambling. Now, I imagine that\u2019s credit\u2014if a particular provider wanted to say, \u201CPlease come and gamble with our online provider and we\u2019ll give you 20 bucks to start you off.\u201D, that would be prohibited. But what I want to know is: will this also cover a situation where someone is able to, say, put in their own money, do a bit of gambling, and win a credit? Is that going to be possible under this section? I wanted to know whether that\u2019s actually covered by that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s quite a few questions under that first part. I do have some further questions after clause 43 on information collection and retention, but I\u2019ll see if the Minister can respond to those.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022a2c24fb1b1983ff37754cc52564884d3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a2c24fb1b1983ff37754cc52564884d3\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (11:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I will rise to take a call and respond to a number of the concerns and questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001545\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELemauga Lydia Sosene, firstly, asked about limitations on the hours that should be available. Look, the bill itself aims to provide choice for consumers so that they can gamble in a safer, regulated market. Offshore operators currently are available 24/7. This ensures that consumers are not channelled into the black market by too much restriction on the regulations that we put in place as a Government. Ultimately, if things are not going to be available at the time that the consumer wants them to be available, there is a higher likelihood people may just choose to use the black market.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001546\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s been a question from Mike Davidson about why it is that we need to take all reasonable steps. I think, in some ways, this is aligned to the question that Camilla Belich had about steps for age and the age of 18. Look, taking all reasonable steps is a standard drafting procedure in placing obligations on regulated parties to take all reasonable steps to meet an obligation. Some events may be outside the regulated party\u2019s controls; but, also, in response to Camilla Belich about age, there is an offence in the bill to gamble on behalf of a person under 18, and the operator must ensure that people using their platforms are over the age of 18. So those things, I think, are quite linked.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001547\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMike Davidson also then queried age limit, in terms of why it is 18 and not 20 years old to align with land-based casinos. The true answer to this is that TAB, Lotto Instant Kiwi products, and gambling on pokies in clubs and pubs across New Zealand have an age limit of 18 rather than 20. Yes, there is an age limit of 20 to go into casinos in New Zealand; however, the age limit for land-based casinos was set in the Gambling Act a long time ago to align with what was previously the legal age for purchasing and consuming alcohol, and it hasn\u2019t changed as the requirements for alcohol purchase have dropped. So there\u2019s possibly a potential change that some other Minister might wish to do in the future for alignment. I\u2019m not so fussed on that, so I see more of an argument for 18.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001548\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIngrid Leary also asked about platforms and why they must operate within 90 days. That\u2019s to ensure that operators are not banking their licences but they are actually using them, because it\u2019s a possibility that someone takes a licence away from a competitor in an anti-competitive move, but doesn\u2019t actually choose to use it if they have multiple licences. So the regulations include limits on operating, in that respect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001549\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere is a question from Lemauga Lydia Sosene about specific protections in the law. Once again, these are fleshed out in more detail in the regulations around harm and consumer protections.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001550\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich did ask a question about the self-exclusion register. The self-exclusion register regulations need to be implemented by December 2027, because officials are currently working on this as it was a later edition, and so it won\u2019t necessarily be ready when the bill passes; however, I would just suggest that, under the current status quo, there is no exclusion register. There is a completely unregulated market, and so having this regulation come into a force one year later is better than the status quo. Yes, in a theoretical world, it would be nice to have everything come into force at the exact same time; however, like I suggest, it was a later addition to the law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere is also a question from Camilla Belich about the registration audio mark. The secretary is developing guidance on the registration icon. Whether this will be linked to a website is yet to be determined, but the icon itself will be published by public notice, so people will know what it is, and that, in some ways, just allows people to know that what they\u2019re hearing is actually a licensed provider. Camilla also asked, \u201CWill free credit be available if the money is not to be paid back?\u201D That is not credit. Otherwise, no credit is allowed to be offered under the law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u0022ad21905016af479c937ad168dd3ea21c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ad21905016af479c937ad168dd3ea21c\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (11:23)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019d like to thank the Minister for answering so many of the questions. Just to point out that my question around clause 37 was not about the 90 days; it was about the minimum mandatory duties, and I\u2019d really welcome a response to that. Also, I\u2019d just ask if the Minister wouldn\u2019t mind pronouncing my colleague\u2019s name correctly. It\u2019s quite difficult hearing it mispronounced all the time. I believe it\u2019s \u201CLemauga Lydia Sosene\u201D. If that could be afforded to my colleague, that would be really great.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001553\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy question is specifically in relation to clause 40, about excluding certain persons. We\u2019ve already talked about taking reasonable steps, but my question is about the words \u201Cis excluded from gambling on its gambling platform\u201D. The question I have is around: what resources or requirements will operators have to actively monitor compliance with harm minimisation obligations across multiple platforms? The bill seems to be silent on this, and we know the reality of gambling harm is that many people will spend hours on one platform and then maybe transfer to another. We have these consumer protections that are not really harm minimisation provisions, but there doesn\u2019t seem to be a requirement for a licensed operator to have any understanding of what the harmful habits are of somebody who is going across multiple platforms. Equally, what resourcing or ability will the Secretary for Internal Affairs have to be able to monitor behaviours that show online gambling operators with licences allowing people to go across multiple platforms endlessly, causing harm to themselves, when the bill appears to be silent on that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001554\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI wonder if the solution\u2014well, part of the problem is because it talks about operators only, and if we go to the definition section, there was an opportunity to extend operators so that it would look at the whole ecosystem\u2014so that\u2019s payment providers, affiliate marketers, software providers. I would ask the Minister to consider an amendment, which we would be happy to write for her, in clause 40, that would simply\u2014if we extended it from \u201Coperators\u201D to others in the ecosystem and somehow found words to do that, that would then resolve the very real problem of these people who will be harmed by gambling across multiple online platforms. The alternative scenario would be to change the word \u201Coperators\u201D in the definition section or to extend it there. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001555\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo I\u2019m wondering if the Minister would provide answers to how we\u2019re going to reduce the harm in that respect, and whether she would consider changing the bill to be able to take into account that very real problem-gambling scenario.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022 data-id=\u0022262e391f8c717cd367c7cfdaaf45962b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022262e391f8c717cd367c7cfdaaf45962b\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (11:26)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair, and my call will be very quick, because it\u2019s just one point. It was actually in relation to a matter that was raised earlier, around clause 42. I guess it\u2019s very clear that it\u2019s quite a vague clause, because it doesn\u2019t quite lay out what they\u2019re talking about when they mention \u201Ccredit\u201D. I have Amendment Paper 549 that just, I guess, removes a little bit of that doubt that actually expands on what they\u2019re talking about. So it\u2019s: \u201CFor the avoidance of doubt, this includes buy now, pay later services, credit cards, and any other deferred payment methods.\u201D I actually think it\u2019s quite a good amendment that actually can help this bill just to avoid any of that doubt that is created from clause 42, where it just talks about providing \u201Ccredit\u201D. I\u2019m just wondering whether the Minister would consider supporting that amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022 data-id=\u0022f13ef9a2b7b5122e561ceccb0690e3e1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001557\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f13ef9a2b7b5122e561ceccb0690e3e1\u0022\u003ELEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour\u2014M\u0101ngere) (11:27)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair, and to the Minister. I do have some questions with clause 46, and I do have an Amendment Paper 536. The complaints register that is listed in the bill will be a very important tool, being a new system coming into Aotearoa, in terms of the licences\u2014or up to 15 licences. It\u2019s going to be quite a large operation. My Amendment Paper speaks about the requirement, because some of the language that is used in specifically clause 46(5), it talks about just the different requirements that the operator will have to do in terms of their licence, in terms of their operations\u2014periodic information provided to the Department of Internal Affairs or the Secretary for Internal Affairs specifically around the number of complaints. Being a whole new system, and it\u2019s going to probably have a runway of about a couple of years\u2014two to three years before a review is held\u2014it will be important that the public will be able to have a look at the licensing system and who\u2019s complaining about it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy Amendment Paper talks about specific explicit information with regards to publishing the information online and recognising that, with a new system, it will take time to bed in. Specifically, when there will be complaints, where do the public go to view the information? Also, the operator will have, as set out, regulations or requirements to do all of those things. The public\u2014there is an assumption that the public may not be interested; however, I would have to argue against that: there will be interest around who the licensees are, the successful licensees, how many platforms do they have, what is working well, what is not working well. How does the public access that information? My Amendment Paper speaks about informing and educating the public as to what site do they go to, where do they find that information, directory, etc., because although we assume that there may not be complaints, there may be specific complaints\u2014for example, a person goes on to a site, doesn\u2019t find the information, or may have won a prize, and then they may come across the problem of \u201CHow do I get that prize?\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001559\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the things that the submitter the Problem Gambling Foundation raised in their oral submission was that the system will be set up, but if you cannot find good information on the internet that\u2019s publicly available, how will the public\u2014particularly those who work in the space around consumer protections, around harm minimisation\u2014get to know information that is publicly, widely available rather than having to contact the regulator all the time? The New Zealand public will want to see the specific information around operators and the licensees, and especially if they don\u2019t have to be domiciled in Aotearoa. So the protections, the education information\u2014how will people know their complaints have been received? \u201CWhere do I go? Is it readily accessible?\u201D\u2014that\u2019s what I\u2019m interested in, Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022a9b23359b475c2f65788a8d511ff6563\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a9b23359b475c2f65788a8d511ff6563\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (11:31)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, firstly to the comment by Ingrid Leary: as a person who also doesn\u2019t have an English name, I totally understand when your name gets butchered, so I apologise if I\u2019ve been doing that inadvertently and not realising. So thank you for bringing that to my attention.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo the question that Ingrid Leary actually did have about minimum mandatory duties, there is a requirement for operators to minimise harm and that is provided for throughout the regulations. Harm minimisation strategies will show how operators will minimise harm to consumers and that must be provided as part of the application process. Consumers can also block transactions with gambling operators via their own banks, and that liability should lie with operators, so that is why it is included like that in the definition and not through other industry organisations or the tech companies themselves.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMike Davidson had a question in relation to his Amendment Paper 549 about credit. Look, the clause that\u2019s in the bill is modelled off the Gambling Act, and it\u2019s very clear that no credit must be offered by operators, regardless of the type of credit. Credit sourced by consumers, such as credit cards, will actually be restricted through the regulations, so his amendment is not necessary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001563\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s another question about the Amendment Paper from Lemauga Lydia Sosene about whether the Secretary for Internal Affairs must publish information on complaints from operators. Consumers can raise complaints directly to the secretary. There are reporting and auditing requirements that will be set in the regulation, but nothing in the bill prevents the secretary from publishing information on complaints. So I don\u2019t think the amendment is necessary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001564\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELemauga Lydia Sosene also had a question about the complaints process in the register\u2014and just alluding more to that, Cabinet has approved details to be set out in the regulations about the complaints through the process and through the register.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002281c3cee7f199d08bf16e59106e2c84f6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Camilla Belich.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ab32b09663ea48b199aa59e4d88f77e4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f7fdd464165f0cec4fa5dfcd616754e0\u0022\u003ETim Costley\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chair!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u002250c0b09c8303ea9210c2029ade4734e4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001567\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002250c0b09c8303ea9210c2029ade4734e4\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (11:33)\u003C/span\u003E: Too late.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001568\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002298ec569db3e0dda864f57f73bb717390\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: You were loud but slow to your feet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001569\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221594b0a71bbd327c9e91830d0056c20a\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, he\u2019s at a disadvantage because he\u2019s so tall.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnyway, I do have some questions in relation to three areas, and one I won\u2019t focus on as much because it has been touched on by some other colleagues, but I do have a question in relation to complaints, which I don\u2019t think has been covered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001571\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo the three areas I want to cover are covered in clauses 43 to 49. Essentially, these clauses cover changes to a person with a significant influence, changes to key officers, and complaints. The point that I just wanted to make about complaints\u2014because I appreciate that that has been addressed\u2014is that there are significant requirements, as has already been discussed, in relation to individual providers to deal with complaints. There is, I note, in clause 46(5), a requirement for the secretary to require an operator to provide them with information on complaints. But what I wanted to know is: was there any thought given or will there be a separate requirement for the secretary to have its own complaints register, to be able to ensure that these online casino gambling companies are actually complying with what they need to be doing under this Act, so that that can be direct rather than through the complaints procedure of the individual entities which are registered? I think I\u2019d appreciate the Minister\u2019s guidance on that. It might be that that\u2019s addressed in the regulations, but I\u2019d appreciate that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001572\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other question I wanted to ask is about the process that would be put in place when there\u2014I\u2019m just wondering if my timing [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EMember checks the Speaker\u2019s clock\u003C/span\u003E]. Oh, there we are. It\u2019s like it was the longest minute of my life.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001573\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ab32b09663ea48b199aa59e4d88f77e4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223cf8ec6c28a3a4455fd84780670abb29\u0022\u003ETim Costley\u003C/span\u003E: And mine!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001574\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002220582d38c1f249c8121172c7f653e59d\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH\u003C/span\u003E: Thanks, Tim. Always count on you for support. The question I have around the continuation is obvious\u2014and I think these are good provisions to have in place in the bill. It is to make sure that when there\u2019s, essentially, a change of ownership or a change of person who has significant influence over the entity which is regulated, the secretary is informed of that; also, if there are changes to key officers, the same tests that we talked about in earlier provisions are applied to those new key officers. But the question I have is: when there are these significant changes, will that operator be allowed to continue to operate despite the fact that some of the very thorough pre-registration\u2014or even pre-registration of interest to participate in the auction\u2014tests may not have been able to be conducted with the people who are either remaining there or if other people are there? I think that is important in terms of the ability for New Zealanders to have confidence. It appears to me that they are able to continue to operate, but I wondered if the Minister would consider that if some of these key officers or people with influence changed before the due diligence is able to be undertaken, there would be able to be a pause in operation for those entities until the secretary can be satisfied that the same standards of accountability and information checks\u2014you know, important things like criminal record checks\u2014have been undertaken with the new change of circumstances.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001575\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI think these are prudent provisions to have in a bill, but I just wonder whether they go far enough and whether there could be the opportunity for an actor which we would not provide a licence to being able to have influence while an online gambling provider is able to operate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c96149a439844ecfa86967f9caf5f50d\u0022 data-id=\u002263c59ecd42fe37d6b7543c2e124594af\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c96149a439844ecfa86967f9caf5f50d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002263c59ecd42fe37d6b7543c2e124594af\u0022\u003EKATIE NIMON (National\u2014Napier) (11:38)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u0022113f575b67961b7dcacf988cb0f06a16\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001577\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022113f575b67961b7dcacf988cb0f06a16\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (11:38)\u003C/span\u003E: I know that my colleague Camilla Belich does have further questions; I just haven\u2019t heard an answer from the Minister in relation to how monitoring and compliance will occur for operators, to ensure people don\u2019t spend hours gambling across multiple platforms\u2014or is she comfortable with the fact that the bill is silent on that? Just a quick question, but I know my colleague has further questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u00224ad2d0e3930a6bb143604d9c0d4605e4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001578\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224ad2d0e3930a6bb143604d9c0d4605e4\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (11:38)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it\u2019s a difficult situation to be in because we have had important questions that haven\u2019t been answered in this part. I\u2019d like to give the Minister the opportunity to answer those questions, or some assurance that these may be able to be addressed in a latter part of the debate. I do think, as I\u2019ve said, that these are sections that generally seem quite prudent, but making sure that they operate in a way which is responsible would also be important to hear from the Minister on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u002211753f936a2a81871e9ca1c865eebbef\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002211753f936a2a81871e9ca1c865eebbef\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (11:39)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Speaking to some of the questions from Camilla Belich: firstly, she asked whether or not there would be a separate requirement for complaints to the Secretary for Internal Affairs. Section 68 sets out the process for complaints to the secretary. There was also a question about significant influence, and the bill also suggests that there must be all reasonable steps taken to ensure that an operator or a person doesn\u2019t have significant influence over more than three licences. If they fail to do so, they will be in breach of requirements.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022 data-id=\u00229b710f8546ea36d8c61c8c6160ca9804\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229b710f8546ea36d8c61c8c6160ca9804\u0022\u003ETOM RUTHERFORD (National\u2014Bay of Plenty) (11:39)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001583\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001584\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001586\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001587\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002230885ad8902b4d070d2587d161bb20b7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Lemauga Lydia Sosene\u2019s tabled amendment inserting new clause 37(4) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001589\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001592\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001593\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c153368cc13003f16e456fa18511f570\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Mike Davidson\u2019s amendments to clause 38 as set out on Amendment Paper 547 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001597\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001599\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001600\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001601\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002292765fc3686eab778ae699e92618c8c5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Oriini Kaipara\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 38 is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Mike Davidson\u2019s amendments to clauses 38, 39, and 40 as set out on Amendment Paper 548 be agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001605\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001607\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001608\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002298607ba8788ee7ca370ff70cade70c32\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Mike Davidson\u2019s amendments to clause 41 as set out on Amendment Paper 543 are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Mike Davidson\u2019s amendment to clause 42 as set out on Amendment Paper 549 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001612\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001613\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001614\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001615\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001617\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b54cb9439630fc50f700b6ca2b668af5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Mike Davidson\u2019s amendment to clause 44 as set out on Amendment Paper 550 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001618\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001619\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001620\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001621\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001622\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001623\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001624\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002253cbf02b5f92df57ff98a2aa6d3bf97e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E:The question is that Lemauga Lydia Sosene\u2019s amendment to clause 46 as set out on Amendment Paper 536 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001627\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001628\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001629\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001631\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Part 3 be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001632\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001633\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001634\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001635\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001636\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001637\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 3 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001638\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022392a3914e23fcc1410fa57d1969240af\u0022\u003ECommittee of the Whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001639\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022297ac22ac456c30a50d228d240948bb8\u0022\u003EPart 4 Compliance, enforcement, and regulatory matters\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001640\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bc6fb920854391bb4c94bc6b243386b7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we now come to Part 4. Part 4 is the debate on clauses 50 to 74, \u201CCompliance, enforcement, and regulatory matters\u201D. The question is that Part 4 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u0022198a1eb8b157559ca786c96605a85042\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001641\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022198a1eb8b157559ca786c96605a85042\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (11:47)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. We\u2019ll have a lot of questions on this part because this is where the rubber really hits the road in terms of the Minister being able to demonstrate to us how the regulating of offshore entities with no real vested interest in New Zealand\u2014who are difficult to reach and manage\u2014are going to be able to be made to comply with the bill, how the enforcement provisions will work, and how the regulatory provisions will work as well. I know there will be many questions regarding why such important matters around harm minimisation and advertising, in particular, are relegated to regulations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001642\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019d like to just mention an overview of this part for those who are listening at home. This really puts a stronger enforcement emphasis on protecting the market from unlicensed regulators, and it does not really speak to gambling harm, apart from relegating the harm minimisation enforcement measures into regulation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001643\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy questions, really, for all of this part, but particularly around the enforceable undertakings in clause 52, are these: what evidence does the Minister have that Part 4 will actually deter unlicensed operators from operating in New Zealand, given all the enforcement issues? What additional resources will the regulator have to monitor compliance across multiple international gambling online platforms? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001644\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EShe has already said that she has not done an additional Budget bid, and there are real issues that we still haven\u2019t heard answers to in relation to people who gamble across multiple platforms and operators who operate across multiple platforms. There is a gaping hole in our knowledge around how that is going to be managed, and so I\u2019d really like to know this from the Minister. This is her opportunity to answer the previous questions but also to answer in relation to the enforceable undertakings and the meaning of \u201Ccivil liberty act\u201D in clauses 52 and 50. What additional resources does she see that the regulator will have, and where will those resources come from?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001645\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe really critical question that I have for clause 52, \u201CEnforceable undertakings\u201D\u2014it also does go into further clauses which we can ask about later to do with individuals and offences\u2014is what enforcement mechanism is linked to measurable increases in gambling harm, or are enforcement powers limited to regulatory breaches? All morning, I have been asking the Minister, and colleagues have been interrogating the Minister, about which parts of this bill meet the purpose statement in clause 3 that talks about harm minimisation. And we are yet to hear any answers that adequately satisfy us that the bill does what it says it\u2019s going to do on the tin. Where it says that is clause 3, and all throughout the answers, we have not heard anything about harm minimisation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001646\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo what enforcement mechanism is linked to that, and how will that be able to proceed in terms of information flows, anonymised gambling patterns, and data from operators or from the Secretary for Internal Affairs over to health officials to monitor the harm so that regulations can be tweaked and altered in response to that? All throughout the questions last night and today, we have not heard an answer to that question, so I\u2019d really like the Minister to respond now, and I know that colleagues will have a lot of questions relating to how enforceable this bill actually is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022 data-id=\u00224a552b4fd47b7f0c685ed4e8825c8211\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224a552b4fd47b7f0c685ed4e8825c8211\u0022\u003ELEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour\u2014M\u0101ngere) (11:51)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I have some questions with regards to clause 51 of Part 4, \u201CFormal warnings\u201D. In the bill, it talks about that process where a person is issued with a formal warning if the secretary is satisfied that the person has carried out a civil liability act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001648\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the questions I want to ask\u2014well, I\u2019ve got a couple of questions\u2014is with regards to the assumptions that have been made in accordance with the idea that everyone across New Zealand speaks English and understands English. The reason why I raise that is to do with the formal warning, which I assume is going to be in the English language. We heard a number of submitters that are not necessarily born in New Zealand and speak another language, either te reo or a Pacific language or Chinese or Indian. The reason why I ask this question, which may be quite a small question, or perhaps not relevant, is that we heard from those specific groups who lodged their submissions, and they spoke to them in the oral submissions to select committee members. With regards to online casino gambling and the harm that it causes, they spoke about some of the misunderstandings with regards to the written language and the symbols that you see in an online platform.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001649\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo it may not be relevant to the Minister that she has received some advice from the secretary or officials, but how will that transpire when this provision talks about formal warnings? There\u2019s an assumption that people across New Zealand have an excellent command of English, both verbal and written, but I can tell you now that there have been some challenges in terms of people understanding a notice or a formal warning, because it\u2019s actually quite different for people who are born outside New Zealand. I\u2019ve just had a quick look at our census data. In 2023, we had, across Aotearoa New Zealand now, just under 2 million who fit in that category.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001650\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI specifically raise this because a number of submitters were from vulnerable communities. So whilst this is a completely different query, I am interested in (a) whether there was any advice given by the Secretary for Internal Affairs to the Minister; and (b) in terms of the system, there\u2019s a strong assumption that the methodology will be reasonable and practical, and that people who are gamblers will understand what they\u2019re doing\u2014well, I would have to raise those questions to the Minister. It would be helpful for the Minister to outline that; it may not have come in the remit. But I am interested, because we had a number of submitters that came through about how online casino gambling is quite harmful to their communities, and, in particular, I raise again our young people under 18\u2014some are born outside this country\u2014and I\u2019m very interested to hear from the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022204312a4e0341cf9cef682312f06c450\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001651\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022204312a4e0341cf9cef682312f06c450\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (11:55)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. First, speaking to the queries that came from Ingrid Leary talking about the enforcement focus, I guess, within this part, focusing on the market and not necessarily on harm minimisation. Those things are still to come in further parts, so don\u2019t be too concerned. There was also a query about the Budget and not going for Budget bids into the future asking for more money. That\u2019s because there will be a levy on the company, so it is cost-recovered, and the levy itself can be adjusted in regulations. So the bill itself does provide for a range of enforcement tools to ensure that the regime is effective. They\u2019re all listed here; there\u2019s take-down notices, formal warnings, enforceable undertakings, pecuniary penalties of up to $5 million, and licence cancellations where operators fail to comply. The law will also allow extra-territorial application to enable the enforcement of these tools cross-border.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001652\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe provisions also allow for the secretary to require information that supports the regulatory functions and to share information and respond to requests from overseas regulators, where confidentiality and privacy protections are in place. Further to the question of which provisions in the bill actually do talk about harm, a lot of that is within the regulations themselves. The bill is intentionally set at a high level to ensure that the operational details can be covered in the regulations, and like we spoke about in the previous part\u2014and I think potentially the part even before that\u2014it\u2019s intentionally designed so that that can change with technological innovation and changes over time so that we don\u2019t have to go through and change the entire law again following technological progress.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELemauga Lydia Sosene was asking about formal warnings and information in languages. Formal warnings are to be made to operators. That will be part of the law. Operators will be conducting their business in English. The languages for consumers is an interesting point, because Cabinet has agreed that operators must provide information and services in languages commonly spoken in New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022 data-id=\u002216b34936aba3fa85feac1563bfcdb794\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001654\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002216b34936aba3fa85feac1563bfcdb794\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert) (11:57)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I want to ask about the take-down notice regime. First of all, I was interested to see whether this regime is similar to other regimes in terms of take-down notices. So I\u2019m asking specifically about clause 59 and the reliance on an order\u2014so there\u2019s a failure in the process if someone doesn\u2019t take it down and it ends up at the High Court. My concern there is really a practical one. The High Court is expensive and it is overrun at the present time. So I\u2019m worried about the speed of a take-down in that situation, because we\u2019ve already been through quite a process by that point, and then we are in a situation where we have to wait for a time in the High Court. I\u2019d like the Minister to comment on what the practicalities of that process would be\u2014would there be a possibility for urgency, because it doesn\u2019t look like it to me, or some sort of injunctive process, etc.? But it\u2019s more a case of just speeding up the end result of being able to take it down, given so much harm is done on the way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001655\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThen I wanted to know about the extra-territorial nature of that, because often you would be having these things coming in from overseas and there would be an issue about taking down in other places in the world. Is that what the Minister is saying would happen also in the High Court\u2014that insistence at that point\u2014in which case, how does that work with service in terms of an overseas operator? I\u2019d be grateful for your answers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u0022f21b734fc910a8107dfa23f5f9219d69\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001656\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f21b734fc910a8107dfa23f5f9219d69\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (11:59)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. It\u2019s good to take my first call in Part 4. When I look at the substantive parts of Part 4, essentially what is being set out is a regime of civil liability, and the Minister just in her previous answer outlined all of the different civil liabilities that could occur, including the pecuniary penalty, as she stated, which for a company, not a person, is quite high at $5 million. There is, additionally, in Part 4, an offence\u2014and the only criminal offence in this bill is the fact of knowingly or recklessly allowing someone under the age of 18 to actually participate in online gambling. That is the only criminal offence in this particular part that we\u2019re looking at at the moment. The rest of the offences, which are outlined in clause 50, can be quite serious: breaching all of the rules in relation to conduct, breaching advertising rules, failing to display registrations\u2014maybe that\u2019s not as serious. Providing credit is very serious. That is potentially very much at odds with the objective of the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001657\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat I was wondering is: is it appropriate to simply have one criminal offence, in clause 66? The other offences against this bill that result in civil liability\u2014and some of those instances may or may not be as serious; I don\u2019t want to undermine the importance of making sure that our children don\u2019t participate in online gambling, as outlined in clause 66\u2014are still serious and could significantly undermine the regime. The point, I think, is why do we have to then wait for the High Court to make an order, and why is the initial step in relation to enforceable undertakings and formal warnings very, very minor in terms of the potential breaches that could be in place?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001658\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI just wondered if the regulatory regime in relation to compliance and enforcement lacked teeth and lacked, perhaps, the resources and speed. I think that\u2019s what Helen White was alluding to in terms of the time period that it takes to go to the High Court, and actually get an order to get some of these stopped may be a very long time. If these were criminal offences, obviously it wouldn\u2019t be up to the Secretary for Internal Affairs to take all those enforcement steps in order to make sure that everything was being complied with. Those are my questions in relation to clauses 50 to 66, which others have already mentioned, and there might be some more details in there, too.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001659\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI did have some more questions around the complaints to the secretary, too, though. We did touch on this briefly earlier, in the previous part, when we looked at the fact that individual organisations who are regulated by this bill would have to have a complaints register. Additionally, as foreshadowed, there is a complaints register to the secretary as well. That is also a significant undertaking\u2014the fact that not only will the secretary be having to decide whether to take enforcement action when there has been non-compliance but also have a register and investigations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001660\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI wonder, around the complaints to the secretary\u2014and this is probably not something the Minister had any involvement with, but, really, this will be where a lot of the enforcement action comes from. It\u2019s interesting that it comes after the outlines in relation to liability\u2014that would be my understanding, anyway. I think these are just some very important, significant questions around the effectiveness of the civil regime as opposed to the criminal regime. I know colleagues will have further questions around the complaint process that the secretary will follow. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u002242df78acdba060457acbca36502d223b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001661\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002242df78acdba060457acbca36502d223b\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (12:04)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m just responding to a couple of the queries we\u2019ve had this morning. Helen White asked about the take-down notices and practicality of going to the High Court. Look, the High Court is the most appropriate court for these types of measures, because it\u2019s quite similar to other regimes that we have in New Zealand, such as the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act. The regulator will also work with other overseas regulators to enforce.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich was asking about the offence to gamble on behalf of a person under 18 and why it was just one provision. Ultimately, that\u2019s because Cabinet agreed to one offence. The secretary has a range of other tools available to address potential breaches.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001663\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002287670974a6f35c8b5523fd1f1d5f7b11\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m going to call Ingrid Leary, but I\u2019ve been watching the debate for quite some time, and I don\u2019t want any more speeches. This is not a reference to the current member on her feet. I think we really need to hone in now, because we\u2019ve spent quite considerable time on a bill that\u2019s already had a process of select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u00229277ed5ea2a29e341cd94ed01785e630\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001664\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229277ed5ea2a29e341cd94ed01785e630\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (12:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. My specific question is on the offence of online casino gambling on behalf of a person under 18 years old, in clause 66. When we look at what that offence covers, it\u2019s basically somebody who\u2019s either gambling on behalf of an under-18-year-old or is reckless about that. I wonder what attention was given to the circumstances in which that might arise. We have heard that there is a harm minimisation element to the purpose of this bill. The only scenario that I can think of that would really apply in clause 66 is when the person who is doing the online gambling on behalf of the under-18-year-old has a gambling harm issue themselves. This is the only provision where there has been an offence created. We have all sorts of other potential harms happening such as advertising to under-18-year-olds or advertising outside of the regulations, which are all in the regulatory regime, yet the one single offence that seems to have appeared in this bill that is not a civil liability matter is most likely to occur when somebody has a gambling harm problem.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001665\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWhat advice did the Minister receive about that? Did she talk to health officials or anyone from the mental health part of the Ministry of Health? Why did she decide to only include this as an offence, which seems to be doing the opposite of what the bill says on the tin? It seems to be punishing somebody with an online gambling harm problem, and yet there is a plethora of other potential problems that should be, in our view, covered by offences rather than a civil liability regime.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001666\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002263eb35bb0405d9bb8c8d5fccc8b89c84\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll take another question from Camilla Belich, because you signalled before that you had another point to make, but I\u2019m getting very close to ending this part, so you need to keep it really relevant.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u0022992c1e74f780aea4c6e7f6b7d7dcb517\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001667\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022992c1e74f780aea4c6e7f6b7d7dcb517\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (12:08)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019d just note, I do have a question in relation to Subpart 3. Additionally, there is Subpart 4 and Subpart 5, which haven\u2019t been touched on, before we come onto Part 5. I\u2019ll endeavour to get as many questions in those relevant sections as I can.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001668\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question I have in relation to Subpart 3 is in relation to complaints to the Secretary for Internal Affairs. I was reading through this quite carefully, and the question I have for the Minister is: does this give the secretary jurisdiction to investigate complaints by family members or third parties in relation to the online casino gambling operator? The reason I think that\u2019s important is because, in many of these instances where, obviously, an improper activity may have occurred, we may be dealing with someone who has an addiction to gambling who needs assistance, and it may be that only family members or third parties are aware of the way that an operator is operating. It may be, in that instance, that they don\u2019t have perfect information.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001669\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI wanted to just check with the Minister whether she could get some advice on whether imperfect information that perhaps maybe the individual themselves who\u2019s participating in the gambling may have access to would be able to be considered in complaints to the secretary. I do think that that\u2019s important, because I think it may be that family members complain to the operator, but it may be that if there are many complaints in relation to the same operator, then that gives additional reason and additional concern to the secretary to be able to investigate that. That\u2019s in relation to Subpart 3.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001670\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think, the other point, which is also important, is: to what extent will there be initiative taken\u2014I\u2019m talking to clause 72 in Subpart 4 here\u2014when the secretary is looking to share information with overseas regulators? Will this be something that is on a request basis or whether they feel that there\u2019s, perhaps, an online gambling operator that might be operating in many jurisdictions that may need to have information shared across borders because they are acting in a way which is, perhaps, contrary to the different jurisdictions?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001671\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, this is quite a complex thing and, again, goes to the additional duties that the secretary will have in relation to making sure that they comply with these duties under this Act. It\u2019s a considerable task to assess all of the information available in relation to complaints that may be raised by the regulator and then decide whether that is to be shared with overseas operators as well. Of course, they\u2019ll have slightly different jurisdictions, and the breaches may be slightly different, but, of course, if someone\u2019s acting in a way that ignores all of the different provisions, then that could be that they do want to share that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001672\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to Subpart 5, this is the public register of operators and licences, and I wanted to know, and I didn\u2019t get to ask this question earlier, but this physical address in New Zealand\u2014this has come up in previous sections as well, but I don\u2019t think has been touched on; we did talk about the territorial issues in Part 1\u2014when we talk about the physical address for service in New Zealand, is this able to be a PO Box? Does this have to be a physical address that could actually, for example, be used to contact someone where there\u2019s a human being there or an actual physical location; or could it just be, in fact, a PO Box that could be forwarding to an overseas address? So that provision is not only in this provision. I wanted to ask that question in an earlier stage; I didn\u2019t have the opportunity and I wanted to know if that was the case, because that does go to the integrity of the register as outlined in clause 74 and the information that will be available to people who want to be able to hold these people to account. If we don\u2019t know where they are, it\u2019s going to be extremely difficult, and the high likelihood is that the majority of these companies will be overseas-based companies. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001673\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo I really want to know that specific question. Others may have questions in relation to the public register, but that was my specific one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u002286d42c216c0e4713647da32916e93314\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001674\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002286d42c216c0e4713647da32916e93314\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (12:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just tidying up a few of these queries and concerns.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001675\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFirstly, to Ingrid Leary, which was in some ways quite repetitive, based on previous ones that we\u2019ve already had before. Ultimately, Cabinet agreed that there would be one offence and we want to make sure, as a Cabinet, that children under 18 were protected from the risk of harm from gambling and the Ministry of Health was consulted during the development of this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich then asked about the Secretary for Internal Affairs having jurisdiction to investigate complaints by third parties. Yes, this is possible. That process, for complaints to the secretary, is set out in clauses 68 to 70.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001677\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich also asked about sharing information with overseas regulators: the secretary has ability to share information with privacy restrictions in place and that is context dependent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022 data-id=\u002293d593c5f7ed79c87a0855f0e27a5767\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002293d593c5f7ed79c87a0855f0e27a5767\u0022\u003EDr CARLOS CHEUNG (National\u2014Mt Roskill) (12:13)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001679\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001680\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001681\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001682\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001683\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001684\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001685\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a6857be8a422c023016e5632030b8ad7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Mike Davidson\u2019s amendments to clause 66 as set out on Amendment Paper 547 are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with the previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001686\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Part 4 be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001687\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001688\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001689\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001690\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001691\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 4 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001692\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a857f95ad42d18b3f530546b03743a42\u0022\u003ECommittee of the Whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001693\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e02e15d8d9d6a173d9e845dbc3f2d58f\u0022\u003EPart 5 Regulations and minimum standards\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001694\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022693e31ac9982b77aa6bfc250f1c790e6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we now come to Part 5, which is the debate on clauses 75 to 80, \u201CRegulations and minimum standards\u201D. The question is that Part 5 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022 data-id=\u0022b393243e13b92d123d8be5e399b3222e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001695\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b393243e13b92d123d8be5e399b3222e\u0022\u003ELEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour\u2014M\u0101ngere) (12:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Thanks, Madam Chair. I would like to draw the Minister\u2019s attention to Part 5, clause 77, \u201CRegulations relating to advertising and marketing\u201D. I do have a tabled amendment with some specific requests\u2014that I want to replace and insert a new clause 77(3)(c).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001696\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe have heard comments from previous speakers and colleagues with regards to minimising harm and protecting our young ones\u2014our children. My amendment speaks to inserting a new clause banning any online or internet-based advertising or marketing where the intended recipient of such marketing or advertising is under 18 years old. We have to be cognisant of online platforms that are available to specifically under-18s\u2014our children, our young people. We know, through general platforms, that there is quite the saturation in terms of advertising. I wanted to ask the Minister: what advice has she received with respect to this clause? We have concerns with advertising and marketing, given that there is little known about those applications of licence holders that will be coming into a system. They\u2019re obviously big companies that some of them may have world-wide operations, so they\u2019re very skilled in their business operations as to marketing things that they do on their platforms.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001697\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMinister, what type of advice or what do the officials say in terms of this provision? How strict will those advertising mechanisms be, given the fact that we are really concerned on this side of the committee of the harm that is going to be caused. Whilst we may not get full prohibition, we know that this is going to regulate a market that has been there for quite some time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001698\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the things that I do want to raise, Minister, is: what type of advice did you receive, in that these platforms are being updated all the time. It\u2019s a real competition for overseas companies to be able to come into New Zealand, do their products, and I still have a strong concern around them not having to be located or domiciled in New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001699\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do have another question with regards to the marketing tools that these companies, which we don\u2019t know\u2014there are strong provisions around the regulations\u2014however, the type of products that they are going to be able to extrapolate across their products. In terms of how will you be assured or how will the public of New Zealand be assured that our young people, specifically our children, are going to be protected from these types of platforms or licensing holders. I can tell you now: kids in South Auckland, specifically those under 18, have access to devices. Sure, they provide good things like communication with their parents, education\u2014they\u2019re used for education. There are some prohibitions around there, around recent announcements by Government, but I want to ask that question on behalf of parents and caregivers who have specifically asked me around consumer protections: how will our children be protected? Thank you, Minister. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022d76d23cef3ffc018137203f96e059749\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001700\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d76d23cef3ffc018137203f96e059749\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (12:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, thank you very much. I will speak to the queries about clause 77, to the Amendment Paper 533 in Mike Davidson\u2019s name. Look, it is not necessary that we have a new provision within the law talking about harm minimisation enforcement of age restrictions, because it is already in here. Operators will be required to set out their advertising and marketing strategies about how the operator will comply with regulations under clause 77. The effective controls on advertising will mitigate the risk of increased gambling and gambling harm through restrictions on the form, content, timing, frequency, volume, location, and audience. The bill also requires that regulations must be made that minimise the risk of harm from advertisements and marketing and minimising advertisements and marketing to people under the age of 18. So it is unnecessary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001701\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EYes, it is true that a lot of the detail is in the regulations, but the Department of Internal Affairs did consult with a range of stakeholders, including health and research sectors, with the Problem Gambling Foundation and others through this process of policy development. There are quite a few that we could go to at length, but I\u2019ll just give you a small number. For the ones that I know are available online, because Cabinet has made them proactively released: operators must not target ads at those under the age of 25 unless the operator can demonstrate that the ads can be precisely targeted at consumers over the age of 18. Where reasonably practicable, targeted age gating must be implemented to ensure advertising is only shown to those over the age of 18. Advertising during or 30 minutes before or after a live broadcast of an event that would reasonably attract viewership of children is prohibited. Placing ads where more than 20 percent of the expected audience is under the age of 18 is prohibited. Placing ads where those under 18 are reasonably likely to be exposed to frequent online casino gambling ads is prohibited. Operators must exclude those who have self-excluded or those identified by an operator as a problem gambler from receiving direct and loyalty programme advertising. I could go on, but they are at length and publicly available.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u002239d992027dbbc98c22385333ead2cd62\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001702\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002239d992027dbbc98c22385333ead2cd62\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (12:22)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Just focusing on an Amendment Paper from my colleague Mike Davidson, 553\u2014not 533, which was just spoken about. It relates to clause 77. I appreciate the Minister has just outlined some of the intents of how she will intend to, I guess, operationalise this clause, but the amendment seeks to strengthen the language in clause 77(1), because, at the moment, what we have is that \u201CThe Governor-General may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations\u201D. We believe that this opens the door for a future Minister to, basically, leave those provisions relatively unregulated. So our amendment strengthens the language from \u201Cmay\u201D to \u201Cmust\u201D, so that the Minister has to actually take action on this. I am particularly concerned that the language around \u201Cmay\u201D could lead a future Government to just not do anything about this, and that would be concerning.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001703\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe amendment also would add additional language after clause 77(1)(e) to also insert \u201C(including prohibiting the use of any advertisement whose intended audience is a particular cultural group)\u201D. Now, we know that, for some of our migrant and ethnic communities, there may be specific targeting that may occur, using cultural signifiers or other means of advertisement that specifically seeks to target them on the basis of their cultural identity. We think that adding this language into clause 77 will also give the Minister an additional tool to assess whether there is that level of targeting based on culture as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001704\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn the amendment, we also suggest replacing clause 77(1)(f), that is on page 43, lines 29 and 39, with \u201Cprohibiting the use of endorsements, sponsorships, and similar third-party arrangements in advertising (including affiliate marketing);\u201D. We believe that, basically, this will strengthen the ability for the Minister to prevent influencers from being able to operate in ways that seek to cause harm to our communities, particularly young audiences. So we wanted to engage with the Minister as to\u2014and I want to go back to the language of \u201Cmay\u201D versus \u201Cmust\u201D\u2014does she think that the language as written adequately safeguards a future Minister who may be more inclined to deregulate or take a hands-off approach to the provisions in clause 77? If she thinks that this is a legitimate concern, would she be agreeable to make sure that Ministers have to actually consider all the provisions in clause 77?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001705\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also want to know whether she has seen any advertisement or has received feedback of advertisement that specifically targets people on the basis of culture\u2014whether that\u2019s something that she received feedback on in preparation of the bill, and, if she didn\u2019t, whether she thinks that this is an oversight in how clause 77 is written.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001706\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also want to know if the amendment from my colleague Mike Davidson would better address the use of influencer\u2019s platforms to try and entice young people online towards online gambling. We know this is a very genuine and concerning issue that has been raised with many of us. We think that the language in the amendment that we\u2019ve provided will help address this because of the affiliate marketing language that we\u2019re adding in there, which is the distinction as well. So, again, we\u2019re trying to engage in good faith with these amendments and strengthen the provisions of this bill and seeking engagement with the Minister, particularly around the \u201Cmay\u201D versus \u201Cmust\u201D language. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u002270512e040ed4ccbc03279090b60e76c7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001707\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002270512e040ed4ccbc03279090b60e76c7\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (12:26)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Speaking to Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u2019s questions about changing clause 77(1) to \u201CThe Governor-General must, by Order in Council \u2026 make regulations\u201D. Look, it\u2019s actually not convention to require the Governor-General to do anything or to force her to do anything, so this Government is not going to now force the Governor-General to make recommendations. But if it is of any help to the member, it is not necessary to change the language to be stronger in order to try and force regulations for harm minimisation to be made, because I as the Minister am already doing that. The regulations will come into force and they\u2019ll be there in force before people can legally advertise. So I don\u2019t believe it is necessary, and also quite a strange change of convention.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EFor the Amendment Paper 553 that Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March has asked on behalf of Mike Davidson, I don\u2019t believe this is also necessary. It talks about prohibiting the use of endorsements, sponsorships, and similar third-party arrangements and ads, and prohibiting any use of ads whose intended audience is a particular cultural group. The reason why I don\u2019t believe that that is necessary is because the publicly released regulations on advertising and marketing restrictions include the requirement that ads must not play on people\u2019s fears, beliefs, superstitions, or use cultural symbols, names, or imagery likely to cause serious or widespread offence. Cabinet has also agreed to prohibit endorsement sponsorships already, and that includes things like social media influencers. Therefore, there is no need to place this detail of restriction into the law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u0022c45f1cc97181e73c64bcdf59bd906374\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001709\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c45f1cc97181e73c64bcdf59bd906374\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (12:28)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Part 5, the regulations relating to harm prevention and minimisation, clause 75\u2014I think it\u2019s important that we get the Minister on the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E regarding what her expectation is around how those regulations will work. She has mentioned that the reason to put them in regulation is for there to be flexibility, and we appreciate that, but also we do have the issue of regulatory capture and the real risk of that with the creation of this regulated sector and the expansion of it simultaneously.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001710\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo what appears to be missing and what I haven\u2019t heard answers from in other parts but relates very much to this section is how will she monitor the impact of the advertising? Because what we see in the bill is a very inputs-orientated regime which makes assumptions about the level of harm that will be reduced by having certain criteria around advertising. However, we haven\u2019t heard from the Minister in response to our questions for evidence of that, so it\u2019s based on assumptions and a theory, and it may well bear out. However, it may be that we find there is an explosion in harm in New Zealand after the advertising takes place. What are the mechanisms in this part of the bill that enable monitoring of the harm, and what is her expectation around the changes to the regulations to reduce risk and harm in the event that the advertising regime that comes in under regulations in December 2026 does not appear to be working in that respect? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001711\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt may be working in terms of consumer protection, which is something very different. I did not hear answers from the Minister to my questions last night about her understanding of the differences between consumer protection and harm, but this is where the proof would be in the pudding. It is to have a mechanism, and, if there isn\u2019t, then what is her expectation so that in the event that we see reports of increased harm, there can be real pressure put on to change the regulations, and not to have the converse happen\u2014which, in my view, is more likely\u2014which is that there is lobbying pressure from the sector that means those advertisement regulations won\u2019t change and there will be a complete disconnect between the advertising regime regulatory environment and the harm that is being caused? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022 data-id=\u00221a5703c06c9cb44a9609737e2498803c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001712\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221a5703c06c9cb44a9609737e2498803c\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (12:31)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it\u2019s quite important to note that on this side, we actually support good regulation, and the problem with this bill as it stands is that the regulations are not good enough. We are trying to put forward lots of amendments to make it better than what it currently stands as.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001713\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI just want to continue talking to some of my amendments that I\u2019ve put forward. I won\u2019t talk to Amendment Paper 552, because that was also about replacing \u201Cmay\u201D with \u201Cmust be\u201D, and, obviously, that\u2019s been spoken to before. I\u2019ll skip past that one and I\u2019ll talk to Amendment Paper 551. This is around clause 75, and it\u2019s adding another paragraph to it, which is paragraph (ab). It is prescribing mandatory limits on the amount that may be deposited and then lost from an account on a gambling platform over a specified period of time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001714\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think this a really important amendment and it will achieve quite a good outcome, because what we know about the harm is that it\u2019s sometimes the amount of money that is lost in a very short period of time. While people can put money into an account, sometimes the telltale sign is actually how much they\u2019re losing and how quickly they\u2019re losing it. This is actually a suggestion from Lotto to do this, and I think it could really help this bill create better outcomes around harm prevention and minimisation if we were to put some limits on what people can put in and also what people can lose over a specified period of time in order to ensure that we\u2019re taking the most care with the regulations. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001715\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think if we can strengthen the regulations, we\u2019re going to actually get better outcomes for people. We know that the harm from gambling is actually very, very severe and it is a mental health issue as well, and we need to be doing the most we can to try to help in this space. We just find that the regulations and this bill as it currently stands aren\u2019t meeting those needs, and so I\u2019d like the Minister to consider this additional amendment to try and really get some good outcomes from this bill. Thank you. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u002251c17ee74c4318131c540a5c86c1d7b8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001716\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002251c17ee74c4318131c540a5c86c1d7b8\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (12:33)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Firstly, to Ingrid Leary talking about how will we monitor the impact of advertising over time? Look, Cabinet has agreed to a three-year review of the legislation to check that it is working and if any changes are needed. There are monitoring and compliance pathways as part of the function of the Secretary for Internal Affairs in clause 18. Regulations can also be changed quickly if required, but, importantly, it does require the scrutiny of Cabinet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001717\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment Paper 551, which Mike Davidson has just referenced, which is prescribing the mandatory limits\u2014look, I don\u2019t believe that that is necessary or appropriate as different people have different limits on how much they can afford to lose in a period of time, and the regulations will enable people to set their own limits themselves. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001718\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ECabinet has also agreed that operators must offer customers the ability to exclude themselves, and I think this is quite important when it comes to the status quo, where we have a completely unregulated online casino gambling market at the moment, where there are no set limits. If there is a mandatory limit that is set under law and it is too low, there will be less channelling into the appropriate regulated market as people may find that there\u2019s less consumer choice and will simply opt to use the black market.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002227d19573a8ba4d8283b17374978c8ea2\u0022 data-id=\u00228a57909a3f3aad394a2b62cee4893aa9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001719\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227d19573a8ba4d8283b17374978c8ea2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228a57909a3f3aad394a2b62cee4893aa9\u0022\u003EGRANT McCALLUM (National\u2014Northland) (12:35)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001720\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001722\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001724\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001725\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001726\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d4a8db76a805af45536d7b970ec64518\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003E:\u003C/span\u003E The question is that Mike Davidson\u2019s amendment to clause 75 as set out on Amendment Paper 551 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001727\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001728\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001729\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001730\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001731\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001732\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001733\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222bed9ed57858edc457a9ef62c074b9ab\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003E:\u003C/span\u003E The question is that Mike Davidson\u2019s amendments to clause 75 as set out on Amendment Paper 552 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001734\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001735\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001736\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001737\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001738\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001739\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001740\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222afe1921ac4fb99d6e3427ed5407bfff\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003E:\u003C/span\u003E Mike Davidson\u2019s amendments to clauses 75 and 77 as set out on Amendment Paper 544 are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001741\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Mike Davidson\u2019s amendments to clause 77 as set out on Amendment Paper 553 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001742\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001743\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001744\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001745\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001746\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001747\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001748\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002241e40d796dd0be01938f20b66c49d986\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003E:\u003C/span\u003E The question is that Mike Davidson\u2019s amendments to clause 77 as set out on Amendment Paper 554 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001749\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001750\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001751\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001752\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001753\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001754\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001755\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223d035099b79cc9209a7f12ae10bb23cf\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003E:\u003C/span\u003E The question is that Lemauga Lydia Sosene\u2019s tabled amendment replacing clause 77(3)(b) and inserting new clause 77(3)(c) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001756\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001757\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001758\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001759\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001760\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001761\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001762\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002251380c55020befbb58991ba630cca1ae\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Lemauga Lydia Sosene\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 77(3)(b) to restrict the hours of television and radio advertising be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001763\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001764\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001765\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001766\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001767\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001768\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001769\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223f1ad5df85b9c65ff97b493a19f31bbd\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Mike Davidson\u2019s amendment to clause 77 as set out on Amendment Paper 543 is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001770\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMike Davidson\u2019s amendment to clause 77 as set out on Amendment Paper 547 is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001771\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Mike Davidson\u2019s amendment to insert new clause 80AAA as set out on Amendment Paper 555 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001772\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001773\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001774\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001775\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001776\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001777\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001778\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Part 5 be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001779\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001780\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 id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001781\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001782\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 5; Ferris.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001783\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 5 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001784\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00229e91b702fdbe1ca239ca28c796c15a4c\u0022\u003ECommittee of the Whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001785\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u002226c8bd4082489cc333edcf3cb7bff259\u0022\u003EPart 6 Gambling duty and other matters\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001786\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002225f97b8ce5a0c018939879460d377fb9\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we now come to Part 6, which is the debate on clauses 80A to 82, \u201CGambling duty and other matters\u201D. The question is that Part 6 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022be43e8bb5fb9e294a2b2e2d93b198c13\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001787\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022be43e8bb5fb9e294a2b2e2d93b198c13\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (12:42)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I just really wish to take a quick call explaining the need for the Amendment Paper in my name at this particular part of the bill. As I\u2019m sure members of the Governance and Administration Committee and others of our community will know, through the select committee process there was quite a community outpouring of support for a community return component to this bill where the profits went back to the community. Now, during that time, it became quite a rigmarole of finding the appropriate way to draft this section of the bill to add it in, and I know the select committee did their best to create an amendment that would fit it in.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001788\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHowever, I have an amendment which I believe should be supported across the committee and which makes it better, and this is because the select committee amended the bill to require the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to pay 25 percent of online gambling duty into an account opened by the Secretary for Internal Affairs under section 286 of the Gambling Act. The Lottery Grants Board would then receive and distribute these funds to benefit the community. This approach would impose new legal requirements on Inland Revenue and incur costs to administer the payment. This approach is also inflexible and would require legislative change to make any future adjustments to the rate of the online gambling duty to be returned to the community.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001789\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Amendment Paper in my name is intended to provide a more flexible and less administratively complex means of enabling this distribution while also recognising that we support the intent behind what was the outpouring of support by the community. The amount of online gambling duty paid in total will be set out in legislation. The amount returned to the community can therefore be increased through amendment by Cabinet rather than amending legislation. As the Minister responsible for the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA), I know just how hard it is sometimes, when you have a very bespoke part of DIA to change, how very, very difficult it is to get legislative change on one provision, which is why I\u2019ve also got a regulatory systems amendment bill tidying up other parts of DIA that have not been amended for years. I believe that this is a good amendment and should be supported across the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022 data-id=\u0022fcd3dcf2a9e996d0ab1029b2b37da4b0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001790\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fcd3dcf2a9e996d0ab1029b2b37da4b0\u0022\u003ELEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour\u2014M\u0101ngere) (12:44)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Minister van Velden, for explaining your amendment. I have put forward an amendment to your amendment with regards to Part 6, clauses 80C to 80F, and in my Amendment Paper, one of the things that I wanted to highlight was that we had a number of submitters who came in at the first draft of the bill when there was no community return, so the fact that the Minister went back to Cabinet to get that has been really well received, Minister. However, my amendment talks about the system in relation to the Lottery Grants Board system, and we had certain submitters\u2014and I want to acknowledge the New Zealand Community Trust but also Martin Snedden, who came to the select committee with specific proposals and the request that the select committee would consider that the system in terms of the return to the community would not be chosen as the Lottery Grants Board but consider the New Zealand Community Trust, which is a mechanism and operation much closer to the community.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001791\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe select committee heard the submissions from Mr Snedden and also other organisations which strongly supported the New Zealand Community Trust over the Lottery Grants Board, given that the Lottery Grants Board is a structured process and is approved by Cabinet and the Government. There were certain criteria that submitters raised: firstly, the length of time in terms of the system and community groups and sports groups that apply to the Lottery Grants Board for those specific grants; also, the process taken is a quite an arduous process and difficult. So, many of the community groups that submitted and sports groups that submitted to the select committee through that process requested that the committee consider putting forward that there is another better system which is speedier; they would get their grants, or consideration of their grants, through a regional body which is closer to the ground.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001792\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI wanted to ask the Minister, in terms of the decision making in choosing the lottery grant system, what the officials advised in terms of that specific system. Did they take into account any changes, broadly, that would assist getting returns out to the community faster? Also, the process under the lottery grant system has been going for quite some time\u2014over a few decades now\u2014but will there be a modernisation of that system? Did the Minister receive any advice around that? Also, the Minister has just mentioned that the review would be taking place in a couple of years, which is really welcomed by myself and other members on the select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001793\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI wanted to just ask the Minister those specific questions, and will there be any changes in the criteria making things faster for the thousands of community groups and sports groups that came to see us at the oral submissions? I\u2019d like to ask the Minister those specific questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u00224bc3533b1d662a42846c564456a61842\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001794\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224bc3533b1d662a42846c564456a61842\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (12:48)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, and speaking to Lemauga Lydia Sosene\u2019s\u2014I will get it right at some point\u2014amendment and to her query about the Class 4 societies, look, it is true that I did consider where it was best placed to send the money. The Class 4 societies were not considered a viable option as a distribution mechanism, as they\u2019re set up as a decentralised model that is deliberate to support local community purpose, but this means that there is no obvious society that would be suitable to distribute the funds. It would also require significant legislative amendment to the Gambling Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001795\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also considered Community Organisation Grants Scheme funding or setting up a completely new system itself. However, it was deemed that the Lottery Grants Board, which is very used to doing community returns and does it quite regularly with a large portion of money, would be the most appropriate place for it, because collecting via tax and distributing via the Lottery Grants Board removes the regulatory burden of monitoring operators to ensure that they\u2019re distributing funding as we would actually need to do under the Class 4 system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of your Amendment Paper 538, which I know you have, about applicants getting funding from the Lottery Grants Board, and they should be able to request that it\u2019s played from the lotteries and not from the online casino gambling\u2014I totally understand that this is an issue that the Lottery Grants Board will need to do. However, there\u2019s not a legislative amendment that\u2019s needed for that, because, wearing my other hat as a presiding member of the Lottery Grants Board, I am already aware that there will be people who don\u2019t wish to apply for money from a source of funding that has touched casino gambling. Without breaching the confidence of the Lottery Grants Board, which is separate to my role here as a Minister today, that is something that I\u2019m very cognisant of and share as a concern with other members of that board, and they\u2019re very aware that there will need to be changes internally to make this happen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00220f57f2b0ea77f84536e9985eec05e771\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001797\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220f57f2b0ea77f84536e9985eec05e771\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (12:51)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I see that the other side is very excited to take a call already on the second call of this part, which is significant because of the Amendment Paper the Minister has introduced, Amendment Paper 530, that hasn\u2019t gone through a select committee process, and it\u2019s the first time we\u2019re able to speak on it. I want to thank the Minister in terms of her introductory remarks around the Amendment Paper, and I know that I always have further questions, as well, on other matters.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001798\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of the Amendment Paper, I have two very specific questions for the Minister right now, which is under the select committee\u2019s amendment in Part 6, clause 80C. It specifies that it\u2019s \u201CRing-fenced online gambling duty\u201D, but the term \u201Cring-fenced\u201D has been removed by the Minister\u2019s amendment. I understand the process burden, if it\u2019s going through IRD and you\u2019re having to go back to the Lotteries Commission, etc., but is the \u201Cring-fenced\u201D phrase considered redundant because the money is going to be held by the secretary already and, therefore, IRD doesn\u2019t need to ring-fence for the purpose of gambling duty? Or is it now no longer \u201Cring-fenced\u201D specifically for the purpose of\u2014I believe, specifically used for allocations and distribution for community purposes? If the Minister wouldn\u2019t mind clarifying if, under her amendment, the gambling duty is to ring-fence specifically for allocation and distribution for community purposes?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001799\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy second question is around what the Minister mentioned\u2014previously, it had given a specific amount of 25 percent, but a specific percentage is not in the Minister\u2019s Amendment Paper. The Minister, again, mentioned a level of flexibility, but, I guess, the question is if the flexibility would also imply that a gambling duty\u2014the sum of gambling duty that is supposed to be determined by the secretary at each of the financial year and pay the online gambling duty funding for that financial year\u2014will be less or significantly less than the 25 percent that is in the original amendment by the select committee. I think if it\u2019s going to be less or significantly less than 25 percent, we potentially also get into an issue where it doesn\u2019t actually serve the purpose of allocation and distribution for community purposes. Is there any modelling on what that potentially could look like or a variation of that amount? Or is a percentage not specified because we are relying on the 16 percent as we see in clause 80B, which amends section 12 of the principal Act: replace \u201C \u2018the rate of 12%\u2019 with \u2018the rate of 16%\u2019 \u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001800\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo, to capture the two parts of the question, the first part is: is the funding gambling duty still ring-fenced for the purpose of allocation and distribution for community purposes? The second part is: would the removal of 25 percent mean that the new amount will be less or significantly less than 25 percent?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022f9b8b673daccabc2dead2db2b3fedea4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001801\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f9b8b673daccabc2dead2db2b3fedea4\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (12:54)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. To the question from Lawrence Xu-Nan, look, the funding collected from the duty for the purpose of community returns will be transferred through the Budget process and Cabinet will decide the amount. Therefore, it does not now require ring-fencing. Cabinet has decided the percentage, and, as I\u2019ve said, the 16 percent is set out in the Gaming Duties Act, but this is better for flexibility for the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001802\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fd6be4f4017bb15845b913b61afafda6\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=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001803\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EProgress to be reported.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001804\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHouse resumed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001805\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f0645a0e3390fc2cf4228c21086e7f1b\u0022\u003ELegislation Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001806\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f0645a0e3390fc2cf4228c21086e7f1b\u0022\u003EPublic Finance Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001807\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f0645a0e3390fc2cf4228c21086e7f1b\u0022\u003EPublic Service Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001808\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f0645a0e3390fc2cf4228c21086e7f1b\u0022\u003EOnline Casino Gambling Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001809\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ebac359b4e0d013b8353fccd2ae4e907\u0022\u003EReport of Committee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001810\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022438e244f3d1975905fc1b52bc633bdbf\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Legislation Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also further considered the Public Finance Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also further considered the Public Service Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Online Casino Gambling Bill and reports that it has made progress on the bill. I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the report be adopted\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001811\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001812\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EReport adopted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001813\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002299dec7edec30dfd470c651183110d08d\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The Legislation Amendment Bill, the Public Finance Amendment Bill, and the Public Service Amendment Bill are set down for third reading next sitting day. The Online Casino Gambling Bill is set down for further consideration in committee next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until after 2\u00A0p.m. today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20260310eb041f52078b0d12a0001814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EThe House adjourned at 12.57 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n  \u003C/body\u003E\n\u003C/html\u003E"