"\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000000\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a671ac00438b33c9906d442f4744a0a7\u0022\u003ETuesday, 30 June 2026\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000001\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000002\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022633065ba3a0fdc22176ab55300664d3a\u0022\u003EStart of Sitting Day\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022605ea803e0b512a04bb85cd32d3a4eea\u0022\u003EKarakia/Prayers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022 data-id=\u002272923f40d4e6fe47ae6faabfec3545f9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002272923f40d4e6fe47ae6faabfec3545f9\u0022\u003EBARBARA KURIGER (Deputy 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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00221bbdfc44963990c94bae098d1f7af6af\u0022\u003EMotions\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00227fa67cbd07150d1203198c1c5408b50c\u0022\u003EVenezuela\u2014Earthquakes\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022 data-id=\u0022789948f12a10863a4a5016e1c4dce567\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022789948f12a10863a4a5016e1c4dce567\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) (14:01)\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate regarding the Venezuelan earthquakes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002219a1369e4c4164e1ce372157bc78f27f\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\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f53a8729f0982c7a173ab95315edebe4\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat this House send its condolences, on behalf of the New Zealand people, to all those who have lost loved ones and livelihoods in Venezuela as a result of the recent earthquakes; note the New Zealand Government\u2019s contribution to international humanitarian efforts to respond to the earthquakes; and note that the New Zealand Government stands ready to consider any further requests for assistance from affected countries, as the full impacts become clear\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00221bc82d2d5f498990bdb6e3f20e4342e4\u0022\u003EPresentation\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002292d5c27c004bc632265e9efe0320fef6\u0022\u003EPetitions\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022 data-id=\u0022721e06a554bb103ffdce9dc4c9d45141\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022721e06a554bb103ffdce9dc4c9d45141\u0022\u003ESPEAKER (14:02)\u003C/span\u003E: Three petitions have been delivered for presentation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221f8312541e96388e061315ede58e7b84\u0022\u003ECLERK (14:02): \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003EPetition of Caitlin Hoy requesting that the House urge the Government to require Pharmac to allow Sodium Valproate to be prescribed for 12 months and dispensed for 3 months for long-term, stable epileptic patients\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003Epetition of Tony Gore requesting that the House allow pensioners to keep more of their New Zealand superannuation, accommodation supplement, and other supplementary benefits when family members reside with them\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003Epetition of Valencia Ngadi requesting that the House increase penalties for offending by children under 14 and urge the Government to provide better support for victims of youth crime.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d61b8aa6f2ee1bb1360e8044d18ba8b8\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e8de0a947bb23eb6735efdf315a33b11\u0022\u003EPapers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022 data-id=\u002244364980e5462ab541730c05947e9ec6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002244364980e5462ab541730c05947e9ec6\u0022\u003ESPEAKER (14:02)\u003C/span\u003E: Ministers have delivered six papers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022252c1abe6f1485b01bef8c10da130209\u0022\u003ECLERK (14:02): \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003ECrown Infrastructure Delivery statement of intent for 2027-30\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003E2026-27 statement of performance expectations for:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003ECrown Infrastructure Delivery\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003ENatural Hazards Commission\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Infrastructure Commission\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003EReal Estate Authority, and\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003ETakeovers Panel.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221c0a60546299f1fb75e7989cf8e7e50e\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I present the following reports of the Audit Office: 2026-27 annual plan, and the inquiry into the Healthy School Lunches Programme. Those papers are published under the authority of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c91771de9b5fc69f9f578de20e0e7c4d\u0022\u003ESelect Committee Reports\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022 data-id=\u0022f80f290d9a9adbac5a7a3121efdc550f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f80f290d9a9adbac5a7a3121efdc550f\u0022\u003ESPEAKER (14:03)\u003C/span\u003E: Eight select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022254aab45e4052cb4ddf4d08fc9c6cb04\u0022\u003ECLERK (14:03): \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000033\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003Ereview briefing on the 2024-25 annual review of Research and Education Advanced Network New Zealand Ltd\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003Ereview briefing on the 2024-25 annual review of the Accreditation Council\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003Ereview briefing on the 2024-25 annual review of the Broadcasting Standards Authority\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003Ereview briefing on the 2024-25 annual review of the External Reporting Board, and\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003Ereview briefing on the 2024-25 annual review of the Retirement Commissioner\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003Ereports of the Justice Committee on the:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003EArms Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003EEnglish Language Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003Ereport of the Regulations Review Committee on the briefing on the activities of the Regulations Review Committee in 2025.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002255b68ffbaa458b74679b438d5a17bb64\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The bills are set down for second reading. The review briefings and briefing on the activities of the Regulations Review Committee are set down for consideration.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a309eec8841f9418a01c2de1a18a9d5b\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00220b013a892f9b9b7263263d628c2ca92b\u0022\u003ECourts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00220b013a892f9b9b7263263d628c2ca92b\u0022\u003EPost-settlement Governance Entities (Exemption from Jurisdiction of M\u0101ori Land Court) Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00220b013a892f9b9b7263263d628c2ca92b\u0022\u003EClimate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00220b013a892f9b9b7263263d628c2ca92b\u0022\u003ECommunity Magistrates Legislation Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00220b013a892f9b9b7263263d628c2ca92b\u0022\u003EBuilding Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00225444b1b7a790a7ae799383b3f8d0566b\u0022\u003EIntroduction\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022 data-id=\u00220a22143c41381d2dfe0f13595a9775db\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220a22143c41381d2dfe0f13595a9775db\u0022\u003ESPEAKER (14:04)\u003C/span\u003E: The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of five bills.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022999534e836a58d771a30f1ea0b5433ca\u0022\u003ECLERK (14:04): \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003ECourts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill, introduction\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003EPost-settlement Governance Entities (Exemption from Jurisdiction of M\u0101ori Land Court) Bill, introduction\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003EClimate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill, introduction\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003ECommunity Magistrates Legislation Amendment Bill, introduction\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003EBuilding Amendment Bill, introduction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ae26614edb0377a6368d9fc06df64683\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Those bills are set down for first reading.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00222bade2ee969801b63f75313d8dc82262\u0022\u003EOral Questions to Ministers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022de99d2739e4b0845277ca35bfdb53bc8\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022019ae123916b830029ba3f445646fc62\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 1\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022 data-id=\u00222e7d51da41575a266cc4859a9e1c4b78\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222e7d51da41575a266cc4859a9e1c4b78\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (14:04)\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=\u0022028b6bc77a34b1c327b674b4f1feecce\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022028b6bc77a34b1c327b674b4f1feecce\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:04)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022356f41c9051f3b8b4e35f33c9c12a5d8\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by his Government\u2019s claim that it \u201Cwill champion the hospitality sector and support it to grow\u201D when hospitality company liquidations are at their highest level on record?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022baf82afdf62d769a9663e99a8de816a0\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, and that\u2019s why we\u2019ve got a major events fund, and that\u2019s why tourism\u2019s up 9.2\u00A0percent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224f93f12d6e42a91b8e5885d3175b3782\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: How does sending $6.3\u00A0million of taxpayers\u2019 money to a French tyre company help the cafes and takeaway shops that are going under in record numbers under his Government\u2019s leadership?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d25b6e8b56e8b4327b336e9c413e1f02\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I know the Labour Party\u2019s never really cared about tourism, but, actually, on this side of the House, we do. What we discover is that there\u2019s a whole bunch of people out there in the world of 8\u00A0billion people who are foodies. They like to come and travel the Michelin Guide. Isn\u2019t it fantastic that New Zealand has a Michelin Guide and Australia doesn\u2019t? And that\u2019s driving more tourists to New Zealand, who are spending more money in our bars and restaurants. That\u2019s a great thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f9af03329bf713c8778d142ee179e4cc\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Will it be Kiwis filling the tables at the restaurants his Government is paying to promote when four out of 10 households have cut back on eating out over the past year\u2014the biggest drop ever recorded\u2014because they can\u2019t afford to?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022154bf7acbe132db260d19f0d926ed16f\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it will be Kiwis working in hospitality because of the efforts of this Government to make sure we drive tourism and hospitality. That\u2019s why we have a Minister for Tourism and Hospitality. It\u2019s the first time ever that\u2019s ever happened. But that\u2019s actually going to be Kiwis working in those places, able to drive their incomes up, and able to have jobs. That\u2019s great stuff.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225cccd09b07ac38fdcd6b3a297739d018\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: So if all that\u2019s working so well, why are a record number of hospitality businesses being liquidated?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e47c5a6528debfb59faabeb46ad30ebe\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I just would note: the member may not have caught up with the latest outstanding news, which is the ANZ business confidence is up 27 points, just as we were coming into this House, up to a high of 37. That just means fantastic things. The business confidence is up, and good times are ahead for New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dadfa8719cb05c31a45f1d59a6c0e88d\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Can he name a single struggling cafe saved from closure by the $1.4\u00A0million his Government has spent on its crayfish stargrazing campaign?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222d7be3cd999295faf19eec56afc4c769\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I just say to the member: we are very proud of the progress we are making on tourism and building it back from pre-COVID levels. The other thing I just say to that member is: just remember who locked down hospitality businesses in Auckland for longer than they needed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226d8464dd9e76c4e1426e48b576cb5fcb\u0022\u003EHon David Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Prime Minister looking forward to the Ministry for Regulation\u2019s recommendations to cut red tape after consulting hundreds in the hospitality industry who say that with less compliance costs, they can spend more time building their businesses and less time tied up with stupid rules?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223772afe59f543880d3db18a715f7d489\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, and I appreciate the work of the member on making sure we deregulate the economy so we can get growth back into it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d7d8b8e08bc9e404e2e17ccba5b9d631\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: So why is he proud of a record number of hospitality businesses going into liquidation and four out of 10 Kiwis saying they can\u2019t afford to go out to a restaurant?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c066f4391df998ae2752b0f3353968d2\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I\u2019m proud of the efforts of this Government to restore tourism and hospitality, as a sector, as a driver of growth. One in four of our jobs are tied to trade. Tourism is probably about our second-biggest export earner. It\u2019s fantastic that we\u2019re getting out in the world. We\u2019re promoting New Zealand. We\u2019re talking up New Zealand, not talking it down like that member, and we actually see tourism up over 9\u00A0percent. We see international education up over 11\u00A0percent. We see export growth to the world up over 9\u00A0percent, and services exports to the world are up over 10\u00A0percent. Isn\u2019t it great that we now have a trading surplus for the first time in five years, where we export more to the world than we import in? In April, in the middle of a fuel crisis, we had a record in New Zealand of $2\u00A0billion in April. Those are great things, and the member should just lose the sad-sack appetite and actually celebrate what\u2019s a great success.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226708b50a5858660cb0578edb1f4b2015\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: To the Prime Minister: why are you not paying far more attention to the questioner, who, after all, knows something about shutting down business for four long months in Auckland?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022da37ae8351de5e49e8fdd1849a8d2f81\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, that\u2019s exactly a good point the Minister raises, which is that it was that member\u2019s Government that actually kept Auckland hospitality businesses\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c9d8dd35d93d1a8d9e13c45b947b0a0f\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, that\u2019s it\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002212c257e18d586484f30f0a1265faab31\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: out of operation\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022152cf50291a732744da94a510bba3aa9\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No\u2014that\u2019s it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c72fc0796ba6343ff3e1c8934ba026bc\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014for months longer than they needed to be.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226d432058a35171778e039a3e4a6cacd7\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Hang on! That\u2019s enough. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002236c640cd34e3c72f0875e5cab54ac56d\u0022\u003EHon Nicola Willis\u003C/span\u003E: To the Prime Minister: can he confirm that the latest ANZ New Zealand business outlook today shows that business confidence has jumped 27 points in the previous month, with employment intentions positive across multiple sectors, including hospitality, and that these figures preceded the sharp fall in oil prices mid-month, and does this tell us that we are building a better future?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ab755f131258e75fd6273db4f50962fc\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Absolutely. I\u2019d also say to the member that we just have to look at the 0.8\u00A0percent growth in the last quarter in the GDP growth numbers, because we had growth in nine of our 16 sectors. We had manufacturing up almost 2\u00A0percent. We had business services up over 1.1, retail and accommodation up over 1.2\u00A0percent, wholesale trade up 2.4, and exports up 3.1. They are all job-rich sectors. That\u2019s a good thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002287b82872f9192e96bb25854d470b5a2a\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: So if it\u2019s all going so well\u2014for the third time\u2014why are a record number of hospitality businesses going into liquidation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002272320bdc14952b25cc8ad2516e1988b1\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, this Government is doing all it can to actually help hospitality businesses get off the floor after that member locked them up four weeks longer than they needed to be.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002296ce7b4e8260b761fa912baff9442cd5\u0022\u003EEducation\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022446565c48e092e483908447b54b36e9a\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b064dd56673f4c1cb11c1242823abb92\u0022 data-id=\u0022a101cf19d33f95135b7fb3801361d105\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b064dd56673f4c1cb11c1242823abb92\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a101cf19d33f95135b7fb3801361d105\u0022\u003ELAURA McCLURE (ACT) (14:10)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EAssociate Minister of Education\u003C/span\u003E: What recent reports has he seen on school attendance?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022 data-id=\u00223fe40f00d6e057cef6f4f5f4f3611977\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223fe40f00d6e057cef6f4f5f4f3611977\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education) (14:10)\u003C/span\u003E: A wonderful report, from these numbers: since this Government\u2019s been in place, we have been, actually, reporting, every day, the number of children that went to school. This stands in stark contrast to earlier times, when a Minister of Education was actually hauled before the Privileges Committee for not revealing that information, and, in the end, was actually let off on the grounds that the Minister didn\u2019t actually know what the facts were. We are now, every day, reporting the number of students that show up. Members might be interested to know that, this term\u2014term 2, 2026\u2014so far, on every day bar two, which were on either side of King\u2019s Birthday, we have seen better attendance than term 2 in 2025. This fits a pattern where every term bar one since this Government has been in place, we have had better attendance than the term before. This is for a number of reasons, but, more than anything, it is about the value that New Zealanders put on education and their willingness to get to school, even when we are told by some that high fuel prices will prevent them doing so.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222a30676c2457cb0c5e9f235ea1df66ef\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That was a very long answer. I\u2019m sure that the Minister will be a little more concise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b064dd56673f4c1cb11c1242823abb92\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229cf1cfc21f1248502452520ec0b09c58\u0022\u003ELaura McClure\u003C/span\u003E: Will the Government reach its goal of 80 percent of children attending school for more than 90 percent of the term by 2030?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022adabd53a2c9d8531774c7e170de9686c\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I am confident that the Government will reach that goal, based on the progress, year on year, term on term, that has been made so far. It\u2019s particularly interesting to look at the level of data that we have now, which is showing us much greater insights into attendance than we previously had. For example, there are 54,245 children who if they had attended just one more day last term, would have reached regular attendance, or 90 percent of the time. Now, if they\u2019d done that, then we actually would have reached not 68.8 percent of children regularly attending but 75.5 percent\u2014very close to the 80 percent. The reason I highlight this is that we have so many children\u201454,000 - plus\u2014who are right on the cusp of regular attendance, and that is a good example of why every day counts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b064dd56673f4c1cb11c1242823abb92\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222bf63f0075478ff298492808a84345cd\u0022\u003ELaura McClure\u003C/span\u003E: What steps are being taken to improve attendance?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225684593bec9d4f880b73c92047fc9807\u0022\u003EHon Ginny Andersen\u003C/span\u003E: Break school lunches!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002212aa2210ea727e0a0e4781554fbfe171\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: I beg your pardon?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cfd98c5d939483cfcf3c080f835bfe02\u0022\u003EHon Ginny Andersen\u003C/span\u003E: School lunches.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ea24b5daa58cee16ea9b0d28d2016096\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it is absolutely true that school lunches are a good reason to go to school\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002207304ed37827f5d11adfec2c23fb6c70\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Just wait on. Don\u2019t respond in question time, while you\u2019ve got a question in front of you, to an interjection over here. I\u2019m sure\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cfed342d145e7897db61cc147341b836\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Can I just have a little go?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229c7214ebd1d37a0308c7d25c45fb0e9e\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: That was a patsy question. He\u2019s allowed to answer patsies from the Opposition.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222fe0746d813128da53f634733940ecb2\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m sure you can work it in, but if they really want an answer, they should be asking a question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002245b892bc6531f2cd896347cfd6d43c03\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Well, just going back to the question I was initially asked\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002234e70088475df35c8862ff083ede3184\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, no, no\u2014deal with the patsy!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b0b4ca11a5f80fcb00d6426c19eba8b5\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Ha, ha! I think her name\u2019s Ginny, but anyway. The Government has increased expenditure on school attendance by $140 million over four years. That has allowed us to significantly increase the investment in the attendance service. But we don\u2019t believe, on this side of the House, that simply throwing money at a problem is the same as actually solving it. We have also recontracted the attendance services after the Education Review Office\u2019s review found that they were not performing, in many cases. We have also legislated for attendance action plans at every school, and put in place the Stepped Attendance Response scheme, in order that every school has a plan to get every student at school, and back to school if they\u2019re not attending.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b064dd56673f4c1cb11c1242823abb92\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229ef3c6b0e146da24d4102e347b8e091a\u0022\u003ELaura McClure\u003C/span\u003E: Why is it important for kids to keep going to school in the last week of term?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222458c2723286c7c2a8465c0ffb7478a1\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve heard, anecdotally, that there\u2019s been some very busy days of late at Auckland Airport. It is tempting for people to take advantage of the last week of school and go somewhere sunnier\u2014or perhaps somewhere where there might be a world cup on\u2014that is not a good enough reason to miss a day of school. There are people who need to be there every day because every day of lost learning is a lost opportunity for their future and a lost opportunity to be able to do those sorts of things more in the future. There\u2019s 365 days a year, school is barely open 180 days a year, that leaves another 185 days to do everything else you want to do in life. And so people should be at school in this last week of term, because, as we saw in Vancouver just this Saturday, you can be doing pretty well for most of the time, you don\u2019t want to let it slip through your fingers in the last minutes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00221e646f6a29dbf4be4c2f8804fe8cbe8a\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00228daa33bfa65bf944ac405b7c96e6b5b9\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 3\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022 data-id=\u0022ef0e5e899cc394ce365463824fa6ee63\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ef0e5e899cc394ce365463824fa6ee63\u0022\u003ECHL\u00D6E SWARBRICK (Co-Leader\u2014Green) (14:15)\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000113\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=\u0022a0ca47b2e31646535d768123879f9f96\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a0ca47b2e31646535d768123879f9f96\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225a38fd116a5d2c7e4f9cc81973fe8b51\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: Has the Prime Minister read the recent Ministry of Housing and Urban Development report that states, \u201CAcross most areas, the number of people living without shelter was reported to be increasing over the last six months.\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b8106ac7d2e06099b135c1f1e1a5d5be\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: What I\u2019m aware of is that we have a good record in housing, where we see housing affordability the best it\u2019s been in a long time; we see rents stable and decreasing; we see the housing wait-list that went up four times under Labour now down about 6,000; we see, I think, about 2,400 kids out of emergency motel accommodation; and we see a Government that\u2019s doing a lot of effort\u2014a lot of investment going into homelessness.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022846d4106f807105f719017ed814a962f\u0022\u003EHon Dr Megan Woods\u003C/span\u003E: Record homelessness.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fa4d49784061da29b99a539dfc20fea2\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: They\u2019ve moved into housing\u20142,000 kids are in houses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224cf6c3522ee6e0cdd975d5ac858dc435\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Just a moment\u2014just a moment. The Hon Chris Bishop, questions are heard in silence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d077c1511e04341a515c71bf8661f8a9\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: Has the Prime Minister visited a city mission or social service on the front lines of homelessness since he became Prime Minister; and if so, when and who?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229fb0f958568d3eaba9c641fafb53d0e7\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: If you put the question in writing, I will give you an answer that way. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221d30d0d528f408018064265ec8bfe0f6\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Chl\u00F6e Swarbrick and no one else.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d1f857d5cb5bd441ceec23bf1927909d\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: When, if ever, will the Prime Minister respond to my multiple invitations to walk the streets of Auckland Central to meet the people, including the children, who his policies have made homeless?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229d3d4b6acba75ad4f5ee6404cef9ab32\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I think it\u2019s a bit rich from that member, whose colleague was the Minister for homelessness, and it went up 37\u00A0percent, and you spent a billion dollars on emergency housing, to stand up now and actually talk and pretend that you care about it, because you don\u2019t\u2014it was one of your biggest policy failures in the previous Government. This Government is cleaning it up. Homeownership: more affordable than it\u2019s ever been; rents: more stable; people off the social housing wait-list, which these clowns\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d7a573048c7792269f4567259cfeb861\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, hang on\u2014woah.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222cc501465d74991eb3f07cae7551ac75\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014drove up four times.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aa0b7e655ada22e34876eaf4b3376ebb\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I just suggest to\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E] Hang on. I\u2019m speaking; no one else. I just suggest that members answering questions need to consider Speakers\u2019 ruling 205/5\u2014well worth a quick look at it\u2014because answers to questions that begin like the last one do lead to disorder.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e1276d7f498f0178f86e1ca529dd2ed3\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: What would the Prime Minister say to the woman who turned up to my electorate office last week, who the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) had turned away knowing that she was therefore likely to sleep rough over the weekend?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002257260628c5326a9aa87d7e54d8f33e03\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I\u2019d say that I\u2019m sorry to hear about that, but I am very determined, as a Government, to make sure we are doing everything we can to deal with the issue of homelessness. I just ask the member to stop and reflect on what we have done. Since we saw the issue in October, we have put $10 million of additional funding in place; we\u2019ve had 177 enter new transitional housing; we\u2019ve had 1,500 support activities. By Auckland Council\u2019s own count, from September 2025, there were 940 people across the whole of Auckland they considered homeless; by January it had fallen to 706; and, in March, it\u2019s 586. If people need assistance, are in genuine need and need assistance, MSD and our support services are there to assist and to help. That\u2019s why this Government spends $550 million a year with agencies; that\u2019s why we spend $5.5 billion on the accommodation supplement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229d5b13d601794bb282d99453116ad395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002224ca143700a9b164ae62d6782be6efe0\u0022\u003EHon Tama Potaka\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Prime Minister please confirm that in the most recent homelessness insights report, now on the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development website, Auckland Council and reputable community housing providers like K\u0101hui T\u016B Kaha have all confirmed that the number of people sleeping rough in Auckland has come down considerably over nine months, correlated with the time we announced those 300 Housing First places?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002291761e5c50900c1558f1ccda5acc8161\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. We made 300 social houses available through Housing First; 289 of them are actually filled. We have transitional housing to the tune, I think, of over 5,800, and we\u2019ve got 91 percent utilisation rates. We have transitional housing available. People who actually apply for emergency housing\u2014MSD may well assess that they are better off in a social house, in a transitional house, in a private rental with rent arrears payments, and other mechanisms as well. It just may not be that a motel is the best place for someone to end up in. If we can get them into housing, that\u2019s a good thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225dacd805feadadb0321fcde4e90494d4\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: Will the Prime Minister commit to not rushing through the move-on orders law in the two weeks when it returns from the select committee and the House rises before the election, given that none of the parties of Government campaigned on this policy and the overwhelming expert, social services, business associations, and public opposition?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022be663c99fd207b11597a2def7c976ef8\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019re going to carry on with move-on orders, because they deal with a public safety issue; they deal with disorderly behaviour and antisocial behaviour. We want to make sure that New Zealanders feel safe going into their cities across this country. We don\u2019t want them being intimidated. We don\u2019t want people blocking doorways. We don\u2019t want threatening behaviour. That\u2019s what move-on orders are about. As I\u2019ve said to the member before, in the same way we were criticised by the Opposition over gang patches\u2014that it wouldn\u2019t work\u2014our police are plugged into the social services. Every single homeless situation is different. It is complex, as that Government found out last time, driving up homelessness 37 percent. I just say to the member: we will continue to support people who are rough sleeping, and I\u2019m proud of the fact we put $10 million in, the initiatives are working, and, as a result, we\u2019ve got another $14.5 million rolling out in the last month to expand it to six other locations across New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ccfd5e1205cf2565df7f8787a8c46275\u0022\u003EHon David Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Prime Minister expect that the onset of move-on orders will make it safer to move about the Auckland Central electorate, particularly after dark, when people want to enjoy the many good things it has to offer?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e882cb175967225ca8b064a6e40b633e\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Absolutely. This is about public safety and public security; making sure disorderly, disruptive, threatening behaviour isn\u2019t happening, and that\u2019s important. We want all New Zealanders to be able to get into their cities and feel safe doing so.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002267a7d15f0f851fda5c985148097af2c0\u0022\u003EFinance\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00224ecc10dac33b604bf701debab79a3f94\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 4\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022784f4e929aed4ea6a05d1a10add6eccb\u0022 data-id=\u00226a0b20dcb3fea7cc487cc6bff06a23f3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022784f4e929aed4ea6a05d1a10add6eccb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226a0b20dcb3fea7cc487cc6bff06a23f3\u0022\u003ERYAN HAMILTON (National\u2014Hamilton East) (14:22)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Finance\u003C/span\u003E: How is the Government planning to lift economic growth and productivity?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022 data-id=\u002235284d64745ad422cc1921208cd82c3c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002235284d64745ad422cc1921208cd82c3c\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:22)\u003C/span\u003E: New Zealand\u2019s economy was recovering and growth reforms were beginning to gain traction before recent events in the Middle East. Since coming into office, the Government has delivered or progressed more than 100 actions across the five pillars of Going For Growth. Those include Investment Boost, rewarding firms for capital investment in growth; fast-track approvals, supporting thousands of jobs and developments across the country; the India free-trade agreement (FTA), supporting growing exports; reforms to vocational education; and major investment and infrastructure and advanced technology. Recent GDP figures show the economy grew by 0.8 percent in the March quarter\u2014more than twice Treasury\u2019s Budget forecast, and faster than growth in Australia or the US\u2014while business investment rose by 3.7 percent and exports increased by 3.1 percent. Those results show the Government\u2019s growth agenda is unlocking economic momentum, with New Zealanders now beginning to see their hard work translate into stronger growth, higher investments, and more job opportunities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022784f4e929aed4ea6a05d1a10add6eccb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002279d7398b408d461bd85e147bba6ddb83\u0022\u003ERyan Hamilton\u003C/span\u003E: What actions has the Government taken to make it easier for businesses to invest and grow?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a3aa0c5b7d8a9008f661a345a0122de5\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: The Government has moved quickly to remove barriers holding back investment and economic activity. That includes passing fast-track legislation, introducing Investment Boost to lower the cost of capital investment, extending 90-day trials to all employers, repealing mandated sector-wide employment agreements, and progressing reforms to the Holidays Act and health and safety laws. We\u2019ve also strengthened competition settings in the banking and electricity sectors, because more competitive markets help lower costs and drive innovation. These changes are about making it easier to build, invest, hire, and grow in New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022784f4e929aed4ea6a05d1a10add6eccb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226c3b7f52e3c10ae2f2485bea9e118aa4\u0022\u003ERyan Hamilton\u003C/span\u003E: What progress has the Government made on trade and investment?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220af8c84cd8b790e7af85507ffac641f1\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: The Government has prioritised reconnecting New Zealand with global markets and capital. Since taking office, we\u2019ve signed a free-trade agreement with India, concluded an FTA with the Gulf States, advanced implementation of the UAE trade agreement, and strengthened trade relationships across Asia and Europe. We\u2019ve also introduced newer Active Investor Plus settings to attract more international capital into productive New Zealand investments. That matters because export growth, capital investment, and international connections are critical to lifting productivity and wages over the long term. It\u2019s also worth noting that the latest ANZ New Zealand Business Outlook showed a 27-point positive jump in business confidence, and, notably, most of the lift actually preceded the sharp fall in oil prices mid month.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022784f4e929aed4ea6a05d1a10add6eccb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b37a77397e230f737581046537b182e3\u0022\u003ERyan Hamilton\u003C/span\u003E: What is the Government doing to lift long-term productivity and skills?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ca5a8a8f63497f4304f52475fc438077\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: The Government is focused on creating the conditions for business and workers to become more productive over time. That includes investing in job-rich infrastructure; strengthening capital markets; encouraging greater business investment in technology, plant, and machinery; and improving education and workforce skills. We\u2019re reforming vocational education through new polytechs and industry skills boards, introducing an hour a day of reading, writing, and maths in schools, backing advanced technologies and science and innovation through initiatives like New Zealand\u2019s first AI strategy. Recent GDP figures showed strong growth in manufacturing, wholesale trade, and business investment\u2014all positive signs that more productive parts of the economy are beginning to recover and expand. The Government\u2019s view is simple: stronger productivity is the key to higher wages, more resilient businesses, and a more prosperous country with more opportunities for every Kiwi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00223fca269548fbed159a5f3e93c25620b7\u0022\u003EFinance\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002257e5277096e2679f531bfa68f26c2aad\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 5\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022 data-id=\u0022626afe53392acd305ec85a6896490ba9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022626afe53392acd305ec85a6896490ba9\u0022\u003EHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour\u2014Mana) (14:26)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Finance\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022gil\u0022\u003EKam na mauri,\u003C/span\u003E Mr Speaker. 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=\u00228372aac80b472ff9495a18f19994520f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228372aac80b472ff9495a18f19994520f\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:26)\u003C/span\u003E: In context, yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b34eaab7a7f0995d8f01d7382d177a03\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: Is unemployment better or worse compared to when she took office?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226c576caed3ff2395651f79714077c395\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: The member knows very well that the New Zealand economy has been through a very difficult recovery in which unemployment has increased.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227587781346f0228d0a526041eed196c8\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: Are growth forecasts better or worse compared to when she took office?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022854edbbfee36bba5ea23e6f740e238b4\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: The most recent forecasts which the Treasury provided at the Budget and Economic Fiscal Update show growth accelerating through the forecast period, reaching a high of over 3 percent, and averaging 2.3 percent over the forecast period.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223d3d0c3786c2a01a46772c0347557ff3\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: Is the number of KiwiSaver hardship withdrawals higher or lower compared to when she took office?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022170bc60260301de1970eb6aa4bed6398\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: While there was an increase in those withdrawals, I\u2019m very pleased to report to the House that the latest data shows the first drop in hardship withdrawals in the most recent data.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c44ad4a4f2280f9b86e89971673402fb\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: Are business liquidations higher or lower compared to when she took office?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223a447208f051ed5b3c6c26722d03ab05\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Business liquidations obviously relate to a number of factors. One of the factors that has driven many businesses into liquidation is the fact that the last Government during its COVID response chose to defer tax payments that eventually became due, and it is IRD\u2019s advice that that approach was ultimately harmful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022892adb39282b25b85ea59aa1e3f22235\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: Are Kiwis better or worse off in real terms compared to when she took office?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e361dd3f6a2581ca36e1e39ba8a54de4\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s a fact that people\u2019s circumstances vary, and it is of course the case that some New Zealanders are suffering from worse circumstances than they were three years ago. It\u2019s also the case that some New Zealanders are facing much better circumstances. I think of the families whose children are going to school now and getting a programme of structured literacy and numeracy, and getting real reports about what their children are achieving at school; I think about the people who are waiting less time for their elective surgery or emergency operations; I think of the New Zealand police, who are stronger in numbers and are better equipped with better sentencing laws to ensure that criminals go to court; and I think of the New Zealanders who suffered double-digit inflation in food prices under the last Government\u2019s watch who\u2019ve watched those numbers come down. I could go on but question time is not a time for lists, but thank you for the patsy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002282d9cd4cbe94a2f3fc1dd4fed245c1f6\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Has the finance Minister got any historic evidence that business\u2019 or workers\u2019 futures would be better off if Labour was in office?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224362b5d5830d95a540bb0b2f3d776de7\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, that\u2019s not something that she can reasonably speculate on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b9122f42e7871e7c02ea34c696f30503\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, I said historic\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f385b82f20ad263b50f5881f79429573\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Wait on, don\u2019t argue. I\u2019m just saying it needs to be a brief response.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222bb5ae7056d3d170180f1e77f5520dc3\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: The evidence is clear they would be a lot worse off. Inflation would be higher, interest rates\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022626f3df1fbe5a60ccfbe2297344d21e9\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, no. See, there\u2019s the problem\u2014there\u2019s the problem. A simple answer would have been \u201Cyes\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002237b238023fb6649bb5572c97aa1a77b5\u0022\u003EInfrastructure\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00224bcd91ca93b0d23feaaab0888de1ea05\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 6\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002227d19573a8ba4d8283b17374978c8ea2\u0022 data-id=\u0022268cae81af4f198cee7f250c083cac3e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227d19573a8ba4d8283b17374978c8ea2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022268cae81af4f198cee7f250c083cac3e\u0022\u003EGRANT McCALLUM (National\u2014Northland) (14:29)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister for Infrastructure\u003C/span\u003E: What updates has he seen on the fast-track approvals scheme?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022e9724917bda0fd47be4a72b80fdad9e6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e9724917bda0fd47be4a72b80fdad9e6\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister for Infrastructure) (14:30)\u003C/span\u003E: The Government\u2019s fast-track regime is delivering. I\u2019m pleased to inform the House that we\u2019re on track to see around 50 decisions from expert panels by the end of the year. Fast track was designed to get important projects moving faster, create jobs, boost growth, and help tackle our infrastructure, housing, and energy challenges. Twenty-two projects are currently before expert panels, with decisions due over the coming months; another seven projects are undergoing pre-panel checks; and 55 projects are currently progressing through fast track at various stages.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227d19573a8ba4d8283b17374978c8ea2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002232033446214287084ba854c4f759236f\u0022\u003EGrant McCallum\u003C/span\u003E: What evidence has he seen that fast track is delivering better outcomes for New Zealanders?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002201fb9fd6d4f4b34273c839003a90fcd8\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Around 8,900 homes have been approved for fast track so far. In terms of renewable energy, 400 megawatts of new generation capacity has been consented\u2014that\u2019s equivalent to almost 5 percent of New Zealand\u2019s current generation\u2014and that powers around 160,000 homes. Fast track is helping us deliver more homes, more renewable energy, more infrastructure, and, indeed, more opportunities for New Zealanders, helping us to build the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227d19573a8ba4d8283b17374978c8ea2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a6f8d5437ab982d15e6e701053d5e21b\u0022\u003EGrant McCallum\u003C/span\u003E: What evidence has he seen that fast track is not a short cut around proper planning?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cd51d7f907691ddd60fc763369a47f89\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, fast track has never been something that short-cuts things. The scaremongering has been quite interesting. Projects have been approved, with robust decisions, and projects that have not met the threshold have not received approval. I\u2019ll give you one example, and this is Rangitoopuni, an iwi-led housing development in north-west Auckland. It has received the 2026 New Zealand Planning Institute Best Practice Award for statutory planning. It was also a listed project in the fast track Act. It moved from concept design to a consent approval within 10 months. It just shows that the naysayers are wrong: we can balance the economy and the environment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227d19573a8ba4d8283b17374978c8ea2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002242d3606148de310255dedbb9333c5b89\u0022\u003EGrant McCallum\u003C/span\u003E: What other pieces of feedback has the Minister seen showing the robustness of the fast-track process?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dee6ade1e8ade1a7afddb4c3b54660d5\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Let me point the House to two examples. Dentons made the point last year\u2014it\u2019s a leading law firm\u2014that fast track is operating and decisions are being made quickly, \u201Cbut the front-end work is still intensive\u201D, but the front-end work pays off in the end because the average time to make a decision is 117 working days, which is far quicker than traditional consenting processes. Law firm Cooney Lees Morgan also noted, \u201CThe Act offers a fast track through standard consenting processes, but it\u2019s not a short cut.\u201D Fast track is delivering for New Zealanders, and long may that continue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002242d8ac0aeb339b789013f717bbcb08cb\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Has Rachel Brooking from Dunedin\u2014who\u2019s very high up on the list\u2014who\u2019s been shouting out during all your answers, produced one fast-track idea since she\u2019s been here?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c748ec586d24c00c5e9669b13fb17c04\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, that\u2019s\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EMinister Bishop rises to his feet\u003C/span\u003E] No, no, no, let it go\u2014thank you. No answer there\u2014you\u2019ve got absolutely no responsibility for anything that some other politician here in the House does.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022da726c432df3ecf42a4878b146aa2068\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00223dd666a55334e8ab568a64244aa0fe69\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 7\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022 data-id=\u0022c8a989a679837a580851161929b3e9af\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c8a989a679837a580851161929b3e9af\u0022\u003EHon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader\u2014Green) (14:33)\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003E[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsTerm\u0022 style=\u0022font-style: italic\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=\u002228db704bee0961bb4bfac44d439f96de\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002228db704bee0961bb4bfac44d439f96de\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:33)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223e4d10fb0c96228ede5539df7504f498\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: What is the purpose of the Conservation Act?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002240979a36c0522662010ad486fbe5ccd1\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, we know the purpose. It\u2019s to make sure we look after our iconic conservation across this great country of ours, but we also need to balance it with doing the right thing economically, because that\u2019s ultimately also how we preserve that conservation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dd1790f51c427f1a027ba30d1f8efab7\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Can he confirm that the Conservation Act defines \u201Cconservation\u201D as \u201Cthe preservation and protection of natural and historic resources for the purpose of maintaining their\u201D\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002299b05c3f678cb7c598971b7bee1dfdb5\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Well, why did you ask the last question, then?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ed7f516f88ef4cb48e3a7b95e5adebd5\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014\u201Cintrinsic values, providing for their appreciation and\u201D\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d71d4363235d76abf46fccd567fd8704\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Why did you ask the last question?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022594314acef89841537442e48b52bdafa\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll just wait till the dude stops talking.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a58d601ea00d069bbf955018c654be7a\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, I think\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221a4b65b301785053c1731a6ffcef0045\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That questioner, in her last question, asked about the purpose of the Act and then got up and explained what the question was in the first place, and she\u2019s just wasting Parliament\u2019s time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b73fd68bbdb4fb0678a4c47d5efc27b8\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: She\u2019s ultimately wasting her own time and her own questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b8fd69ab676710be9c1efdd6ba7bab0a\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll start again. Can he confirm that the Conservation Act defines \u201Cconservation\u201D as \u201Cthe preservation and protection of natural and historic resources for the purpose of maintaining their intrinsic values, providing for their appreciation and recreational enjoyment by the public, and safeguarding the options of future generations\u201D, and, if so, can he explain how giving greater weight to economic use is consistent with this definition?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002234a6d47b5f9f6a05294ff630f1b764bc\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: In answer to the first leg of the question, yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022049c536352e4fae3b4ee38a106dfb344\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Does he agree with the deputy leader of New Zealand First that \u201Cthere are a host of projects beyond Schedule 4 lands that can be and should be opened up for industry\u201D, and, if so, can he confirm that these lands include conservation parks and ecological areas?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d0766c914d6059656f990ea30060c49c\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m not responsible for what the Minister for Resources says. What I\u2019d just say to the member here is that we are making sure that we actually engage with the sector, we engage with the NGOs, and we make sure that we get the balance right between the environmental outcomes\u2014we want strong and enduring conservation outcomes\u2014as well as making sure we also support greater economic development in the estate too.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022755443ed1aa4e9ef8c39addc4915059b\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it an appropriate response for the Prime Minister to claim to the House that he is not responsible for comments made by his own Ministers?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a7f9a5a923cf6f5dc07b12a3edf7878e\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I think, in the context of the question that was asked, I personally understood what the Prime Minister was trying to say, but it is reality that the Prime Minister is responsible for all actions of the Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dca0e6f9facfeb2a763d4eb6da3a359e\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: The question was about the deputy leader of New Zealand First.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220f6fcd67f70a2a3d2387655ae6f0f5f5\u0022\u003EHon Dr Megan Woods\u003C/span\u003E: You said, \u201Cthe Minister\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002256c8fa5e22760bc9d5cf5726d965a2dd\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, whoop-de-doo!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002295d3e217f1c9fca2cbd2dbb1325c92d9\u0022\u003EHon Dr Megan Woods\u003C/span\u003E: Do your job.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002252e2c9ffb33d811999c157a4f95dc7ba\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: All right\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229bcf361925c09836c2acb50a83c44323\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Hang on\u2014hang on. One person has the floor at the moment\u2014the Hon Marama Davidson.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002298925e9fa0531b351e247273d7badddf\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Will the Prime Minister assure New Zealanders that our precious places are safe by maintaining their protection in legislation instead of just asking us to trust him?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223bf9dbd8a7d617559dc28c5f07e6e352\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: In answer to the first leg of the question, yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c2205ecfe9929837b475cf50a5c356de\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: What is the purpose of the public conservation estate; to generate revenue for the Crown or to protect the precious places that New Zealanders love?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022247f1d31639bd70a20faefead64519e0\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: We want to make sure we can do both. We can actually have strong and enduring conservation outcomes while also supporting greater economic development, and that\u2019s why the Minister is in conversation with the NGOs, with sector leaders, and with iwi as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00224c8e208fbf5506de8e083e41834a90f1\u0022\u003EHousing\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022cd0c890e8b1b452bb729977719aaa9d4\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 8\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022 data-id=\u00223cb42e931179d3d0789b4c128e812295\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223cb42e931179d3d0789b4c128e812295\u0022\u003EHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (14:37)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EAssociate Minister of Housing\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by his response to being asked if he was comfortable with managers being individually assessed on whether or not emergency housing targets were met in their region, \u201CNo. That would be something that I\u2019d ask the chief executive at MSD about\u201D; if so, has he had that conversation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229d5b13d601794bb282d99453116ad395\u0022 data-id=\u0022b25c5c920d318f33bc65ab5ced17e80d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229d5b13d601794bb282d99453116ad395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b25c5c920d318f33bc65ab5ced17e80d\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing) (14:37)\u003C/span\u003E: I stand by my statement, particularly in the context it was made, and noting that the CEO of Te Manat\u016B Whakahiato Ora, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), has the operational responsibility for human resources (HR) and performance management at the department. I\u2019ve spoken with the CEO\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b4edf5cc26144124a596ba7c5fba214f\u0022\u003EHon Willie Jackson\u003C/span\u003E: Stop using M\u0101ori words.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229d5b13d601794bb282d99453116ad395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002279cebb803300c1e8b2656bf740775568\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014to confirm that she has\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022819f7f45fb0cb3bb67f84a9292729fef\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, just stop there. This is a fairly important question. The member asking the question knows how important it is. His own colleagues should at least be quiet to hear the answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229d5b13d601794bb282d99453116ad395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022130ec7c5d93eb8aae937c7b7c7e47d97\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA\u003C/span\u003E: I stand by my statement, particularly in the context it was made, that the CEO of MSD has the operational responsibility for HR and performance management at the Ministry of Social Development Te Manat\u016B Whakahiato Ora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221f5923f83935aef114cb6602540b648a\u0022\u003EHon Willie Jackson\u003C/span\u003E: Don\u2019t use those M\u0101ori words.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229d5b13d601794bb282d99453116ad395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228658d1d21226aec53666f5636cae8ad9\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve spoken with the CEO to confirm that she has that operational responsibility.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002232cf85691f16e177135916d3ca7357ba\u0022\u003EHon Willie Jackson\u003C/span\u003E: Winston doesn\u2019t like those words.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022375bbdb09af322e81899a2311516f9e6\u0022\u003EHon David Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Twice while the Minister was answering the question, we heard the Opposition calling out \u201CDon\u2019t use M\u0101ori words\u201D. The exact people who would be offended if anyone didn\u2019t use M\u0101ori words are now taking offence at people speaking te reo M\u0101ori. What\u2019s the problem?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002299fd374af9b590aa06559ab43cd70104\u0022\u003EHon Members: \u003C/span\u003EWhat\u2019s your point of order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022954a0b107dbdfb7c85815d8b6749d4ac\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: His point of order is a valid one, in actual fact, and it touches a nerve with me because after once being very publicly criticised for using te reo M\u0101ori, apart from what I\u2019ve just said, I\u2019ve never used it again. We\u2019ll move on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f444692245477561e69e2e473f6f79f3\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: When did that conversation occur?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229d5b13d601794bb282d99453116ad395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002296be33387b593b437187e22c938b9091\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA\u003C/span\u003E: That conversation occurred yesterday by way of phone call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022890e0d9e54d820d4102e28a9a847d2c4\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Did he request the CEO of MSD to remove the threat of performance management if MSD staff admit people in need into emergency housing?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229d5b13d601794bb282d99453116ad395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f25bfd34402c85c046f5d29dcf1735ee\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA\u003C/span\u003E: No, we confirmed who has the operational responsibility for human resources and performance management issues. Shortly thereafter Te Manat\u016B Whakahiato Ora also confirmed the massive reduction in the numbers of children living in emergency housing from over 3,000 in December 2023 to circa 400 today. I call that progress.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221ca514d7ca658f5707b29716d60ba599\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Why, when he has stated he is not comfortable with Ministry of Social Development staff being threatened with performance management if they admit people into emergency housing, did he not ask for that criteria to be removed?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229d5b13d601794bb282d99453116ad395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223b155088e5829febbfbf4e174d6439ab\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA\u003C/span\u003E: In the context of the full and comprehensive k\u014Drero in which this statement was taken, I am clear that the operational responsibility for human resources and performance management sits squarely with the CEO, the tumu kaimahi, of the Ministry of Social Development.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b3ed182be8d6e523427c1aee05b03820\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. Sir, Speakers\u2019 ruling 181/5 makes it very clear that even where there is no legal responsibility on a Minister, they are responsible to the House to answer to the actions and decisions of Government departments they are responsible for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ed9385a5b650121fb5ac0b2557cac32\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, that\u2019s true, but I don\u2019t think that the answer that was given by the Hon Tama Potaka in any way stepped aside from that. He said in a conversation that he had established with the chief executive what the various roles were.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002251a2757b235b898982c14d791b713f11\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Is Jill Hawkey from Christchurch Methodist Mission wrong when she said there is a \u201Cperverse incentive to actually keep people out of emergency housing.\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229d5b13d601794bb282d99453116ad395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002248f5914c2fdccee5cfbef286dec67847\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA\u003C/span\u003E: Jill Hawkey from this Methodist Mission in Christchurch is entitled to her own opinions. What I can observe from a range of commentaries and observations is that there has been a significant decline in those people in households\u2014and children living in emergency housing\u2014and also a significant decline in people sleeping rough in various cities around New Zealand, particularly in Auckland.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022321a77d39f003edab0fa2fe2a0e96e53\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Will he now admit that front-line providers were right all along when they\u2019ve said that people in genuine need are being denied emergency housing just so the Government can claim that it\u2019s met its target?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229d5b13d601794bb282d99453116ad395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226a1606c9cb33e4227d99edca9a7029c8\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA\u003C/span\u003E: A number of front-line providers have absolutely been energised by the type of support that this Government has given, particularly around immediate access to transitional housing. The Housing First 300 kaupapa that Minister Bishop and I recently announced in September 2025, which has resulted in 694 people coming out of a very difficult rough sleeping situation and into the Housing First places. I call that progress.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a593b625925cadfd020b11f9871ea266\u0022\u003EHousing\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00227eb9a02cf87259b0e3d6eb30316eb3c2\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 9\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c4ca4cc5411f4905b1e974d906283186\u0022 data-id=\u002209c6a004c68df7e392b8cbb9c129b043\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4ca4cc5411f4905b1e974d906283186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002209c6a004c68df7e392b8cbb9c129b043\u0022\u003EMARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Tai Tokerau) (14:42)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EAssociate Minister of Housing\u003C/span\u003E: Does he agree with the Ministry of Social Development\u2019s use of performance measures that assess managers against emergency housing grant targets?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229d5b13d601794bb282d99453116ad395\u0022 data-id=\u002235d31db0feb97fb0dd9f30056cbd7afe\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229d5b13d601794bb282d99453116ad395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002235d31db0feb97fb0dd9f30056cbd7afe\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing) (14:42)\u003C/span\u003E: I agree with the statement that I\u2019ve given in a previous answer: the Ministry of Social Development\u2019s (MSD) CEO, the \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Etumu kaimahi\u003C/span\u003E of Te Manat\u016B Whakahiato Ora, has the operational responsibility for human resources and performance management issues at that agency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022792ffc802862b01385bb9df28b5526d0\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. This is the same point I made earlier: this was a question on notice, and simply having the Minister respond saying that the CEO of MSD has operational responsibility is neither meeting the requirements for a response to a primary question nor meeting the requirements under Speakers\u2019 ruling 181/5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002293151368b1bba6df6a08909cb8e417c1\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, look, Ministers are answerable to the House for operational matters, even when there\u2019s no legal control over them, because only a Minister can answer to the House. If they don\u2019t have the details on hand, then they should say they don\u2019t have those details on hand. In this case, the Minister did say that he was comfortable with the operational arrangements that he then went on to speak of, and that\u2019s a statement about his position in all of that. If a Minister does not have the information about an operational matter, they should just say so because they do remain the only voice to answer that question in the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4ca4cc5411f4905b1e974d906283186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e594d0c42148d923d6b6db6290b09fc5\u0022\u003EMariameno Kapa-Kingi\u003C/span\u003E: What response has he received from the chief executive of MSD regarding whether managers are individually assessed against emergency housing grant targets?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229d5b13d601794bb282d99453116ad395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222dddf8dda937b689d43fb6fa7c5dc0db\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA\u003C/span\u003E: As I mentioned earlier this afternoon, the CEO of the Ministry of Social Development has confirmed that she has the operational responsibility for human resources and performance management issues. I\u2019m also aware of some reports that have said that people do not lose their job on the basis of one particular matter that\u2019s used in the performance management arrangements.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4ca4cc5411f4905b1e974d906283186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220e0f2c29f251bb08e7d5bf882cfdd4f1\u0022\u003EMariameno Kapa-Kingi\u003C/span\u003E: Has he received any advice that assessing managers against emergency housing grant targets could discourage emergency housing grants for eligible people?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229d5b13d601794bb282d99453116ad395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022478c46c3790dbb4c602b9eefc8c6a0f1\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m not aware of that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4ca4cc5411f4905b1e974d906283186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a1882ea188b6a2ee0c6178edd54c8b58\u0022\u003EMariameno Kapa-Kingi\u003C/span\u003E: What evidence does he have that these performance measures have improved outcomes for the 525 people, including 102 children, who were homeless in the Far North in 2025?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229d5b13d601794bb282d99453116ad395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223ab8fdfe07b8885d780ece6b9ec89a60\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA\u003C/span\u003E: I want to acknowledge those hard-working, diligent, and professional kaimahi at the Ministry of Social Development for the work that they have been doing to support New Zealanders, particularly those in housing need. There are some severe and challenging situations with people in Northland and, indeed, in a range of rohe, regions, places, and towns in New Zealand, and this Government has sought to make sure that there\u2019s adequate financial and other support in place to support those people with housing need. For example, the many hundreds of millions of dollars that have been put into transitional housing, rapid rehousing, Housing First, and a range of other pathways to support those in housing need. And, of course, just recently, the $14.5 million that has been provided for outreach in Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington, Christchurch, Tauranga, Whakat\u0101ne, New Plymouth, Palmerston North, Wanganui, and Waimakariri.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022837082e1ba730e4af339e110f7e02e6f\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Minister confirm that the Far North is specifically identified by the Government\u2019s housing investment plan as an area for future growth, reflecting the real housing need in the Far North?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229d5b13d601794bb282d99453116ad395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229c10f335886a03ad0c36576e546714f6\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I can confirm that. I can also confirm that over the last 10 years, nearly half a billion dollars has been committed to the building of social housing, transitional housing, and a range of M\u0101ori housing providers, including Te Aup\u014Duri, which the member opposite recently was the kaiwhakahaere of; Ng\u0101ti Kahu ki Whangaroa, Te Hau Ora O Ng\u0101puhi, Te Pouahi, Te Rarawa, Ng\u0101ti Kur\u012B, and a range of other providers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4ca4cc5411f4905b1e974d906283186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e85d3767a4626dc51e377a8b3c7957c7\u0022\u003EMariameno Kapa-Kingi\u003C/span\u003E: Therefore, how does he reconcile those performance measures with Housing First reporting that around half of unhoused people in Te Tai Tokerau have already waited between two and three years for permanent housing?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229d5b13d601794bb282d99453116ad395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224404ef9a83feb7750cb5e1033a78ba59\u0022\u003EHon TAMA POTAKA\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s exactly why I\u2019m absolutely committed to supporting those M\u0101ori housing providers and others who have been contracted to deliver literally hundreds of homes in the Tai Tokerau region. We acknowledge those efforts of people like Te Hau Ora O Ng\u0101puhi up at Bisset Road in Kaikohe, one of the most impoverished places in the entire country, who are currently building 100 homes to ensure that we have the accountability across those providers who have been given contractual commitments, who have been given money to deliver in a timely and appropriate manner for those wh\u0101nau\u2014M\u0101ori, P\u0101keh\u0101; all New Zealanders\u2014in need.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022aeb84c3afa2244fceaf76c6a26ea5852\u0022\u003EHealth\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002287e31fe631c214d7592baaf3531d5177\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c96149a439844ecfa86967f9caf5f50d\u0022 data-id=\u002283e7934a9c379954693dce40d2942063\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c96149a439844ecfa86967f9caf5f50d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002283e7934a9c379954693dce40d2942063\u0022\u003EKATIE NIMON (National\u2014Napier) (14:48)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Health\u003C/span\u003E: What recent announcements has he made regarding funding uplifts for primary and community services?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u0022e98192b9f268f29a124c83c6e8e716c4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e98192b9f268f29a124c83c6e8e716c4\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:48)\u003C/span\u003E: This Government is backing front-line health services across New Zealand with funding uplifts for the providers who care for patients in our communities every day. In recent weeks, we have announced a major $120 million funding uplift for general practice, which has received overwhelming support from the sector with 86 percent of GP clinics voting in favour; a $33 million boost for community pharmacies to strengthen access to healthcare closer to home; a $12 million funding uplift for hospices to support end-of-life care services across New Zealand; and a funding increase worth approximately $79 million for the aged residential care sector, to support the care of older New Zealanders. Together, these investments demonstrate this Government\u2019s commitment to strengthening healthcare, improving access to services, and ensuring front-line providers have the certainty and support they need to deliver for their patients.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c96149a439844ecfa86967f9caf5f50d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cba1883c3647eee534f775206ed18dab\u0022\u003EKatie Nimon\u003C/span\u003E: Why is the Government investing in primary care and community pharmacies?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ba9fb92b9337cc5dd9aa16050fa4f314\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: Well, we understand that strong healthcare in the community forms the foundation of our health system, and that is why we\u2019ve delivered a major funding uplift for general practice and a further funding increase for community pharmacies. Local doctors and pharmacists are often the first people New Zealanders turn to when they need healthcare. They help diagnose illnesses earlier, manage long-term conditions, provide treatment closer to home. The uplift will also continue funding to treat common conditions in the community for children and their families, for pain and fever management, oral rehydration, and common conditions such as scabies, head lice, and conjunctivitis. By investing in primary care and pharmacies, we\u2019re making it easier for New Zealanders to get timely care in the community.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c96149a439844ecfa86967f9caf5f50d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224c421c911f888184cc4cf731a4492f60\u0022\u003EKatie Nimon\u003C/span\u003E: What support is the Government providing for hospices and aged residential care providers?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229803aa7bfe9153bc3f3649e3d5b39a24\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: This Government is also backing the providers who care for some of the most vulnerable New Zealanders. Recently, we announced a major funding uplift for hospices across the country. That\u2019s because every family deserves access to compassionate, high-quality care during some of life\u2019s most difficult moments. This funding will support hospice staff and volunteers to continue doing their extraordinary work supporting patients and their loved ones with dignity and compassion at the end of life. This uplift sits alongside a separate investment to establish a nationally consistent specialist paediatric palliative care service for children with serious illnesses. We\u2019ve also agreed a funding uplift for aged residential care providers. This uplift will help providers meet growing demand, support weekend admissions, and continue delivering the care that tens of thousands of New Zealanders and their families rely on every day.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c96149a439844ecfa86967f9caf5f50d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022637eb401cb50ce73a5d53c3d32938b28\u0022\u003EKatie Nimon\u003C/span\u003E: What feedback has he received on these funding uplifts?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d57ce15f07b1d12c3f88d07bd7ec863f\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: There has been positive feedback to these announcements. The general practice uplift was supported by 86 percent of GP clinics across New Zealand, with General Practice NZ acknowledging this as a \u201Csubstantial investment in general practice\u201D, and the General Practice Owners Association seeing this as a \u201Chistoric moment for general practice\u201D. Hospice New Zealand has also welcomed their sector\u2019s uplift, stating that \u201CThis isn\u2019t simply more money being allocated based on existing Government investment, which we\u2019ve seen in the past. It is targeted investment designed to improve sustainability, strengthen access, and move us toward more consistent services for hospice patients.\u201D Whether it is GPs, hospices, aged residential care providers, or community pharmacies, this Government is backing the front-line health services that New Zealanders rely on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ee805eb7e7e0da09f513d92395ce0d42\u0022\u003ETertiary Education\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002235c3da9e024cc7eeba5864da224bc8bf\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225322e0a4529b497cbc59faf0515037dd\u0022 data-id=\u00220c31919c11f50b96234a67d3a3931c76\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225322e0a4529b497cbc59faf0515037dd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220c31919c11f50b96234a67d3a3931c76\u0022\u003ESHANAN HALBERT (Labour) (14:52)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister for Tertiary Education\u003C/span\u003E: Does she stand by her statement, \u201CHaving the confidence to build and strengthen your team is important, especially when many businesses are doing it tough right now\u201D; if so, why did she limit the Apprenticeship Boost?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224680dcac294f4cd5bdd3a5a7ed5a3bb9\u0022 data-id=\u00225a3d0209ca20bed4167c6f30e91d8b3e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224680dcac294f4cd5bdd3a5a7ed5a3bb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225a3d0209ca20bed4167c6f30e91d8b3e\u0022\u003EHon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Tertiary Education) (14:52)\u003C/span\u003E: In answer to the first part of the question, yes. Which is precisely why this Government is focused on growing the economy to create more jobs and better incomes for New Zealanders. In answer to the second part of the question, Apprenticeship Boost was among the many funding gaps left by the previous Government. In the 2024 Budget, this Government reinstated funding for Apprenticeship Boost; we made it permanent and we targeted towards high-growth economic areas and to address skill shortages. Early-stage apprentices were identified as having a higher risk of unemployment during challenging economic conditions, and changes were designed to better target support to those most in need.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225322e0a4529b497cbc59faf0515037dd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022776cd2a9c357f55562738ee577f1de23\u0022\u003EShanan Halbert\u003C/span\u003E: How does the reduction in the number of apprentices help set New Zealand up for the future?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224680dcac294f4cd5bdd3a5a7ed5a3bb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226a084e54a54e2f3927604ca8fc436ec0\u0022\u003EHon PENNY SIMMONDS\u003C/span\u003E: Under the previous Government, Apprenticeship Boost did increase apprentice numbers. However, many of those additional learners have now withdrawn. We saw, during those years, a significant decline in credit completion rates. Credit completion rate rates were down at 67 percent; they are now up at 86 percent. Retention rates have also increased under this Government. So simply pouring more money in and getting worse results is not good use of public funding.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225322e0a4529b497cbc59faf0515037dd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002270b1a1052b1d701d9a254b8b8b795f88\u0022\u003EShanan Halbert\u003C/span\u003E: How did cutting Apprenticeship Boost in half help reduce workforce shortages?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224680dcac294f4cd5bdd3a5a7ed5a3bb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228b61b18f217b41bcf9ae0ac2846f9bb5\u0022\u003EHon PENNY SIMMONDS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I have noted already that this Government did not cut Apprenticeship Boost. This Government reinstated funding for Apprenticeship Boost.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225322e0a4529b497cbc59faf0515037dd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227000c8e596730161674e0f2802b62dda\u0022\u003EShanan Halbert\u003C/span\u003E: Is she surprised that the number of young people not in education, employment, or training (NEET) reached 100,000 under her watch, given that her answer to everything is to reduce opportunities for young people?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224680dcac294f4cd5bdd3a5a7ed5a3bb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c7e930eb48358da4a1e86118285ef9b4\u0022\u003EHon PENNY SIMMONDS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, there are a number of initiatives, across a range of portfolios, including the Ministry of Social Development and the Ministry of Education, things like Youth Guarantee, things like Apprenticeship Boost, which we saved, and a number of other initiatives that support young NEETs for getting into employment. And, of course, the wonderful work that has been done by the Minister of Education, ensuring there are vocational pathways, will have that pipeline of young people to go into apprenticeships.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224da7c66dfb7649cebcd9441ca434bac3\u0022\u003EHon Nicola Willis\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Minister confirm that Budget 2023 cut off funding for Apprenticeship Boost, with zero dollars provided for the scheme in the 2025 and 2026 fiscal years, and that, therefore, Budget 2024 rescued Apprenticeship Boost by providing funds to continue it into the out years and ensure that it was baseline funded for the future?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224680dcac294f4cd5bdd3a5a7ed5a3bb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022717bdf80effb5605fbc8e0428b7e2063\u0022\u003EHon PENNY SIMMONDS\u003C/span\u003E: Of course, it was it incredibly disturbing to find that no funding had been allocated for beyond the end of the 2024 year, and so I was very proud of the fact that this Government reinstated the funding, made it permanent, and made it targeted to those in need.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228dfb95a610a987827d62cbef65629bd2\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: How can you, as the question asks, inspire confidence to build and strengthen your team if you just stare blankly into the television and bobble head next to your party leader, as Shanan Halbert did over the weekend on TV?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222de6ae4783088de27bad1aab02ec667c\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, sorry, that might be terrifically amusing for the member, but it\u2019s not the sort of thing that we should have taking up time in question time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225322e0a4529b497cbc59faf0515037dd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022da3435f848d272810394208071c044a0\u0022\u003EShanan Halbert\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister agree that having a young person in an apprenticeship is better than them not being engaged in education, employment, or training, and, if so, why did she cut the Apprenticeship Boost scheme?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002290ef240814cd63075f47fe4b3bf7586b\u0022\u003EHon Nicola Willis\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a very clear requirement on members of this House that we not make statements that are misleading or intended to mislead. That member has had repeated opportunities to correct his statement that this Government cut funding for Apprenticeship Boost. I have two documents with me, which I am happy to table for that member because he is misleading the House. This Government reinstated funding for the Apprenticeship Boost scheme that his previous finance Minister had cut funding for\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223819e144d261f89ed6ce38a14b6bce16\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s enough. It is an unfortunate point that, in the nature of these things, a member can make incorrect statements, but if there is a problem with that, there are remedies for the member to pursue through the privileges arrangement. Does the member wish to table some documents?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226f31b641575c34cef06445ad68b5523c\u0022\u003EHon Nicola Willis\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I seek leave to table some documents\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224d7cf4000e0ccf4aaf2d1d4233755802\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fea04e7b1d489c366ae08cc88fcce080\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: When leave is sought to table documents, a brief description of the documents should be provided.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228f8701b23422b5fce494bbc845be2642\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: They were provided before. That\u2019s why I didn\u2019t say it. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E] Whoa, listen\u2014for a start, can I just say to Government members that, when a very good answer was being given before, it was practically drowned out by what you might think was helpful commentary from behind. Similar, to the other side of the House, there was no attempt, really, to hear how the question was being answered. I will now ask the member, please, to describe very fully exactly what\u2019s in those bits of paper.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ec5728154f384313da59b8cd0c91ac45\u0022\u003EHon Nicola Willis\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker, I am happy to do so. Listen up: the first is an excerpt from Budget 2023, which details the initiatives and the funding, and clearly shows funding for Apprenticeship Boost\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002206f0c2be0cf29f4ce052ed089621d3eb\u0022\u003EHon Members: \u003C/span\u003EIt\u2019s publicly available.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227498ad667a6e0620ca787e2d2adc1e1f\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e39de6621ccfd54072a94fbd40f9f8c5\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, I\u2019ll hear this fist.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022527d72972e9c5873667ac244b82d1239\u0022\u003EHon Nicola Willis\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014ceasing in the 2025-2026 and 2026-2027 fiscal years. The second is a document from Budget 2024, delivered by this finance Minister, which shows the Apprenticeship Boost being rescued, with funding being provided in the 2024-2025, 2025-2026, 2026-2027, and 2027-2028 fiscal years. This Government boosted Apprenticeship Boost. You cut it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220c49fd51099d2a7d1a1dd2673cdc4f67\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: And all of that is already publicly available. We\u2019ll go to question 12\u2014Suze Redmayne. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E] Suze Redmayne and only Suze Redmayne.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225322e0a4529b497cbc59faf0515037dd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ce529fb512cc1155449b93167a5d286\u0022\u003EShanan Halbert\u003C/span\u003E: Supplementary, sir. Sorry, point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002249e7f6dd04b5e393c748aa7be7b756b6\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, make up your mind!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b388f6da8eb2d69596df351468c57b75\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I know. It\u2019s the season we\u2019re in. Everyone\u2019s very jumpy. Control it!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225322e0a4529b497cbc59faf0515037dd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b35db359a788787eee30e52445951cec\u0022\u003EShanan Halbert\u003C/span\u003E: Does she accept the number of apprentices in this country supported by Apprenticeship Boost dropped by over 10,000 as a result of her underfunding?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224680dcac294f4cd5bdd3a5a7ed5a3bb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220d479cf208dc908e3e038ca012f0a56a\u0022\u003EHon PENNY SIMMONDS\u003C/span\u003E: We are certainly focused on ensuring that we have a strong economy. The economy is growing. We have brought discipline back to Government spending. We have got inflation down, which has brought interest rates down. It is a growing economy that provides jobs for apprentices, and we are very proud that we are growing the economy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002281b8159e9aadd12e60c0ab9dc992f618\u0022\u003EHon Nicola Willis\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the member to have another question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225bbbb9e6711d3c016bcb0db7670b8e5d\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: You can\u2019t seek leave on behalf of another member.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022fa6b72162f62b59b524a1476f6847e61\u0022\u003EAgriculture\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00221872ad74f280019ef2b171c734f6d040\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 12\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f2e20d69c294bfa7ccd8db3b4e2d2fe5\u0022\u003ESUZE REDMAYNE\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002235cb29302356d0f7161ae060ec906719\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, just wait. Your own side are making so much noise. It\u2019s unbelievable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002276c5562fbefa206e98752e94b989c93d\u0022\u003ESUZE REDMAYNE\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c3298c81ad2f87641a24b2b87b959916\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I haven\u2019t said go yet. I haven\u2019t called you. We\u2019re going to have quiet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022 data-id=\u00226eacc8a1b185a8cf7683742b905293b0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226eacc8a1b185a8cf7683742b905293b0\u0022\u003ESUZE REDMAYNE (National\u2014Rangit\u012Bkei) (15:01)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Agriculture\u003C/span\u003E: What recent reports has he seen on the forecast for New Zealand\u2019s food and fibre sector?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u00228a1258272667b42f14882b452d143788\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228a1258272667b42f14882b452d143788\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (15:02)\u003C/span\u003E: The \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ESituation and Outlook for Primary Industries\u003C/span\u003E June 2026 release has forecast the food and fibre sector to break new records over the next year. Export revenue is forecast at $64.3\u00A0billion for the first time; dairy is up 5\u00A0percent to $28.6\u00A0billion; meat and wool, $14.1\u00A0billion, a new record; horticulture, $9.5\u00A0billion, of which kiwifruit is a stand-out\u2014a 16\u00A0percent increase, to be near 5\u00A0percent exports for the first time. The primary sector is forecast to be 82\u00A0percent of our goods exports, 12.4\u00A0percent of employment in New Zealand, and 15.3\u00A0percent of GDP. On behalf of every member of the House, including the Green Party, can I thank our farmers for their hard work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022870b35e5ac180d9d501eacfb4ef9a352\u0022\u003ESuze Redmayne\u003C/span\u003E: How has the sector been performing over the last four years?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022338f983aa38be477eebac5dffc67365d\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY\u003C/span\u003E: Well, exceptionally well\u2014more production as they feed the world. Exports overall are up $17\u00A0billion in the last three years. We are on track as a nation to double the value of exports in 10 years, and the primary sector, this year, exported $60\u00A0billion for the first time. Our UK free-trade agreement (FTA) has seen an increase of 79\u00A0percent over the three years, predominantly through the primary sector\u2014meat up 38\u00A0percent and dairy a significant 58\u00A0percent. The EU FTA has been worth $3\u00A0billion extra of exports to New Zealand in the last two years\u2014again, from the primary sector\u2014and we will hit $23\u00A0billion of exports to China this year, with $19.2\u00A0billion from the primary sector. We\u2019re even seeing an increase in beef exports to the US. There are 360,000 jobs or one in seven people employed by the primary sector as a result of the hard work of our farmers and growers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002293ad373851e5d1f2bfd16fbd2a3ed865\u0022\u003ESuze Redmayne\u003C/span\u003E: What has the Government been doing to back the sector?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002216355bf0b59a6623b24c3497e6db2e14\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the EU FTA entered into force more quickly than we had predicted or were told it would. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) FTA: 98.5\u00A0percent of our exports were tariff-free on day one, and we\u2019ve seen almost a 37\u00A0percent increase in exports to the UAE in that period of time. Of course, the India FTA will have 95\u00A0percent tariff reduction or elimination and be very good for New Zealand exporters across the board, particularly many primary sector exporters. In regulatory reform, we have restricted full farm-to-forest conversions, with $109\u00A0million announced in the Budget to combat wilding pines. We\u2019re replacing the Resource Management Act with better intensive winter grazing rules and better rules when it comes to farm water storage, and, in particular, we announced $40.5\u00A0million over four years of certainty of funding for rural catchment groups, as we back the sector to produce more, meet their environmental and climate obligations, and to feed the world.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bcb0deaf6af087da645fce3fc7b90feb\u0022\u003ESuze Redmayne\u003C/span\u003E: How has farmers\u2019 confidence changed over the past two years?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022040e0748122b4de9982dd2b33826edb4\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY\u003C/span\u003E: Three years ago, when we came to Government, a Federated Farmers survey showed that confidence levels amongst our farmers were at a record low of minus 66 percent. Over the three years since then, we\u2019ve seen it increase to plus 38 percent, a significant achievement. Some of this is because, two or three years ago, the primary industry sector was facing unworkable He Waka Eke Noa rules\u2014a ute tax; costly and unnecessary red tape. Many of them were being called villains. The National - New Zealand First - ACT Government has been good for the primary sector, and, I reflect, a Labour - Green - M\u0101ori Party Government would be a disaster for all of New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223bffb8830f2abc5c6c9ac6610c7dc0ad\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s not appropriate, so just withdraw the last part of that answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ebf5f85a02e0cab982565afb4abf9062\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw the bit that\u2019s inappropriate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002211e9e1f818754d97b60bba4b18e5dc03\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d0d233fab1fcf308e3beb2532d1b3dc8\u0022\u003EHon Mark Patterson\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Minister aware of the continuing surge in the strong white wool prices\u2014the new white gold\u2014and has he made any recent announcements around further supporting growing value for New Zealand wool?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022920a4992776d74ed59b7e7401c1757ee\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I am aware of the significant improvement for wool growers in New Zealand in their returns. The member who just spoke, Associate Minister of Agriculture Mark Patterson, has responsibility in that area. We are seeing farmers who grow wool now making money, whereas three years ago most of them were losing money. We are seeing the use of wool not only in buildings in New Zealand\u2014for instance, in State homes that we\u2019re building, and parts of this building itself, and towards rural schools: Mr Speaker, did you know that the Parliament of India has carpet in it and that carpet, the wool, comes from New Zealand? The announcement the member mentioned is about the Fieldays: with the Hon Mark Patterson, we announced $8 million for the sector to find new and higher-value uses for wool so that not only can it be resilient but those farmers who work very hard on behalf of all New Zealanders themselves will remain resilient.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220a9c4a9289a439c827a85b347e2618f7\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That concludes oral questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b52387066e30537a7dd52a5d9b40d78a\u0022\u003EDebates\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d9dd6663dd3e5b1661186073168d2a65\u0022\u003EMinistry of Social Development\u2014Staff Performance Measured on the Number of People in Their Region who Receive Emergency Housing Grants\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00221f4e25c678f4ef0ed091df0709e8899a\u0022\u003EUrgent Debate Declined\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022 data-id=\u002215f816937ad270ec8ce4b1d442923762\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002215f816937ad270ec8ce4b1d442923762\u0022\u003ESPEAKER (15:07)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, I\u2019ve received a letter from the Hon Kieran McAnulty seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 information that the Ministry of Social Development staff performance is measured on the number of people in their region who receive emergency housing grants. This is a matter of particular recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. Emergency housing is an important matter. However, it is not a new matter. For as long as I\u2019ve been here, this has been a matter that regularly comes up. I\u2019ve listened very carefully to the two questions that were asked in the House today, and answered by the Associate Minister of Housing, and concluded I do not think it\u2019s reached the point of urgency that warrants setting aside the business of the House today to debate it. The application is declined.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00222f099aae1ea4132d3ecb7cd73f9b5dec\u0022\u003ESpeaker\u0027s Rulings\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f8fe64fc26b4da5e23f3b4150d8db55e\u0022\u003EAmendments in Committee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022 data-id=\u00223c5ee92f0bce25ee908016ac26338ba2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223c5ee92f0bce25ee908016ac26338ba2\u0022\u003ESPEAKER (15:08)\u003C/span\u003E: Before we proceed further, I want to raise the issue of amendments in committee of the whole House. At present, members are free to lodge as many amendments as they wish. Presiding officers rule on whether they are relevant, serious, in the proper form of legislation, and on their relationship to previously-agreed positions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ERecently, we have seen numerous amendments on some bills, which has led to hours of voting. Parliament\u2019s time is limited and best spent on debate, rather than voting. We already have a very fast party-voting system, but hundreds of amendments take hours to deal with. They place considerable pressure on the presiding officers and clerks to check they are in order. I would encourage members to produce amendments that propose important amendments that they wish to see in legislation. If the House is overwhelmed by amendments, it is likely that we will see some Standing Order changes, and I would not like to see undoubted right of members to propose amendments curtailed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHaving said that, committee stages are always going to proceed slowly when substantive Government amendments are released on the day that the bill is in committee. Members need time to analyse the proposed changes and, when they wish to move amendments, are likely to present them clause by clause. They do not have time do anything else. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI encourage Governments to release amendments as soon as they are drafted. That is likely to lead to more constructive engagement in the committee of the whole House process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESubstantive amendments late in the legislative process, where there is no select committee scrutiny of them, is not desirable. It suggests the policy process was not completed before the bill was introduced or the select committee was not given sufficient time to consider the bill. To be clear, these types of amendments will always lead to longer committee stages as members deal with new material they\u2019ve only just seen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI occasionally hear members discussing notional time limits for committee stages. That has never been a rule or practice of this House. The size and content of a part, the willing engagement of Ministers in answering questions, and the factors I\u2019ve mentioned previously determine how much time will be spent on a part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI encourage all members to take a reasonable approach in committee of the whole House, with a view to focusing on the bill and serious amendments to it in a way that gives all members time to consider the legislation in front of them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ll take a short break while those who have to leave the House can do so.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022 data-id=\u002282cee385dcfaa38b07d1d3009200f13c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002282cee385dcfaa38b07d1d3009200f13c\u0022\u003EHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (15:11)\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. Thank you, sir. I raise a point of order in regards to the guidance you\u2019ve just provided the House, and waited for the time period for members to leave in order to raise it. Quite a substantive piece of guidance here, but a couple of questions that I have for clarity. First of all, it seems to me the content of that does not lend itself to a new Speaker\u2019s ruling but just simply what already existed and guidance to the House. Is that correct?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022 data-id=\u0022246d378ff3377793e051fc69aa1e9b16\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022246d378ff3377793e051fc69aa1e9b16\u0022\u003ESPEAKER (15:12)\u003C/span\u003E: That is correct. There\u2019s a number of Standing Orders that can be referred to. I would particularly suggest members look at 315, which I think was largely introduced post the legislation that was put through around Auckland governance some time ago. What I had intended in that was not to do anything other than remind members that the point of being here is debate, not voting. I\u2019m hoping that people will see that, take it on board. Certainly, I would not want to see any curtailing of the right that members have to introduce amendments. By the same token, that right, particularly with some of the tools that are available to members these days, needs to be balanced against the rights of every other member in this House to participate in the legislative process through debate rather than hours in here voting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022 data-id=\u0022687810f4e4ebece61e6cd8d01f2fcaf5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022687810f4e4ebece61e6cd8d01f2fcaf5\u0022\u003EHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (15:13)\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order. Thank you for that, and you\u2019ll note we\u2014well, I haven\u2019t challenged the content of it. I think it is entirely reasonable and, as has now been pointed out, consistent with Speakers\u2019 rulings. I just thought it was important to note that it is guidance that already exists. For clarity, in future committee stages, if presiding officers were to refer to this in that vein, rather than pointing to it as a new ruling\u2014that is important. We will take on board your guidance around the number and scope of amendments and also linking that to your guidance to the Government around when their amendments are lodged.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022 data-id=\u0022a845bfac27fbdaa228f5609642529a30\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a845bfac27fbdaa228f5609642529a30\u0022\u003ESPEAKER (15:13)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, that was a fairly important aspect of what I had to say today. I think also you can expect that presiding officers, guided by the Office of the Clerk, will be perhaps a little more willing to go down the letter of\u2014I don\u2019t want to say \u201Cthe law\u201D\u2014the intended Standing Order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00229f538d726c9e1917a0f6567b54df6c18\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229f538d726c9e1917a0f6567b54df6c18\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (15:14)\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to follow up from the previous speaker, just looking to seek some additional clarifications from you. I do believe that in terms of what you mentioned, as we note in Standing Order 315, particularly paragraph (3), there are already mechanisms for the House to be able to group amendments as well, or judge the amendments based on relevance to the bill. I particularly note what you mentioned earlier on in terms of that balance between the ability for any Opposition to be able to scrutinise a bill fully versus the Government side releasing an Amendment Paper during committee stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EHowever, I do want to seek your guidance that, when we do look at\u2014and this is something that has been traversed in the House. When the Government is able to unilaterally, essentially, decide when things go under urgency or an extended sitting and is able to take up more of the House\u2019s time, as Opposition MPs there are very few to no opportunities for us to be able to fully scrutinise and to be able to challenge the Government on that ability to use urgency and extended sittings. I just want to seek your guidance in terms of what you think the balance would be there, in terms of the ability for any Opposition parties, present and future, to be able to hold any executive members accountable, as is our right as a legislature, versus the way that the Government has been able to, I guess, sometimes bypass that good will to trigger urgency and extended sittings.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022 data-id=\u00227cb2713ec80bf3828a1b81a35bd2076f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227cb2713ec80bf3828a1b81a35bd2076f\u0022\u003ESPEAKER (15:16)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, in the case of your assertions around the way in which urgency is taken, I disagree with you, because it is the legislature, this House, that decides on urgency. Now, our democratic process might determine how members are likely to vote on a motion like that, but, in the end, it is the House that determines that time will be granted to urgently consider the bills that might be in any urgency motion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe second point is that the right of the Opposition\u2014or the role of the Opposition, in fact\u2014to question and to hold it to account is not being challenged. What I am making clear is that the Standing Orders do protect the integrity of bills that are before the House and that amendments must be consistent with the purpose of the bill, and there is also the issue around effect. There are two words that will be most prominent in the consideration of presiding officers on future occasions, and those will be both the word \u201Ceffect\u201D and the word \u201Cgrouping\u201D. None of that will be about trying to stop people doing things, but, by the same token, it might be ruling on the admissibility of a particular set of amendments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00226bf2983b675f7896620336b0c67f0bb6\u0022\u003EDebates\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022692e2e2704546a336558bc296c8a55c7\u0022\u003EPublic Safety (Public Protection Orders) Act 2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022692e2e2704546a336558bc296c8a55c7\u0022\u003EParole Act 2002\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00225b8f483e76b2cdb5e5f0742f7fd13e62\u0022\u003EReport of Attorney-General on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022785b63171268aecab4da2d7ed878bae3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022785b63171268aecab4da2d7ed878bae3\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police) (15:18)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the House take note of the declarations of inconsistency: Extended Supervision Orders under the Parole Act 2002 and Public Protection Orders under the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Act 2014\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe are here to debate the declarations of inconsistency relating to the extended supervision order (ESO) and public protection order (PPO), as well as the Justice Committee report on the declarations and the Government\u2019s response.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is important for us to recognise the critical public safety role that these regimes have. Both PPO and ESO are preventative measures designed to manage the risk of reoffending from serious sexual or violent offenders when they reside in the community. The orders are put in place once the offender finishes a prison sentence or returns from overseas. They are only applied to offenders with a high or very high risk of serious reoffending. An ESO can be similar to parole conditions, and ESO can restrict where the offender lives or require that they are monitored in person 24/7. A PPO is more restrictive; it authorises detention in a secure facility on prison grounds, potentially for life.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ERight now, officials are reviewing the legislation in response to multiple reviews of it, not just the Supreme Court\u2019s declarations, but also, in September last year, the Government tabled its response to a Law Commission review on ESO and PPO. That review proposed fundamental reform, including repeal and replacement of the current measures because they do not capture all the public safety risks that these offenders pose and do not fully address rehabilitative and other rights.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe two declarations that we\u2019re debating here today were also issued by the Supreme Court in September last year. In its first declaration, the Supreme Court found that PPOs are inconsistent with the freedom from a second penalty for the same crime, which is enshrined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. In its second declaration, the Supreme Court found that the parts of an ESO that amount to detention, such as restrictions on living conditions, are also inconsistent with the right to freedom from a second penalty.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe court also said that if either orders applied based on offences committed before the orders existed\u2014in other words, retrospectively\u2014the inconsistency could never be justified. A declaration of inconsistency is a formal statement by the court that an act is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It does not affect the validity of an Act. What it does is signal that the court considers the Act infringes on fundamental human rights in a way that is not justified in a free and democratic society.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI would like to thank the Justice Committee for its report on the declarations, and members of the public who made submissions during the process. The committee recommends repeal and replacement of ESOs and PPOs with a single-tiered preventative regime. This was based on the Law Commission\u2019s report on preventative measures.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe committee provided principles to guide that work, including the central principle that ESOs and PPOs should protect the community from further harm. The committee also recognised the value of any substantive response to the declarations being part of the existing work responding to the Law Commission\u2019s report.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFollowing the committee\u2019s report, the Minister of Justice and I tabled the Government response to the declarations in the House on 8 June 2026. As stated in the response, the Government agrees with the Justice Committee that more work is needed to be done so we can decide how to react to the declarations. I acknowledge that measures that detain offenders beyond their finite sentence are a significant intrusion on a person\u2019s liberty, but there is no doubt that ESOs and PPOs are necessary to protect the public from serious sexual and violent offending. As I\u2019ve said, the offenders subject to them have high or very high risks of reoffending but can no longer be held in prison.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Supreme Court, the Justice Committee, and the Law Commission pointed out\u2014and I agree\u2014that preventive measures are an important part of the justice system, given its objective of protecting the public. The legislation governing PPOs and ESOs is complex and multifaceted, and, as it is worked through, I expect it will consider the declarations and the recommendations of the Justice Committee and the Law Commission\u2019s report. I support the legislative change to get these public safety measures right. I recognise that to get it right, it will take time and we will need to be sure that any changes we make do not compromise public safety.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221dd4ae232f29cbf7a996a8bc9cbd4f35\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the motion be agreed to. I\u2019ve just been advised that there is a split call on this particular call. The honourable Vanushi Walters.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226f607d4079164946af0eb589f5753d1b\u0022 data-id=\u0022253d0f96e9717640015980c55282cf68\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226f607d4079164946af0eb589f5753d1b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022253d0f96e9717640015980c55282cf68\u0022\u003EVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (15:23)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It\u2019s a great privilege to rise in the House today and speak in what is a very constitutionally significant debate. This is only the second time that we\u2019ve had a declaration of inconsistency brought to the House, and I had the great privilege of speaking on the first one, which came to the House last term courtesy of Make It 16, who brought their case to the High Court. So it is a pleasure to speak to it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI did also just want to acknowledge the Hon David Parker for his work in terms of shepherding the legislative change and the changes to the Standing Orders to essentially create this bridge between the courts and the House, and ensure that where there\u2019s a finding of a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the House is actively turning its mind to whether we want to retain those provisions in law or not. The mechanisms here are that the select committee considers the issue and reports back. That\u2019s what we\u2019re debating today. As the Minister mentioned, the executive also responded, and I have read through the executive response, which was tabled in the House on 8 June.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI did just want to flag my nervousness about the executive response in that it does signal, as does the select committee report, that there is need for change and an overhaul of the entirety of the system, bringing it together into one Act but retaining, largely, those powers. There just doesn\u2019t seem to be a sense of urgency in terms of the need to do it, and let\u2019s remember we had a Law Commission report that was released publicly last year in April. The Government has had plenty of time to look into, in my view, what is a serious finding of a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and in a serious context: we\u2019re talking about people who have served their sentences, and now are being held and/or monitored in terms of the preventative approach. So, comparatively, if you look at the two declarations, my view is that this one requires a more urgent response from the Government than the one we considered last term, because of the nature of the circumstances and the individuals who are affected on a day-to-day basis.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGoing to the decision, this is a fascinating decision in that the decision itself, by a majority, was in four parts. The first part was in relation to the non-detention aspects of the extended supervision order (ESO), and on that front, the court actually found that both the prospective and retrospective application of non-detention prevention mechanisms was justified. So it\u2019s not the retrospectivity on its own that the court had issues with. However, they did find with the public protection order regime and detention authorising part of the ESO that the prospective use of that was currently not justified because of the way in which it was being used. So it\u2019s possible for the Government to address that. But interestingly, the part that the Minister referenced as well is that the retrospective aspects of that detention could never be justified in law. And so that is a space where if the executive wish to maintain that, they will, in essence, be saying that while this can\u2019t be justified in law, it can be justified via the political will of the executive in Parliament as it is, which is an important distinction to make.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of the recommendations that the Law Commission put forward, there are about 149 of them, but they sat within four parts, and the select committee really echoed a need for us to move those forward. And that includes a three-tiered model that the court could impose, ensuring that the least restrictive measure is used to manage risk first, and that it is preventative, not punitive; that there\u2019s access to therapeutic justice for those individuals; that the court gives notification at sentencing that a post-sentencing order may follow\u2014so that indication is there as well\u2014and, finally, that the court, not the Parole Board, sets the measures and conditions that are relevant. So we agree with those.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust as a final thought, I do wonder whether the House is giving sufficient attention to an issue of such importance, and whether, going forward, the House may consider something like a human rights select committee to both consider these declarations as well as section 7 reports themselves.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u0022fb2355531b7dcd8664361300e886026b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fb2355531b7dcd8664361300e886026b\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (15:28)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It\u2019s always a pleasure, obviously, to take a call in this House, but this particular debate is on a relatively unusual point of law. I just want to acknowledge, to start with, that the reason we are debating this is because of legal action taken by Mark Chisnall. This is an individual who was convicted of very serious offences. Often when we are discussing issues like this, I think it\u2019s important to note that we are discussing a balance of rights here. But the reason that this individual came to the attention of the courts was because of some very serious offending against children and the very serious risk of his reoffending.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think it\u2019s important to note that when the Parliament initially passed the bill in question that became law, there were serious concerns around, issues around, reoffending for some of these serious offenders. So I think it\u2019s important to note, and I don\u2019t think anyone in this debate would minimise the seriousness of that individual\u2019s offending, and obviously when we\u2019re discussing this bill, we will be also looking at other serious offenders who have committed very, very serious acts against many innocent people.  That\u2019s at the forefront of our mind as we discuss what is a very unusual set of facts. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt does go back some time, and I do want to echo the points made by my colleague Vanushi Walters, who was our shadow Attorney-General on this side of the House for the Labour Party. This issue has arisen some time ago and has been decided in 2018, and it\u2019s only really now that we\u2019re getting to the end of this process. I want to also acknowledge our former colleague David Parker, for allowing this process to take place. This is a very slow way of recognising very important significant constitutional rights. And, as has been previously mentioned by both the Minister and Vanushi Walters, this is only the second time that we\u2019ve had a declaration of inconsistency come to the House, so it is important that we recognise that this, in many ways, shows that our systems of upholding important fundamental rights, as enshrined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, are upheld. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAt the same time, the amount of time and the difficulty that it has taken to get to the stage does not indicate a system which is recognising those clashes of rights in a timely manner, and is, perhaps, something that we need to look at. I do also echo comments\u2014this is an issue that has crossed Parliaments, but it is now incumbent on the current Government to respond to this, and I do wish that they do so in in a timely manner. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think the important issue here, and the facts have been traversed by others, so I won\u2019t go over them again, is that we do have these important fundamental rights enshrined in our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Act 2022 did allow us this particular process for it to be referred to select committee. I am a member of the Justice Committee; I wasn\u2019t there the entire time, but I do want to commend the work of the Justice Committee, and if those listening want to understand this issue, which is a complex legal issue, I commend them to report of the Justice Committee\u2014I\u2019ll just see if I can see the date; I can\u2019t\u2014anyway, it\u2019s the report into the Notice of declarations of inconsistency into the public protection orders in the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Act 2014 and extended supervision orders under the Parole Act 2002. The clerks at the Justice Committee have done a tremendous job in making sure that this is all set out. For the record of this Parliament, this is where you will see not only the history of when this first came to the New Zealand Parliament, but when the law was changed in 2018 and then, in 2022, the new law was passed and then the change to the Standing Orders in the 53\u003Csup\u003Erd\u003C/sup\u003E Parliament.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat sets out all of the issues. They are serious issues, and I want to commend the recommendations of the select committee moving forward, and that a new regime is established in order to make sure that we\u2019re in a position to not only seek to impose restrictions on those we know cause a risk, but also not to put individuals in a position where there is a clash of rights and they are punished twice for the same crime. That\u2019s, fundamentally, at the heart of this matter. It is the fundamental right of everyone to suffer one punishment for one crime, and when that is, of course, doubled, then we do have issues of rights there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00228c1f8fed9d78dab59884c884d0e607f8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228c1f8fed9d78dab59884c884d0e607f8\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (15:34)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to also endorse the report from the Justice Committee around the declaration of inconsistency. I think it is important to give some context around this. And, like the previous speakers and the Minister stated, this is only the second time, since the introduction of this process around declarations of inconsistency, that we have seen something like this being brought to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe first time was under the previous Government around Make It 16, particularly around lowering the voting age to 16, which is something that the Green Party, to this day, still supports and champions. But for this particular case, one of the, I guess,  contexts around it is, when the Supreme Court essentially makes a declaration of inconsistency, that then gets referred to, sort of, two aspects: one part is the Government, and particularly, in this case, the Attorney-General; and the other half to Parliament. Under Standing Orders 269A, as well as the process laid out in Appendix F of the Standing Orders, we see the Parliament going through that process, which is what we\u2019re doing now. It could have, concurrently, as the Government through the Attorney-General, gone through their process of determining how to respond to such a declaration of inconsistency. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I do want to, obviously, spend my time discussing the Parliament\u2019s response to the declaration of inconsistency, but I want to acknowledge one of the previous speakers, Vanushi Walters, around the general concern that we may have, in terms of the Government\u2019s response, and particularly the lack of urgency around how we do deal with such a declaration. I note that no resolution has yet come about, in terms of the previous declaration of inconsistency, around lowering the general election voting age to 16.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, for this particular one, which came from the 2024 ruling in the case of \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EAttorney-General v \u003C/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EChisnall\u003C/span\u003E, essentially, it comes down to one main part of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which is how we make such declaration of inconsistencies. The declaration of inconsistency, essentially, is to say that a rule or a particular legislation that\u2019s been made is inconsistent with our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which has a far greater history beyond 1990\u2014going all the way to the 1688 Bill of Rights. But, in this case, one of the particular clauses that\u2019s relevant to this consideration is section 26(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which is, essentially, the right against double jeopardy as well as retrospectivity. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the things we\u2019re looking at here, which is around public protection orders (PPOs), as well as extended supervision orders (ESOs), is around the fact that when you have committed a crime, we all understand that there are accountabilities, there are responsibilities, but it\u2019s a generally understood rule\u2014and I think this is something that we can all acknowledge and accept\u2014that you shouldn\u2019t be charged more than one penalty for that one particular crime. In this case, the idea of double jeopardy, when it comes to the PPO and ESO, is the fact that once a person has served their sentence in relation to that crime, then they are, essentially, being charged again for the same crime through a public protection order or extended supervision order. That is, fundamentally, where this comes from. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, from the select committee\u2019s analysis of this\u2014this was referred to the Justice Committee, which I am also a member of. I do want to commend the Justice Committee for giving this an incredibly thorough and nuanced investigation. We worked through it as a committee and came to the recommendations of the committee as a committee in its entirety\u2014unanimously, essentially. With that, I do want to thank, in particular, the members of the Justice Committee, but also the chair of the Justice Committee, the Hon Andrew Bayly, on the way that we have approached this particular declaration of inconsistency, as a select committee, methodologically.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the things that is really important, as a part of this\u2014I mentioned before that this is something that the Law Commission has already been working on. In April 2025, they published \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHere ora: Preventative measures in a reformed law\u003C/span\u003E, which essentially says that when we\u2019re looking at PPOs and ESOs, it needs to have a fundamental overhaul of the law that governs the preventative detention and extended supervision order system. The current system doesn\u2019t really allow for that or to be done in a way that is rights consistent. Essentially, in that report, it\u2019s asking for a single statutory regime that will prevent a cohesive, gradual approach to prevent serious reoffending. I think this is something that we, as a committee, also agreed that it is important for us to strike that balance between public safety, rehabilitation, and also on something that is rights consistent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think, as a select committee, through our recommendations, we recommend that there is a way for us to do that that achieves all of these particular outcomes, and in particular being guided by some fundamental principles that the Justice Committee has come up with. The guiding principles are that any such order should prevent communities from further harm; it should be preventative in nature and not punitive; it should foster wellbeing and promote the independence of the person subject to the order as much as practicable; the making of orders should be subject to court oversight and periodic review; and restrictions imposed should be proportional to the level of risk to the public\u2019s safety. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWith those principles, the Justice Committee has suggested four different components, and this is through consultation, both in terms of taking advice from the Law Commission\u2019s report in 2025 but also in terms of what we\u2019ve heard from officials on the feasibility and workability of implementing something like this. The first bit is around having that three-level, gradual approach depending on the seriousness or the potential of reoffending, and a lot of that has to do with public safety and, essentially, working from a perspective of having community supervision, to residential supervision, to secure supervision based on those levels of severity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is also important, as part of this component, that when we are looking at anything that is beyond the sentencing that the person is serving for that particular crime, or for that particular penalty\u2014anything beyond that, to the best of its ability, should be preventative in nature, rather than punitive. The whole point of our justice system, theoretically, should have been about restorative justice as opposed to simply punitive justice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the other components that we considered as potentially an interim measure\u2014which possibly also requires a legislative component\u2014is how we can look at notification at sentencing so that when a person is being sentenced there is a notification to the person of a possible post-sentencing order. This is also something that potentially would have the possibility of avoiding some of that double jeopardy. That way, we\u2019re looking at essentially one long sentencing process as opposed to the person being sentenced and, after serving their sentence, then coming back for essentially a second sentence through the existing public protection order and extended supervision order process and structure. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, in terms of what I mentioned about courts being able to oversee some of that and have that periodic review, the types and conditions of preventative measures can also be determined by the court as part of this. Finally, just to add that from a select committee perspective, we have recommended that the Government look at this new, singular statute that is rights consistent. We believe, through the Law Commission and what we heard from officials, that it can be done should the Government or any Government have the appetite for it, but also urge future Justice Committees to monitor the progress that the Department of Corrections, for example, has mentioned on any of the proposed changes to post-sentence regimes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think, as a final sort of 20 seconds, I want to raise the importance of something like this in terms of declarations of inconsistency and fundamentally what it means in Aotearoa New Zealand when we\u2019re looking at the rule of law and the principle of comity\u2014the ability for the legislature, executive, and judiciary to hold each other accountable, and it\u2019s something that we forget about in our current system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022443f23de4cbd464f91833e6c466c98c0\u0022 data-id=\u0022313fbe580b2188510d222d816deda142\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022443f23de4cbd464f91833e6c466c98c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022313fbe580b2188510d222d816deda142\u0022\u003ETODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (15:44)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It\u2019s always a danger going after Dr Xu-Nan, because he\u2019s covered quite a lot of material that I was going to cover. I do want to just speak briefly in this debate on these declarations of inconsistency, because it is an important topic, and we have traversed a lot of material already.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust to say, I\u2019m probably not so concerned, maybe, as some of the other speakers since this only the second time that this process has been used. I think we probably need to have a few more declarations of inconsistency and work through the process before we decide whether it needs refined. Again, I also just want to acknowledge the Minister, who has, on behalf of the Government, said that work is going to be undertaken in this area, and in fact has responded to the report of the Justice Committee, which has been referenced a couple of times already in this debate, and which committee I am also a member of. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe are talking about people who have been convicted of very serious sexual and violent offending\u2014I think we need to remember that. Again, it\u2019s already been referred to: the report of the Justice Committee does set out the issues in quite a lot of detail. As has been said, it was a very thoughtfully done inquiry into these issues. The whole committee really was engaged in it, and we did actually come up with a unanimous report, as has already been highlighted. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI was going to reference, I think, the five principles; Dr Xu-Nan\u2019s actually already outlined all five of them in detail, so I\u2019m not going to go over them again, but I think they are worth looking at, if people are interested, because it does actually outline the balance of rights we\u2019re having to kind of weigh up here, which is that we need to protect the community from harm but we also need to make sure that if we\u2019re imposing these orders on people, they aren\u2019t punitive. They need to be preventative in nature, and it needs to have some oversight. Again, I\u2019m not going to go through those again in detail, but I do think that they really do provide a framework for the work that, as the Minister said, is going to be happening in this area so that we can actually get to a regime that everyone is happy with, that balances all those rights, but that, importantly, upholds public safety and protection. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225f6c5b1a97f24773a8aaeb3a8e3b0e7b\u0022 data-id=\u002232ff9f6c0705e0973fcf3bf23bc258e4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f6c5b1a97f24773a8aaeb3a8e3b0e7b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002232ff9f6c0705e0973fcf3bf23bc258e4\u0022\u003EJAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) (15:46)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the declaration of inconsistency. As we\u2019ve heard from a number of speakers, it\u2019s a very rare occurrence\u2014just the second time in the House that we\u2019ve had to do this. Obviously, as a new member as well, and a member of the Justice Committee, it was a very complex issue\u2014quite difficult to get the understanding of the Supreme Court and what we were trying to achieve.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs the other speakers have highlighted, the members on the committee worked really, really, well together. Obviously, some members had some experience from the first inconsistency debate, which was done in the last term. The Hon Andrew Bayly\u2014again, just the way he handled and chaired the committee gave everyone a really good opportunity. I think, as you hear today in the House, the majority\u2014everyone, actually\u2014is on the same page in trying to fix this inconsistency going forward.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs we hear, around the PPOs\u2014and I know acronyms aren\u2019t that great, using those in the House\u2014public protection orders are the most severe use of restriction. That\u2019s mainly detention on a prison precinct, in the case of PPOs, so it\u2019s quite restrictive. ESOs\u2014extended supervision orders\u2014often by the Department of Corrections, would be the kind of things like check-ups and that on people who have come out of prison after their sentence. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EReally, the main part of this was around the post-sentence requirements on prisoners who have obviously gone through the system and have come out. There\u2019s that thing I think most New Zealanders, Kiwis, would understand around double jeopardy\u2014that you shouldn\u2019t be tried twice for a crime\u2014and punishment; once you\u2019ve gone through the system you should basically have a clear run at a new life. As we know, and that\u2019s been touched on, we\u2019re talking here about the most serious sexual and violent offenders, and we know the principle about public safety is something this House has to take into consideration. With some of those people who have gone through their sentence, there are still high risks to the general public.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe did hear about the Supreme Court\u2014in September last year, when they issued the inconsistency\u2014and the Law Commission. What was really helpful was their report that they\u2019d issued and a way of resolving the issue; the Justice Committee then has picked up many of the things that were raised in the Law Commission\u2019s report. As has been mentioned by the last number of speakers, the guiding principles are what the Justice Committee has tried to work on to give the Government a way forward. The most, probably, important principle, going forward, is to prevent further harm. Without repeating all five principles, I think that one of preventing further harm is the one that is the golden issue here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Government also has issued its report back, and New Zealand First supports, obviously, the recommendations and, if I say, the line of travel here. Going forward, we see there is that way. Public safety: we know that, as prisoners go through their sentence, rehabilitation is a major part, but once they come out\u2014again, highlighting the most serious sexual and violent offenders\u2014there then needs to be those preventative measures in place. That\u2019s where the Supreme Court spoke about the breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, but then there needs to be the balance, again, to public safety.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe do support that single statute that basically looks to repeal the current legislation around extended supervision orders and public protection orders. We do realise it\u2019s going to take a period of time. It\u2019s not going to be something that\u2019s done in months. It\u2019s probably going to be more likely to go into the next Parliament and may take a couple of years, but it needs to be replaced with a single statute that establishes a three-tiered regime for post-sentence orders, and that\u2019s the main part of this. New Zealand First supports the work on this into the next Parliament, and it will take some time, as I say, to implement, but we look forward to that work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b8b8939996c73cc9f18e6d78f2ff9bf4\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The next call will be a split call\u2014Dr Tracey McLellan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022 data-id=\u0022a7e9a40e4ce6ac76b11fc5513ff0fc6d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a7e9a40e4ce6ac76b11fc5513ff0fc6d\u0022\u003EDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (15:52)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to also add a few words to this debate. There\u2019s broad agreement across the House. This report that we\u2019re dealing with today, obviously, as has been noted, deals with a difficult but very important balance, and that balance is the need to protect people from others who pose what is a really high risk of serious sexual and violent reoffending whilst also upholding the fundamental rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. As has been noted, this is only the second time that we\u2019ve had a declaration of inconsistency before us, so I\u2019d like to acknowledge the Justice Committee for the work that they\u2019ve done on this but also note that the Government really does need to respond in a timely manner. I appreciate the fact that, whenever balance is required, that can be a challenge, and there are certainly challenges before us, but it\u2019s really important that this isn\u2019t stalled and that there is some timely application\u2014or some timely implementation\u2014of the recommendations and the work that is before us.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Supreme Court has been really clear that the PPO\u2014public protection order\u2014regime and the detention aspects of the extended supervision orders (ESOs) are, in fact, inconsistent with the right not to be punished twice for the same offence. That is something that Parliament simply can\u2019t ignore. It is up to us to ensure that we act lawfully, and that\u2019s important no matter what the domain we may be referring to but particularly in the criminal justice domain. It\u2019s a big deal when the State deprives someone of their liberty. Regardless of the circumstances, that regimen in place and the process in place has to be absolutely lawful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs I said, the Supreme Court has been very clear that the PPOs and the ESOs are inconsistent, and, at the same time, the answer simply can\u2019t be to remove all preventative measures. We know that that\u2019s not going to work. Communities, victims, and potential victims in the future are entitled to protection from serious harm, and we all agree with that. The challenge, the one before us, is to design something that actually is lawful, that is able to operate in an effective way, and is also rights consistent. The committee\u2019s recommendations for a single new statute are sensible. It\u2019s a three-tier model that has been discussed already where there\u2019s community supervision, where there\u2019s residential supervision, and where there\u2019s secure, preventative supervision. It would allow courts to impose the least restrictive options necessary to manage the actual risk. I think that that\u2019s really important, and it\u2019s important for both public safety and for human rights.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve also talked, previously, about the need for rehabilitation and reintegration to be at the centre of what this new regime should and could look like. If these orders are genuinely preventative, rather than punitive, then it is absolutely important that people have real opportunities to enter into a rehabilitative or a reintegrated process as well. The court oversight and regular review, as we can see through this report process, are also incredibly essential to what the new regime needs to look like. There are significant restrictions, as I\u2019ve said, on liberty, and any conditions imposed must be proportionate, evidence based, appealable, and subject to proper scrutiny. We should also be clear, not only just whilst having this the debate but through the remainder of this process when the Government does respond to this declaration, that victims\u2019 rights and dignity do matter. I want to reiterate in the final few seconds that the Government, now, does need to move with some urgency. Corrections has indicated that the policy work on this could take up to two years. The rights issues\u2014we\u2019ve known about this for quite a long time, and Parliament does need a clear timetable for the reform that they intend to bring forward. Labour supports the regime and acknowledges that keeping communities safe and respecting victims is paramount.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u0022ee0f819d8cbb5e2a86a2adac5d8764fa\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ee0f819d8cbb5e2a86a2adac5d8764fa\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (15:57)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. A lot has been said about this framework and why this declaration of inconsistency occurred. I want to really just do one thing, and that is to go to the part of the select committee report which indicated the direction of travel for any new policies in respect of public protection orders (PPOs) and extended supervision orders (ESOs), and that is the section headed \u201CPrinciples\u201D. It\u2019s a very short part of the report\u2014only about a paragraph. I just want to identify those principles that the select committee all agreed should direct any further work in this space.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe first principle is obvious, and that is that the only reason for these orders is to protect the community from further harm. Obviously, these protection orders and supervision orders are only there because the risk posed to the communities by these individuals reaches a particular threshold. That feeds into the second principle, and that is that there is zero punitive element to these orders. They are protective only, and they are not punitive. Of course, the reason that this fell foul of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was that it was seen as a second punishment after the first punishment for the crime had essentially expired. With whatever we do here, there can be no linking of the orders with retribution for the crime caused. It\u2019s linked to the crime only insofar as the crime is indicative of future risk. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think the third principle set out there is one of the most important. What it states there is that \u201Cthe regime should foster wellbeing and promote independence of the person subject to the order.\u201D One of the challenges here has been that there\u2019s been a kind of reaction, because it\u2019s within a corrections framework, to unduly limit the life of the people subject to the order\u2014including where they live, how they live, and the choices they make.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGiven that there is no punitive element here, the autonomy of this individual should be upheld and they should have, in so far as is consistent with the first principle, which is public protection, as many choices, as much self-determination, as possible, because that\u2019s what it is to respect the human rights of an individual, regardless of their former wrongdoing, particularly when their punishment has, essentially, expired.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs Dr McLellan said, this is not an administrative decision. We live in a society ruled by law, and these orders should be subject to governance by law. That\u2019s why they should be subject to the oversight of the courts. The people subject to the orders should be able to appeal them, and they should be periodically reviewed; they can\u2019t last for ever. We don\u2019t want these to be, essentially, at the discretion of the administrative body that makes them, whoever that turns out to be.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe last principle is really important, as well, and that is proportionality. We\u2019ve talked about a tiered arrangement: community, residential, and, essentially, one where you\u2019re detained. Where on that scale someone sits should be carefully curated depending on the risk that they pose. There should be the least intervention that is consistent with community safety. Now, that\u2019s a challenging task, but it\u2019s a task, in fact, which the justice system does when it sentences people, when the Parole Board releases people, and it goes on throughout our justice system and, indeed, in our mental health system, as well, in terms of compulsory treatment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo those principles are really important, because it\u2019s a massive signal to the Government that has carriage of this piece of work to say, \u201CHere are the values that the legislature has said this work should be imbued with.\u201D So, you know, what I guess I\u2019m saying is go forward; do this work; have a right, consistent outcome; but anchor it in those principles and the guidance the select committee has given. Thank you, Madam Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022 data-id=\u002266f5bba89695343bddb7bdbff951bd69\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002266f5bba89695343bddb7bdbff951bd69\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (16:02)\u003C/span\u003E: We know that serious violent and sexual crimes have lifelong consequences for the victims of those crimes and their families. It\u2019s why we\u2019ve made victims our priority in everything that we\u2019ve done in the justice sector. The interests of victims underpin all our work to fix the basics in law and order and to build a future where all New Zealanders can feel safe in the community.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, for the highest-risk offenders, the current law provides a range of options, including indeterminate prison sentences of preventive detention; extended supervision orders\u2014ESOs\u2014which are a post-prison court order; and the public protection orders\u2014PPOs\u2014which are civil orders that allow for the ongoing indefinite confinement of the most high-risk individuals.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, as we\u2019ve heard in all the debates\u2014and I don\u2019t need to go over everything, but some issues with the current law have been raised both here in New Zealand and overseas by international human rights bodies. Most recently, on 25 September, the Supreme Court issued its declaration of inconsistency, holding that aspects of the current regime\u2014a regime that has been in place for some time\u2014breached the protection against punishing a person twice. That is why we\u2019re having this debate, responding to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, the Government, of course, has been considering some of these issues for a lengthy period. In 2021, the previous Government requested that the Law Commission examine the laws protecting the public from high-risk repeat sexual offenders. The Law Commission report was tabled in April 2025 last year and found that the current law is fragmented, inconsistent, and does not adequately protect the risks to public safety, and proposed reforming the law in a way that continues to protect public safety while managing high-risk offenders more humanely. It recommended replacing three current measures with a single post-sentence statutory regime of varying degrees of restrictiveness, from supervision in the community through to secure detention. The commission considered that this single regime would improve rehabilitation and address the issues identified by the courts. The Government acknowledged that the Law Commission findings and recommendations for change were not surprising. However, the Law Commission\u2019s reports, unfortunately, are not a fully formed piece of legislation ready to go. There are still a number of decisions that need to be made and law to be crafted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESome of the commission\u2019s recommendations were examined by the Justice Committee, and I want to thank the Justice Committee for its work and the serious undertakings that it took, identifying the principles, as the previous speaker, bar one, indicated, in terms of the guiding principles that we should protect the community from further harm and other principles that should be absolutely preventative in nature rather than punitive. All of that seems to us to be sensible, and we very much see this as an important part of our work programme for the people of New Zealand, if they see fit to return this Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve had a strong focus on restoring law and order and restoring real consequences for crime, but there are issues that do need to be resolved, as have been identified by the Supreme Court\u2019s actions, also by the Law Commission\u2019s work, and, most lately, by the Justice Committee. We do hope\u2014I certainly personally hope I get the opportunity to rectify this matter in the years to come. Thank you, Madam Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000405\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00223c16e4bd47969577af454f328c9ba3a8\u0022\u003ESittings of the House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022dd3a1fc8c0c89599e871042986fec0b3\u0022\u003EUrgency\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f537d6f7e9d0407792892b239af9ec7f\u0022 data-id=\u0022c291d553bdb68b9cf3c5e4336b2e52bd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f537d6f7e9d0407792892b239af9ec7f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c291d553bdb68b9cf3c5e4336b2e52bd\u0022\u003EHon SCOTT SIMPSON (Deputy Leader of the House) (16:06)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat urgency be accorded the remaining stages of the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill, the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill, the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill, the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill, and the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill; the first reading and referral to a select committee of the Building Amendment Bill and the Climate Change (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002295c8010f30652005834671f1abb9dddb\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsTerm\u0022 style=\u0022font-style: italic\u0022\u003E:\u003C/span\u003E Can the member just read the name of the climate change bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f537d6f7e9d0407792892b239af9ec7f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022493389b0d1d4115cc47b843e9ae4d397\u0022\u003EHon SCOTT SIMPSON\u003C/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsTerm\u0022 style=\u0022font-style: italic\u0022\u003E:\u003C/span\u003E Climate Change (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aade26767c64a9948036a56e19a9e471\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsTerm\u0022 style=\u0022font-style: italic\u0022\u003E:\u003C/span\u003E Oh, I\u2019ve got Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill here, but we\u2019ll check that\u2014we\u2019ll make sure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f537d6f7e9d0407792892b239af9ec7f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002247bc2e7679cc157e7d54a0254b18686a\u0022\u003EHon SCOTT SIMPSON\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014thank you, Madam Speaker\u2014\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003Ethe second reading of the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill, the Crimes Amendment Bill, the Land Transport (Revenue) Amendment Bill, the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill, and the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (3 Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill; the first reading and referral to a select committee of the Community Magistrates Legislation Amendment Bill and the Environmental Reporting Amendment Bill; the second reading of the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill and the Emergency Management Bill (No 2); the first reading and referral to select committee of the Regulatory Systems (Social Security) Amendment Bill (No 2); the discharge and recommittal to a select committee of the Regulatory Systems (Courts) Amendment Bill; and the remaining stages of the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill, the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill, the Mental Health Bill, the Plain Language Act Repeal Bill, and the Constitution Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EToday, we are according urgency to 22 pieces of legislation, and I note that none are bypassing scrutiny: none are skipping select committee. However, with only nine sitting weeks left in this parliamentary term, the Government has significantly more legislation on its agenda than it has the time to pass prior to this year\u2019s general election. Urgency is therefore being accorded today for overtime purposes. Each bill is a Government priority to pass or send to select committee before the dissolution of Parliament, and it is for that reason that we accord urgency today, to progress them to ease the pressure on the remaining months of this parliamentary term.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat urgency be accorded\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000417\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cff9054f0b0ab2007b869e78cf129e14\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002257ef9c3eeed5795821731d0e925cae39\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00221900d562e9641173dbabd3d9f4ab1c47\u0022\u003EAntisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00227b4e954ba949dac82257a53fc04d9390\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000424\u0022\u003EDebate resumed from 25 March 2026.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022da3d850e3bb7afa0ef2d7b8a4625123d\u0022\u003EPart 1 Amendments to Land Transport Act 1998, and Schedules 1 and 2 (continued)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224242380ee0ce6ad34d15d58fb7490bc1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Good afternoon, members. The House is in committee for further consideration of the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill. When we were last considering the bill, we were debating Part 1, the debate on clauses 8 to 23\u2014\u201CAmendments to Land Transport Act 1998\u201D\u2014and Schedules 1 and 2. The question is that Part 1 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fa370c0016e740998a2816116c8e4365\u0022 data-id=\u00228fda931e64f703b5a8cef33d8dd4a86b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fa370c0016e740998a2816116c8e4365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228fda931e64f703b5a8cef33d8dd4a86b\u0022\u003EHon ANDREW HOGGARD (Minister for Biosecurity) (16:11)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank members. The Minister won\u2019t be too far away, so I hope I will just cover off some of the opening remarks he was going to make. I assume he\u2019s still going to make them. Basically, I just want to recap or repeat what was said during the second reading. Submitters have made it clear that antisocial road use events are disruptive and often involve destruction of property, excessive alcohol consumption, and intimidating behaviour. Submitters supported greater deterrents and highlighted the need for proportionate penalties.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000428\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill has four parts. The first part amends the Land Transport Act 1998. The second part amends the Sentencing Act 2002. The third part makes amendments to the Policing Act 2008, the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, and the Land Transport (Offences and Penalties) Regulations 1999. The Schedules make minor inconsequential amendments and insert transitional and savings provisions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill we\u2019re debating has five key features. It introduces a presumptive sentence of forfeiture, or forfeiture and destruction, of vehicles involved in street racing, burnouts, fleeing police, and the extended identifying drivers offence in intimidating convoys. It creates a new offence for intimidating convoys to penalise those who are trying to intimidate the public whilst driving dangerously. It gives the police greater powers to identify drivers who participate in street racing, burnouts, and intimidating convoys. It gives the police greater powers to close off areas where antisocial road events are happening or might happen. It increases the fine for excessive noise from an infringement fee of $50 to $300 and a court-ordered fine of $1,000 to $3,000.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Minister is also introducing a Government Amendment Paper that makes a minor and technical amendment to ensure that the policy intent of the bill is delivered. Currently, section 98A of the Land Transport Act 1998 enables police to prohibit the sale or disposal of vehicles where the owner is charged with an offence that could result in confiscation or forfeiture of the vehicle. We want this power to apply where an owner is charged with an offence that would, in the event of conviction, trigger a presumptive sentence of vehicle forfeiture or forfeiture and destruction introduced by this bill. This will address submitter concerns that offenders will sell their vehicle following impoundment, before sentencing takes place, to avoid forfeiture or forfeiture and destruction of their vehicle. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022 data-id=\u0022e7965abaa63a6a8cca5407e62dcf8f6e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e7965abaa63a6a8cca5407e62dcf8f6e\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North) (16:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the Minister for kicking things off and acknowledge the transport Minister currently in the chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI have a few questions in relation to this part, and I want to start with clause 10. Clause 10 is looking at new section 39A, which really is the crux of the nature of the convoys that exist and the behaviour that might be considered as dangerous or reckless. I think it would be helpful to just get an understanding from the Minister around whether he thinks the definition of a convoy\u2014which is, in this instance, \u201C2 or more motor vehicles\u201D\u2014is appropriate. In the circumstance where there might be one larger motor vehicle that doesn\u2019t meet the definition of a convoy but still might, with other folk around it, lead to something that might be reckless or dangerous activity or conduct\u2014whether there are other avenues available for the police to utilise powers or otherwise. One assumes that, obviously, \u201Cmotor vehicles\u201D, in terms of a convoy as being two or more, includes cars and larger vehicles but also motorcycles, as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question that I also have is just around how the police will ensure that there is a clear distinction between what might be perceived as an antisocial convoy versus what might be a legitimate procession. Minister, it might be that you say, well, a procession, actually, unless it was \u201Cfrightening or intimidating\u201D, it doesn\u2019t fit the criteria. But there is a view out there that \u201Cfrightening\u201D\u2014which it might be that someone\u2019s frightened because of the noise coming or emanating from a convoy\u2014is an issue of perception or how one sees that. I\u2019m just interested in the Minister\u2019s response around that clear distinction between what might be seen as genuine antisocial convoys, but, also, we don\u2019t want to capture some of those, perhaps, noisy club events, which some might see as legitimate, happening down the street or in areas, and how that distinction is able to be captured.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022444218ff1d63828d14d441094c68140f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022444218ff1d63828d14d441094c68140f\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (16:17)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, I mean, the member raises a series of interesting points, and, ultimately, these are going to be questions for charging and, potentially, the courts in the future. They\u2019re questions of fact, ultimately.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000435\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill establishes the offence. The important point is \u201Cconvoy\u201D is defined as \u201C2 or more motor vehicles\u201D. I mean, that is a convoy. Clearly, when people think about a convoy, they maybe think about four or five vehicles in a line, but, actually, by definition\u2014it\u2019s a bit circular in some ways\u2014it\u2019s two or more. But the point is that any convoy of vehicles, by itself, is not committing an offence. To commit an offence for participating in an intimidating convoy, an individual driver must commit illegal street racing, burnouts, fleeing police, or otherwise driving in a reckless, careless, or dangerous manner, and they have to be travelling in a convoy\u2014so two or more vehicles\u2014and they have to be operating the vehicle in a manner that is either frightening or could cause intimidation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat is actually a relatively high bar to meet, to be honest. The factual nature of the offence is inclusive rather than exclusive, so you have to meet those limbs, and then, ultimately, it will be over to the courts around the specific judgment as to whether or not someone has met those offences or not. But what Parliament is doing is setting down a very clear marker that intimidating convoys, as defined in the bill, are not appropriate, and we\u2019re giving the police and the courts greater powers to crack down on those.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00221c9e4ebb0eb49b900d9fb6af181275a6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221c9e4ebb0eb49b900d9fb6af181275a6\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Actually, before all of that around convoys, I want to start even before that. Madam Chair, can I just get your clarification, because when the previous Chair was there and was reading out Part 1, he said Part 1 is\u2014unless I heard it incorrectly\u2014clause 8. Can I just check that Part 1, indeed, goes back to clauses 3 and 4?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b48cc479375ab6919fe76cd2e71e0e33\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s the debate on clauses 3 to 23, and Schedules 1 and 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223ac1af0909d69aa7627c38ab0bd70873\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Awesome, thank you. Thank you for that clarification, Madam Chair. The first question is around clause 4, \u201CSection 2 amended\u201D, and this is to do with the interpretation of \u201Cregistered person\u201D\u2014noting that this bill went to the Justice Committee, but because it\u2019s not under my portfolio, I didn\u2019t actually specifically take part in the consideration of this bill during the select committee stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000440\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ECan I just check with you, Minister, with \u201Cregistered person\u201D, if it occurred either in discussions through select committee or with your officials, what happens in the context where the registered person and the driver are different people? Particularly, I\u2019m thinking of instances\u2014and this is something that we hear, you know, if let\u2019s say a 16-year-old, an 18-year-old, it could be anyone. I see that in the electorate I\u2019m based in, Epsom, in T\u0101maki, all around, where children do borrow the vehicles of their parents. In those cases, the parent is the registered person, but the child might be the one who created the offence in that case. I want to check what considerations have you given, or considered, where either the court\u2014or any other ways of addressing the balance where the parents may be unaware of a child using their vehicle and then the car gets impounded or, you know, additional things happening. I just want to check\u2014that\u2019s the first question, because it\u2019s the first thing that pinged to me when I\u2019m looking at the term \u201Cregistered person\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00221090dfa649bc4508cf1a3e1cb4f18fb2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221090dfa649bc4508cf1a3e1cb4f18fb2\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (16:21)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m advised that the bill is quite careful to not just limit this to owners of vehicles or registered owners of vehicles, but wider than that. The reason for that is that you do not want to seem to create an incentive for other people who might have an interest who are in a vehicle, who are not the registered owner of the vehicle to bear the\u2014to essentially engage in conduct that might otherwise be punished. So the bill is explicitly wide and that is a deliberate policy choice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022cf8ef3e7527ba5e2ad1e2ff90c855246\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cf8ef3e7527ba5e2ad1e2ff90c855246\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:22)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you for that, Minister. Just a little follow up. So just checking that, again, it\u2019s incumbent on maybe case laws, etc., to start finding some of that balance between how that breadth that the Minister just mentioned is able to be, I guess, whittled down or potentially become a bit more specific through those case laws and as this bill gets implemented.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u002237a292a035d30232c1ea015c4480b4be\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002237a292a035d30232c1ea015c4480b4be\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (16:22)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m advised that the definition of \u201Cregistered person\u201D is added from Part 17 of the Land Transport Act to reflect that the term \u201Cregistered person\u201D is used throughout the Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022423c153b21c11e16352954683ae9a4c2\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: So it\u2019s current. Ah.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022 data-id=\u0022e5e770b6ebfa16b9f39351113805e6c4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e5e770b6ebfa16b9f39351113805e6c4\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North) (16:23)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the Minister. The Minister made the point that this bill establishes the offence\u2014and certainly, we do support the bill. When we look at the new requirement under section 39A(1)(d)\u2014this is in clause 10\u2014there needs to be an intention for the conduct that the person is engaging in to be \u201Cfrightening\u201D or \u201Cintimidating\u201D. Now, what does the Minister\u2019s expectation around how members of the police would be able to, effectively, reliably identify their intent exists, which is a requirement under that particular limb? I\u2019ll just start with that one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022 data-id=\u002230d97c7260d1a5b7f6301441bbadb621\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002230d97c7260d1a5b7f6301441bbadb621\u0022\u003EHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (16:24)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just have a general kind of question for the Minister. I\u2019ve been around long enough to remember the first iteration of this legislation when I worked at Police. And so one of the main issues that I\u2019m interested to know is whether he thinks this bill addresses the situation where you have someone who is engaging in illegal street racing activity, who has then registered their vehicle to their nana or their girlfriend or someone else in the immediate family, and so once the police apprehend that person and the vehicle\u2019s impounded, potentially up for destruction, there will become a point where they go before court and the person who actually is the legal owner of the car\u2014so nana fronts up and says, \u201CI need it to get to bowls. I need it to get to work. I\u2019ve got a hardship case here. Please don\u2019t destroy my car because under this legislation, as to the previous one, there\u2019s hardship grounds.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000447\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnd so a key reason why I think only two cars were crushed under the previous iteration of this legislation is that actually tying the registration of the vehicle to the person doing the driving\u2014I\u2019m not yet convinced that this actually navigates that same problem because, as far as I\u2019m aware, by reading the bill, there\u2019s still provision in there that if the registered owner fronts up to the judge and says you\u2019re on a hardship\u2014\u201CI need the car to get to work. I need this vehicle,\u201D\u2014 then, on those grounds, the vehicle is highly unlikely to be destroyed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy question to the Minister is: what reassurance\u2014maybe he\u2019s getting it right now\u2014or advice has he received to reassure New Zealanders that the same loophole that has been used in the past won\u2019t come back to cause the same low level of destructions again?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022 data-id=\u002270cea899e189c4f21c1eb576d8d21e84\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000449\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002270cea899e189c4f21c1eb576d8d21e84\u0022\u003EDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (16:26)\u003C/span\u003E: Thanks, Madam Chair. Whilst the Minister\u2019s getting some advice, I wondered if I could just sort of chuck one more into that mix. Looking at clause 12, which reworks section 52 offences for failing to provide identifying information under sections 118A and B, sets fines of up to $10,000 or $20,000. Just looking at that, I wasn\u2019t part of this process to date, but the Minister, I\u2019m sure, will be able to elucidate on why the 14-day information offence is subject to a higher maximum fine than the immediate section 118A offence. And I suppose, further to that, what is intended to count as a reasonable excuse, especially where, as has been mentioned, a registered person genuinely doesn\u2019t know who was driving. But, principally, the first part of that question is the one that caught my attention. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022 data-id=\u0022f38e5f0e779e1badfb1d8234bcbba1d6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000450\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f38e5f0e779e1badfb1d8234bcbba1d6\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green\u2014Rongotai) (16:27)\u003C/span\u003E: T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Madam Chair. I had a really specific question about clause 10, that\u2019s the new section 39A, which refers to conduct in frightening or intimidating convoy. I\u2019m just particularly interested in the words \u201Cfrightening\u201D and \u201Cintimidating\u201D, because those are quite subjective, I guess, and why those words are particularly used in the legislation when they aren\u2019t defined; \u201Cdangerous or reckless activity\u201D seems to have a more clear objective test of what that means, but to describe a convoy as \u201Cfrightening or intimidating\u201D, I suppose will depend very much on who the person is who\u2019s observing the convoy, and whether or not they find it to be frightening or imitating.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo I\u2019m just curious about the use of that language in the legislation and whether it\u2019s really necessary, because the rest of the subsections\u2014this is in clause 10\u2014the new 39A subsection (1), subsection (2) seem to refer more to dangerous, reckless activity, other than the subsection(1)(d)(i) \u201Cintending it to frighten or intimidate another person;\u201D; or whether (ii) \u201Cknowing that, or being reckless as to whether, it is likely to frighten or intimidate another person.\u201D is the legal test there, for the police\u2014is it going to be obvious? Will it rely on there being witnesses saying they were frightened or intimidated? It just seems slightly unusual. Perhaps it is used in other bits of legislation. I\u2019m not aware of it because I\u2019m not the justice spokesperson. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000452\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut, yeah, my main question is just around the use of \u201Cfrightening or intimidating\u201D and that being a subjective test as to whether something actually is frightening or intimidating. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022cee84797fe8264742a6c280b1dd8ef1c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cee84797fe8264742a6c280b1dd8ef1c\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (16:29)\u003C/span\u003E: Let me deal with a few of these issues. Both Mr Utikere and Ms Genter ask about frightening and intimidating. These are new offences; we\u2019re saying that, with any new offence, there will need to be training for front-line police staff to train them up as to what frightening or intimidating means. And, ultimately, in the end, case law works that out. I mean, by definition, once you create a new offence, there will be cases\u2014I certainly hope there will be. If there aren\u2019t, well, that\u2019s good\u2014probably means we\u2019ve eradicated the scourge of illegal street racing and intimidating convoys, but I suspect that won\u2019t be happening. Ultimately, these are factual judgments by police and then the courts. The intent is to make sure that road users feel safe on the roads and are not intimidated or frightened due to other road users\u2019 behaviour.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000454\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to Ms Genter\u2019s point, intimidating and frightening, I\u2019m advised, are in the Summary Offences Act 1981 offence of intimidation, section 21. Though the offence is new in relation to the Land Transport Act and road behaviour, it\u2019s not a term unknown to the New Zealand law, but, I mean, ultimately, the member\u2019s right: is \u201Cintimidation\u201D subjective? Well, at a level, yes, but also, you know, police and then the courts will make their judgment about it, and I\u2019m not going to get into forecasting or laying down what that might look like, because exactly what it looks like depends on the factual circumstances.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000455\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to Ms Andersen\u2019s point, which is a good point, new section 142AAH, in clause 36, relates to \u201CPresumption in favour of forfeiture, or forfeiture and destruction, of vehicles used by certain offenders in commission of [an] offence\u201D; new subsection (1) lays out the variety of offences there. \u201CThe court\u2014(a) must order that the motor vehicle used be forfeited \u2026 or \u2026 forfeited and destroyed; and (b) may make an order prohibiting the offender from acquiring any interest in any motor vehicle within 12 months after the date of [this] order.\u201D But then 142AAI lays out when the court must not do that, and that is when making such an order would be \u201Cmanifestly unjust\u201D\u2014which, again, is a term well known to the law\u2014or \u201Cresult in extreme hardship to the offender or undue hardship to any other person\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo I think that does cover off some of the examples that the member was referring to. I mean, these things are a tricky balance in which you want to make sure that for yahoos who are out there at night causing mayhem, a very clear deterrent message is sent, but there\u2019s also a balance there to make sure that\u2014you know, there\u2019s a \u201Cmanifestly unjust\u201D clause, as there are in many other parts of the criminal law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222ab4779700e5b6baa9847ed39ef426f8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll call Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan. I just want to make a comment that the Minister of Transport just then did refer to some clauses in Part 2; I\u2019d prefer to stay on Part 1 until we get there. I know he\u2019s used them to make an answer and a case. We\u2019ve covered off some good points, but I\u2019m looking for some new points. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00220bc11850da502b8804fa16aca70ecd3e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220bc11850da502b8804fa16aca70ecd3e\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:33)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I do want to move on, but I just want to check: I\u2019m specifically looking at clause 10, and clause 10 is the part that introduces most of these new offences as well. I think a broader, policy-based question to the Minister of Transport, just looking at the regulatory impact statement: there are already existing penalties around recklessness, and I just want to check with the Minister what the rationale was for introducing additional ones when there are a number of existing ones\u2014this is on pages 19 to 21 of the regulatory impact statement, that talk about existing penalties\u2014being my first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to follow up on what the Minister is saying, because I agree with the Minister and I want to thank the Minister for your response around \u201Cfrightening\u201D and \u201Cintimidating\u201D being reasonably new and something that\u2019s introduced, and there\u2019s potentially a level of subjectivity to it and it\u2019s up to the court, but I\u2019m looking at clause 10(1)(d)(i) and (ii), and those in particular raise the issue of when you\u2019re looking at a particular crime, you have the actus reus and you have the mens rea, and this particular area is looking at the mens rea\u2014the mental component of any particular crime.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen we\u2019re looking at mens rea, you have the four levels: intention, knowledge, recklessness, and negligence. Negligence we won\u2019t discuss here, but here it touches on three different points. For the Minister: just checking, how would one then, potentially, prove that there is intention to frighten and intimidate another person? Because the onus of proof over there would not be on an ordinary or specific person. You wouldn\u2019t go and say, \u201CWell, I felt frightened and intimidated.\u201D You have to prove that the offender or the potential offender has intentionally done it, and that\u2019s a much higher threshold. So maybe that is something that is a part of a legislative design, in which case that\u2019s totally fair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second part, in subparagraph (ii) is \u201Cknowing that, or being reckless as to\u201D. That is to do with knowledge and recklessness, which are also different tiers when we\u2019re looking at the hierarchy of mens rea. I want to check with the Minister: having that in one group, are we conflating between what is considered knowledge and also recklessness?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo I want to just check on those two questions\u2014oh, actually, technically three questions, at this stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00220c7c78cff21724f57a478c0dad4ba369\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000463\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220c7c78cff21724f57a478c0dad4ba369\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (16:36)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I mean, it\u2019s difficult to answer those questions. I mean, ultimately, the offence is the offence. So in relation to the issue the member was talking about, in relation to an intimidating convoy or frightening convoy, a person commits an offence if you meet the limbs in new subsection (1)(a), inserted by clause 10: you engage in \u201Cdangerous or reckless activity\u201D, you operate the motor vehicle, and you engage in that conduct while part of a convoy\u2014there\u2019s those three limbs, and, also, you have to do that in a way that is intending to \u201Cfrighten or intimidate another person\u201D. Now, intention is part and parcel of what happens in the courts every day; it is judging intent as part of the mens rea, as the member says\u2014he\u2019s managed to pick up a law degree in his two years as an MP; well done. Then, of course, there\u2019s a second limb, which is being reckless, which is a lower bar, obviously.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThose are, essentially, just issues for the courts, and what will be will be. I mean, our job in Parliament is to lay out what the offence is, and it\u2019s the courts\u2019 job and the police\u2019s job to, essentially, apply it, and different circumstances will result in different offences. That is the law. Welcome to Parliament.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022 data-id=\u0022262f6a4be280a940b890758baed9c4b3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022262f6a4be280a940b890758baed9c4b3\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North) (16:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to touch on two areas that have not been referred to yet, and this is picking up on the Minister of Transport\u2019s reference to \u201Cconvoy\u201D. Convoy, for the purposes of new section 39A, inserted by clause 10, is identified there, but in the actual definition in 39A(4)(a), which we haven\u2019t talked about yet, it seems that \u201Cconvoy means a group of 2 or more motor vehicles travelling together\u201D, and the other stuff kicks in there. It\u2019s the word \u201Ctravelling\u201D that I\u2019d like to ask the Minister about. In a circumstance where there can be, I don\u2019t know\u2014I hesitate to use the word \u201Cconvoy\u201D, but a gathering of, let\u2019s say, three or so vehicles that are travelling and then suddenly they park up in the middle of the road for an extended period of time. If the vehicles are stationary and there is no physical movement, will this still permit the police at a point in time to utilise the powers that exist?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ENow, you know, the point of the committee of the whole House is to delve into the details around this, as you know. The vehicles themselves actually might be coming independently to a parked vehicle, which is not two or more vehicles in the process of actually travelling but they go to a location independently, one by one, at which point they park up; they\u2019re not moving. What\u2019s that, Mr Luxton?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022440a125e85954bae9f5d470b7551e4f3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225acd607d070252bc16892ffe1ce4793d\u0022\u003ECameron Luxton\u003C/span\u003E: I said it sounds clandestine.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e479579272fe329c7e4391d87ec0c3e2\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE\u003C/span\u003E: Well, who knows, but, you know\u2014I guess, is there a requirement for physical movement to be necessary for the purposes of the police wanting to engage this? We want the police to have these tools to be able to utilise in circumstances to dispel and dampen this terrible behaviour. But the use of the word \u201Ctravelling\u201D: is there a requirement for the vehicles to be in movement? What of the circumstance where there are, you know, three vehicles independently making their way to point A?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00226982564dda7bd9387fecb081171bbba3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226982564dda7bd9387fecb081171bbba3\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (16:39)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s an interesting argument, except to be part of an intimidating convoy, you\u2019d have to be doing street racing, burnouts, and dangerous driving, and so you\u2019d have to be moving. You\u2019d have to be travelling, and the intimidating convoy bit rests on those other offences.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000470\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ELook, I\u2019m not a street racer. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229503eef992c38dc2d0043748d11d79d5\u0022\u003ETom Rutherford\u003C/span\u003E: He drives an EV.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002215f6debfbf46170a33373469eedfc0a0\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: I drive a Nissan Leaf. My Nissan Leaf doesn\u2019t do any burnouts, by definition. But, as I understand it, it is difficult to do street racing and burnouts and dangerous driving while you\u2019re parked.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a4cc67e0116886d64d92ca2ea67a94bf\u0022\u003ETangi Utikere\u003C/span\u003E: It could be noisy\u2014it could be noisy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222c18994a3b268892a3290e71739389ab\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, no, no. I mean, look, no\u2014I mean, the short answer is no. You\u2019d have to be travelling. There are other offences for blocking roads and things like that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022 data-id=\u002249311f31abd3e626ecb49240ac0d2ace\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002249311f31abd3e626ecb49240ac0d2ace\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North) (16:40)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister of Transport for the answer. This is not an attempt to try and prevent the police from exercising those powers, but if the Minister is now saying that there are other tools available\u2014for example, I think he said for blocking the road. The tools that are available to the police here are tools that the police have been asking for to dispel antisocial behaviour and gatherings that might exist, and so we\u2019re just wanting to be very clear. In a circumstance where there are individual vehicles, let\u2019s say, three of them, coming independently and making a whole pile of noise\u2014which I thought was actually covered previously when we\u2019ve talked about this as a form of behaviour that could be captured under this bill\u2014and they park up, is the Minister now saying that there won\u2019t be an inability for the police to engage powers to, effectively, move people on in this area?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022aacf260fc4143b5e3767664ebba86531\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022aacf260fc4143b5e3767664ebba86531\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (16:41)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. I\u2019m advised that it\u2019s not in this part that we\u2019re talking about, which is about intimidating conveys. But in Part 3, with changes to the Policing Act, there are indeed powers in relation to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022 data-id=\u00220b4c52189c8e911d80ee11d03a2ada40\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220b4c52189c8e911d80ee11d03a2ada40\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North) (16:41)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the Minister of Transport for that. Can I just pick up on the second point that I wanted to originally refer to, and that was in relation to clause 14. Now, this is about the types of impoundment for a 28-day period that might exist.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EUnder new section 96(1AB) in clause 14(2), there is no discretion for an enforcement officer under that provision when the person is engaging as part of a convoy for the intent to frighten or intimidate, or to cause some sort of undertaking of some reckless behaviour\u2014that\u2019s accepted. But it appears there that there is no discretion available to an enforcement officer to make any other decision, except to impound the vehicle that is in use for a 28-day period. Now, there is discretion further down, where it relates to a person who fails to stop, and there is a discretion because the enforcement officer \u201Cmay\u201D then seize and impound. Is the Minister comfortable that that differential between the two exists, and in circumstances where there might be a need to perhaps exercise some discretion, is he comfortable that that is actually an inability for an enforcement officer to follow in clause 14(2)? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00221b8230484062d0bf1642cec4ccbc958b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221b8230484062d0bf1642cec4ccbc958b\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (16:43)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, just briefly on that, the short answer is, yes, I am comfortable. Both types of behaviour in new section 96(1AB) and (1AC) in clause 14 are bad, but one is worse than the other. It is true also that there is in new section 96(1AB) \u201CAn enforcement officer must,\u201D but it does say \u201Cif practicable,\u201D and so there is a practicality caveat in there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022 data-id=\u0022a16c492ad40bf66f7e03978d8320ea4e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a16c492ad40bf66f7e03978d8320ea4e\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (16:43)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question to the Minister of Transport around clause 10, new section 39A. Obviously, as was pointed out, there are four limbs to this before an offence is created\u2014I mean, all four have to happen before that does occur\u2014and I also note that a lot of these offences are existing offences. I wasn\u2019t on Justice Committee, and so I didn\u2019t go through this, but what are the new offences? If one of those limbs says that they didn\u2019t operate in a convoy but they met all the other definitions, would that mean that someone could do an offence, but because they\u2019re not in a convoy they could actually get away with the offence? I\u2019m not too sure what the new offence is compared to an existing offence, which would, therefore, be able to be done by somebody if they just weren\u2019t part of a convoy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022 data-id=\u0022bbbc9bf3360221747c17a2c278cf3f7c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bbbc9bf3360221747c17a2c278cf3f7c\u0022\u003EHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (16:44)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Further to the points being made by my colleague Tangi Utikere around impoundment, I just have a question for the Minister of Transport. We know that there\u2019s an issue\u2014we heard this at the Justice Committee from the police\u2014that, particularly in parts of New Zealand that aren\u2019t in the main city centres, sometimes there is only one towie operating in, say, Murchison or Ashburton, and places like that. Often the vehicles that are engaged in these illegal activities\u2014some of them might be high end, but most of the time they\u2019re probably not worth a lot of money. The problem we have is that if tow truck drivers are going to tow these vehicles and store them for a period of time before the case comes before the courts, that\u2019s a significant cost to that tow truck company, depending on what the storage costs are in the particular city centre.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ESometimes there\u2019s very little economic incentive for tow truck operators to actually take the vehicle away and impound it, and so I\u2019m interested to know whether there\u2019s been any work done to understand how this would work in practice and what the operational practicalities are if a vehicle is having to be stored for a period of, say, up to four, five, or six months before a case is coming up before a judge and the daily storage costs for that vehicle are not less than what the vehicle is actually worth. Even if the vehicle is successfully stripped and they can have access to that, the value of those parts would simply not be worth the cost to that operator for the storage let alone the destruction of that vehicle, and so is there Government funding coming with this to enable those operators who can\u2019t store and deal with this issue? Is there going to be an allocation of Government funding to enable this to happen in a uniform manner across New Zealand, and, if not, is that an area which the Minister is going to investigate and potentially report back to us on? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022c45314766d61ac0ea2d39f2ae6b18229\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c45314766d61ac0ea2d39f2ae6b18229\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (16:47)\u003C/span\u003E: The member raises good points, and these were considered during the policy design phase. The regime is designed to avoid additional capacity pressures or costs for operators. The main way to do that is by reducing the six-month impoundment for fleeing drivers and ensuring that offenders remain liable for outstanding costs after conviction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000484\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s fair to say that no issues were raised through the select committee process by the towie sector, which is good. We will monitor it as it\u2019s implemented, obviously, but I am comfortable with where we\u2019ve landed, and, like with any new law, there\u2019ll be some implementation time frames and we will have to see how it goes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022dd5724e3d6cd2aa1a5585e6ec7f8c87a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dd5724e3d6cd2aa1a5585e6ec7f8c87a\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:48)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Now I just want to check, in moving on\u2014and I do take the Minister of Transport\u2019s response to my previous question. But think that it\u2019s also important to note that when anything is caught, anything we do in the House\u2014particularly during the committee of the whole House stage\u2014some of those ministerial intentions, which the Minister has been really transparent with, are actually really helpful in any court of law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do want to move on to clause 12 and also maybe clause 14. I just want to start with clause 12. I have a couple of questions, and this is to do with section 52, which is being amended. I know that this relates to some of the later parts, but I wanted to check in terms of the fact that the change to the principal Act here is adding an extra tier of offence, which is liable. New section 52(4) in clause 12 provides that \u201CA person who commits an offence against subsection (3) is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000.\u201D With some of these convictions particularly now adding an additional threshold, I just wanted to check whether the Minister has considered what level of support there is, or whether this will increase the number of cases going through the District Court. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, understanding that particularly when it comes to the court system, one of the goals is around core timeliness, we have seen some additional resources being given to courts. But would this add an additional burden on to the court system by it now having multiple tiers or, potentially, having more people being subjected to it under this new section? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to touch on clause 14, \u201CSection 96 amended\u201D, and I do want to acknowledge the Hon Ginny Andersen\u2019s question around impounding. I think they are really, really important questions, and we are seeing that in other areas as well, with the automatic number plate recognition being another area where we\u2019ve seen some additional, unforeseeable cost. If we\u2019re looking at subclause (2), \u201CAfter section 96(1A), insert: (1AB)\u201D\u2014it, essentially, touches on the question I asked before\u2014in this case, \u201Can enforcement officer \u2026 if practicable\u201D and \u201Con reasonable grounds\u201D, what kind of training would you expect an enforcement officer to have\u2014or if it\u2019s something existing\u2014on identifying the intention \u201Cto frighten or intimidate; or (b) knowing that, or being reckless as to whether, the conduct is likely to frighten or intimidate\u201D? That is my first question for this clause.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy second question for this clause is it says, \u201Cauthorise the impoundment of, a motor vehicle for 28 days\u201D. That\u2019s not up to 28 days; it\u2019s specifically 28 days. Is there a reason why it\u2019s not \u201Cup to\u201D? Why is it exactly 28 days that\u2019s been selected in this case? Those are my two questions for clause 14 for the time being.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022 data-id=\u00228efeecf3b5581408ddac66f234424574\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228efeecf3b5581408ddac66f234424574\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North) (16:51)\u003C/span\u003E: Kia orana, Mr Chair. I want to take a look at clause 16(2), which is replacing an entire section of the Act, 96AAB(1) and (2). I want to look at new subsection (2)(b). This is about the registered person or the hirer of a motor vehicle who\u2019s failed to provide the information that\u2019s been requested for the purposes of the offence. There\u2019s the ability here for that person to be captured only where it\u2019s without reasonable excuse, and it follows on Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s question about reasonable grounds. What can one expect in terms of that threshold for a reasonable excuse? Now, we know that the police often, in other parts of legislation, are very familiar with this, but this is a new offence. Is it the Minister\u2019s expectation that a similar sort of threshold when it comes to reasonableness is applied in relation to this particular offence? I guess that also goes to the point around how the police would be able to actively identify, distinguish, or tell apart the difference between what might be seen as a legitimate or legal or proper inability to identify a driver versus what is an intentional refusal. The intentionality of intentional refusal seems to be what captures a lot of what\u2019s in this, but when we talk about \u201Cwithout reasonable excuse\u201D, what can we expect that to mean for a police officer who\u2019s going about exercising their powers under this piece of law?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00222b3b5f1587059e263390af4ef1a31285\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222b3b5f1587059e263390af4ef1a31285\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (16:53)\u003C/span\u003E: In relation to both of the last two questions, there will be training that the police will engage in. I\u2019m not the Minister of Police nor would I seek to intervene in the operational procedures of Police, but I\u2019m sure they will be doing that. \u201CWithout reasonable excuse\u201D is a term well known to the law. The short answer is it depends, and I\u2019m not going to sit here and pontificate about what \u201Cwithout reasonable excuse\u201D means, because it will be fact dependent. That\u2019s the point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00224b69d1bedab05442facff08689a63935\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224b69d1bedab05442facff08689a63935\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:53)\u003C/span\u003E: I just want to check about the Minister\u2019s statement before, because the difference between the existing penalty, which is in the regulatory impact statement, page 20. The wording that was used, let\u2019s say, for reckless or dangerous driving\u2014this is sections 7 and 36 of the Land Transport Act: it says \u201Cmay confiscate\u201D for the first offence, for example, when you\u2019re looking at vehicles. But, now, with clause 14, it says: \u201Cthe enforcement officer must\u201D. That\u2019s quite a change, because, now, if an officer believes on reasonable grounds, then they have to. There\u2019s no choice but for that officer to seize or impound the vehicle for exactly 28 days, which seems to be taking some of the ability for officers to make some of those decisions and also taking away their flexibility, as well. I think that is quite a substantial change from existing policy. This is why I think the training piece is quite important, as is also knowing what this particular section is referring to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe reason I\u2019m honing in on this part, particularly when it comes to enforcement officers and the way that the officers are able to judge certain circumstances, is we have, with the most recent summary offences (demonstrations outside residential premises) amendment bill\u2014or something along the lines of that\u2014also questioned, particularly asking the Police at that stage, about how an officer would be able to judge some of those and be able to do what officers should predominantly be doing, which is to de-escalate a potential situation to the best of their abilities. My second question to the Minister is: if an enforcement officer must impound if they have any reasonable grounds, how would that work alongside the ability for the police to also de-escalate the situation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022 data-id=\u0022d8ce0fb7519dffa8d615ac4387a05914\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d8ce0fb7519dffa8d615ac4387a05914\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North) (16:56)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019d like to ask the Minister of Transport questions about clause 20, which hasn\u2019t been touched on yet. This is about the requirement for information to be provided around the identity of a driver or a passenger within 14 days. There is a little bit of discrepancy around the time frames throughout this bill. There\u2019s no consistency. Is the Minister satisfied that 14 days is appropriate?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe other thing is that the Minister will be very aware of this because it\u2019s a piece of legislation that he and his colleague have been familiar with around the introduction of, or capability for, electronic drivers\u2019 licences. That 14-day ability to provide information which also aligns with the clause just immediately before it\u2014sorry, Minister, I was referring to new section 118A(1) and (2), but before that, it says, \u201C(4) The registered person or hirer [of the vehicle] must provide the information requested \u2026 (a) to an enforcement officer \u2026\u201D\u2014yes, but\u2014\u201C(b) immediately after it is requested. The question here is: what is \u201Cimmediately\u201D? Is it that its context dependent straight away and, therefore, if the hirer or the driver of the vehicle doesn\u2019t provide it straight away, then that empowers the enforcement officer to move on and engage this provision, or is there some other form around immediately after the request?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00228f5756301d214f95e2ac8b3e38fdd92d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000496\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228f5756301d214f95e2ac8b3e38fdd92d\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (16:58)\u003C/span\u003E: In relation to court timeliness, which was a question asked some time ago, I\u2019m advised we expect there may be some impact on the courts but not significant, and it will likely reduce overtime as deterrent effects take place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000497\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EMr Utikere asked around 14 days. Yes, it\u2019s true that there are different time periods throughout the bill, as there are throughout a variety of different Acts, but I don\u2019t think a lot turns on that. In relation to the question about \u201Cimmediately\u201D: \u201Cimmediately\u201D means immediately.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000498\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002228f0dcf0e495d0b0ee925cf33679b689\u0022\u003ETangi Utikere\u003C/span\u003E: So, straight away?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022595659c311dff438d2b27f979003948f\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, yes, look it up\u2014it\u2019s in the dictionary\u2014but \u201Cimmediately\u201D means immediately. Clearly, context goes into that in relation to offences, and, again, as I say, I\u2019m not going to prognosticate around the range of circumstances and how things will play out factually.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000500\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn relation to the 28-day impoundment, I\u2019m advised that 28 days of impoundment reflects existing Land Transport Act provisions and circumstances where a vehicle is impounded in relation to the information offence. The vehicle may be released before 28 days if that information is provided.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022 data-id=\u00226b4a667386fa2b43446d32f87e235c98\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000501\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226b4a667386fa2b43446d32f87e235c98\u0022\u003EDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (16:59)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Minister, for adding that information, but that raises another question for me. If I look at clause 14\u2014and we\u2019ve just talked about amending section 96 to require the 28-day impoundment for the new convoy offence that we\u2019ve just previously paid some attention to\u2014it also allows for a 28-day impoundment for failing to stop, which replaces what is the current six months for failing to stop regime. I just wonder if you could tell us a little bit more behind the thinking of why the failing to stop impoundment period is, effectively, being reduced from six months to 28 days, while, certainly, the intentionality behind other powers is to strengthen them. Is there any kind of operational guidance that has informed that policy position, or is this just a practicality that I haven\u2019t been able to see by flicking through that clause 14? Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022 data-id=\u0022bfc18db1dddb4714047f9db56a1c2cb9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000502\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bfc18db1dddb4714047f9db56a1c2cb9\u0022\u003EHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (17:00)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I\u2019ve just been looking through some of the points outlined in the regulatory impact statement, so it\u2019s more of a general point, but I\u2019m interested to know from the Minister\u2014one of the main areas that we\u2019ve struggled with in the past is that there\u2019s not strong science in deciding whether deterrence really effectively works or not. I\u2019m just interested to know\u2014there\u2019s not a lot of analysis in terms of correlation directly between reducing offending and increasing community safety in line with greater penalties or increasing the threat of those. Road policing is a common one in this place, where you\u2019re trying to weigh up the effectiveness, you\u2019re trying to weigh up the cost efficiency and, also, proportionality\u2014does the option impose a penalty that\u2019s proportionate to the policy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat we\u2019ve seen in this space over time is an increasing of penalties, but it doesn\u2019t really, over a period of time, appear to be having a significant impact on, potentially, those communities, like in Levin, where we\u2019re seeing repeat instances of really unruly behaviour that\u2019s detrimental to public safety\u2014where you\u2019re seeing injuries, where you\u2019re seeing front-line officers having their lives put on the line. I know that the Minister knows that in the Hutt Valley there are \u201Crev-head\u201D areas, particularly around the western hills, where you can go up and rip off a burnout and go down again. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m interested to know if he thinks that, by just increasing the penalties in this space, this is actually going to have a meaningful difference to changing behaviour and improving community safety\u2014particularly when there is avoidance behaviour that I\u2019ve already referred to, where there is a culture of registering the vehicle to someone else, or doing things in a different way in terms of how the vehicle ownership is structured. Is deterrence really an option here, and does he think that that will have a meaningful impact on the type of antisocial behaviour that we\u2019re seeing in our communities?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00224ea214fb7cf521ca4a2ae7d86ace62cf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000505\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224ea214fb7cf521ca4a2ae7d86ace62cf\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (17:02)\u003C/span\u003E: Deterrence, without getting too philosophical about it, is a core role of the justice system. Clearly, it makes a difference. If we didn\u2019t have offences in relation to what I think most reasonable people would consider to be terrible conduct or bad behaviour, then people would do it. If it wasn\u2019t against the law, people would do it more, and we would not like that as a society. Clearly, at some level, deterrence has an impact.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI think the member raises a good question around whether or not lifting the penalties is more of a deterrent. I would argue yes, because I think there is broad acceptance\u2014as evidenced by the fact that I think most members of the Parliament are voting for the bill, including the member\u2019s own party\u2014and there is a recognition that the law as it stands at the moment has gaps, has a lacuna in the law, around dangerous behaviour and around reckless behaviour and convoys. That\u2019s why the bill exists; there\u2019s (a) a gap, or gaps plural, in the law that have been evidenced over time, and members in the House will be familiar with some of the behaviour that has led to this bill coming about, including in the Hutt, as the member says, but also Levin. I know Tim Costley is a strong proponent of this bill, and there\u2019ll be other members, too.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000507\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229b6be68407d3cba5d71871dc0d30ceb5\u0022\u003EHon Phil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: What about West Auckland?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000508\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002254a29534d7ddd7045b60aa3f865ce605\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000509\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022975498aa54f73f9f1a6d52c8f845efc8\u0022\u003EHon Phil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: What about West Auckland?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000510\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225586987fc87557a651ac34a14a316596\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, is the member a proponent for tougher action in his seat of West Auckland? He\u2019s nodding, so that\u2019s good\u2014that\u2019s good. In fact, Councillor Shane Henderson is in the paper out that member\u2019s way\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000511\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f849e5f755dfb0bcb08ee963588e1b77\u0022\u003EHon Phil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: Excellent councillor.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000512\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222d2227bcacbf1caee65c60fe344be5bc\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, he\u2019s a smart proponent of greater urban density, which is not exactly why we\u2019re here, but I\u2019ll just give him a shout-out for that. Anyway, I understand, in relation to Mr Twyford\u2019s point and Councillor Henderson\u2019s area, that siren battles have been a real challenge. That is partly why the bill exists\u2014to fill the gap in the law and then, secondly, get tough on those who commit these crimes. If you just go back to the start\u2014why are we here\u2014it is (a) to fill the gap in the law, and (b) to send a message through the Parliament, which is the ultimate lawmaking body in the country, that this behaviour is not going to be tolerated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000513\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ECommunities get, rightfully, royally annoyed when they see siren battles, they see burnouts late at night\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000514\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002256c4f90d9636359d231c79abb84a4536\u0022\u003ETangi Utikere\u003C/span\u003E: Yep, agreed\u2014agreed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000515\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022399715b4f927e9db22316fc889668193\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, well, in that case, let\u2019s get on with it and get it through, and then bring it into law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00229dd82f3162eeac07d4afb3a1915b9024\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000516\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229dd82f3162eeac07d4afb3a1915b9024\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair\u2014I do want to\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000517\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002269868cc3bfe69d72fba645e9cb6aee82\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Just be aware, we\u2019re now into the realms of criminology. When the Minister starts using words like prog\u2014prog\u2014what is it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227f4c31e294d450d7f63522569ec68009\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: Prognostication.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000519\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bc6cd2ab7dd10631c4eba3d55895b105\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, prognostication.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000520\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ec1c5a9eebe20f94ec56aa3c7f3915ee\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Prognostication. Is it a word?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000521\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b654d8a0123b6b7baff42b23928472d1\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000522\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fafc6301317f7ec26b9d19f460a817d8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m assured it\u2019s a word. We\u2019re getting near the end, but carry on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000523\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002235b34022d4c7cd1e130325659c82bf30\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019d also like to just mention that when we\u2019re looking at new words of the day, the Minister has just used probably one of my favourite words, \u201Clacuna\u201D. I thought that was an excellent word. I used it all the time before in papyrology.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000524\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do want to check a couple of things with the Minister. I\u2019m looking at clause 20, section 118 replaced\u2014specifically section 118(3). I want to start firstly with what the Hon Ginny Andersen or maybe Tangi Utikere mentioned before about \u201Cimmediately\u201D. I do want to check, in the context of subsection (3) of section 118, it does say that the \u201Cofficer may request, orally or in writing\u201D. I want to check; it doesn\u2019t specify that the writing has to be immediately on the spot. Is there a feasible situation where the enforcement officer requests in writing via an email, or through a text message, later on to the person, and then now there\u2019s an expectation that the person must respond immediately? I just want to check, does the \u201Corally or in writing\u201D for subsection (3), in this \u201Cimmediate\u201D section, also mean that the \u201Corally or in writing\u201D to the enforcement officer should be immediate and on the spot, as well? I think that\u2019s an important clarification from the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000525\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy next question is something that the Justice Committee commentary has addressed before, so I think it\u2019s important to engage with the Minister on this. It\u2019s the fact that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) report, the consistency against BORA report on this bill, was silent on section 14 of BORA around freedom of expression. This is specifically in the context of a person who is potentially both the offender as well as the registered person of the vehicle. It\u2019s the presumption against self-incrimination in that, because that was specifically mentioned. I want to check if the Minister has any thoughts around this presumption against self-incrimination, which is mentioned on page 6 of the commentary of this bill. The select committee report says, \u201CAlthough we have not recommended any amendments to clause 20, we wish to highlight the matter\u201D. The gap in the Land Transport Act as it stands doesn\u2019t have any mentioning against self-incrimination. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question I have for the Minister around this now, particularly for this section, as well, when we\u2019re looking in the context of self-incrimination, is: often, when you\u2019re looking at, in a criminal law sense, particularly for the police officer\u2014when they\u2019re stopping someone, a police officer will need to list the rights of the person to the person; the right to remain silent and the right against self-incrimination. Are we then looking at now enforcement officers who may not be the police\u2014or enforcement officers could only be the police\u2014in this case, in the context of this amendment bill, also being required to be able to recite the rights to a person to at least allow them to understand that anything they say could potentially jeopardise their ability under the presumption against self-incrimination? Those are my questions for the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u002227f8afff409e3a692899988b53527b63\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000527\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002227f8afff409e3a692899988b53527b63\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (17:09)\u003C/span\u003E: In relation to self-incrimination, the bill simply adds additional offences to which the existing power to compel information about a driver will apply. The bill does not change any safeguards or rights with respect to this extended information offence, including the requirement that police must not use the information power on a person arrested or detained in relation to the suspected offence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000528\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn relation to the commentary in the Justice Committee report, it is worth noting that that is in the commentary, but the previous Attorney-General, the Hon Judith Collins, assessed the bill for consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It is found to be consistent. As the new Attorney-General\u2014or new-ish Attorney-General\u2014I agree with that advice. The vet is on the Ministry of Justice website.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cf22a832d14a4c99ab5dfd16e24446e5\u0022 data-id=\u0022e9eb7a4f08c1fc5a1877bd2f2969b0c2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000529\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf22a832d14a4c99ab5dfd16e24446e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e9eb7a4f08c1fc5a1877bd2f2969b0c2\u0022\u003ERIMA NAKHLE (National\u2014Takanini) (17:10)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. 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=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022 data-id=\u00229eaddd5be5d536ccf13320b9c35aaff5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000530\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229eaddd5be5d536ccf13320b9c35aaff5\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North) (17:10)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to move to what is a new clause\u2014it\u2019s in clause 20\u2014which seeks to add to section 118B(3). This is relating to the requirement for a transport service licence holder to provide information about identify of the driver within 14 days.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000531\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, when we go to subsection (3), this talks about the fact that \u201CThe licence holder must provide the information requested \u2026 (a) to an enforcement officer;\u201D\u2014which I\u2019ll come to my question on that one in a moment, but the second one is\u2014\u201C(b) within 14 days after it is requested.\u201D So my first question to the Minister is within the 14 days after it is requested\u2014what happens after the 14 days? Is it that there is no other alternative but for a charge to be filed or an infringement to be issued? Is there any discretion or flexibility around that? Because it might be that that\u2019s certainly not the case. And, if so, is he satisfied that if someone happens to provide that information on the 16\u003Csup\u003Eth\u003C/sup\u003E day after the request for a whole range of options as well\u2014we\u2019re talking about a transport service licence holder that might be in a particular set of circumstances where they\u2019re not able to provide that information in a timely way\u2014are there alternative options? Is there flexibility? Is there discretion available to apply that under subsection (3)(b)?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second part of my question is Dr Xu-Nan has referred to electronic means. So if that information is to be provided\u2014for example, by way of an electronic email; often that information is provided through an electronic email\u2014how is there some certainty that the provision contained in subsection (3)(a) is met; i.e., is provided to an enforcement officer? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, further in this bill there has been some change, for example, around the revocation of infringements. Instead of that sitting with a police officer or a constable or an enforcement officer, that is removed and has been given over to the Commissioner for Police. So why is it that either the commissioner is not listed here and that those powers then are delegated, or that someone fulfils the requirement within 14 days, sends it by way of email to some generic address, or is it expected that the individual enforcement officer is the person who is going to be in receipt of that\u2014I think the Minister understands by question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00225f5b6cf5706581085a30a90ea3074773\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225f5b6cf5706581085a30a90ea3074773\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (17:13)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m advised new section 118B is a redraft of an existing provision in the Land Transport Act\u2014the bill doesn\u2019t change that. So after 14 days, in relation to the member\u2019s question, there is the discretion to prosecute, but it\u2019s a redraft of what\u2019s already there. That\u2019s the law now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022 data-id=\u00224c2b8a25b0d6662ac8476eba2c7e2bac\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000535\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224c2b8a25b0d6662ac8476eba2c7e2bac\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North) (17:13)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to touch on the Schedules 1 and 2 that relate to this part, because they have not been referenced in this debate or in this sort of questioning opportunity at the moment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000536\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 1 does actually have quite a number of references in terms of sections related to the Land Transport Act 1998. All of these, as we can understand it here, relate to the maximum penalty that would be applied. Now, there are a number of individual sections that are listed there that actually have more than just a couple, in some regards. Is the Minister comfortable that all of those that are identified there adequately have been cross-referenced that need to be collected? There are so many areas that have been identified there. One assumes that what it\u2019s going to do as it says there is replace \u201Cmaximum penalty is\u201D with \u201Cperson is liable to\u201D. So is that going to incorporate any potential range of penalty options that might exist and that\u2019s the sort of genesis behind the change in terminology there as opposed to a maximum penalty? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000537\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of Schedule 2, which is the other schedule that hasn\u2019t been referred to yet, the Minister in the chair, as he, by his own admission, is the current\u2014he says \u201Cnew\u201D\u2014Attorney-General, so he may be able to shed some light on this. But when it comes to new Part 10 of Schedule 1 of the Land Transport Act 1998, Schedule 2 will seek to identify section 31, which is the application of when these amendments take place. Now, of interest, subsection (1) relates to the amendment applying only to when the offence is committed on or after commencement. We\u2019ll get to commencement date in due course, but the second one is about the fact that \u201C(2) An offence committed, in whole or in part\u201D. What does \u201Cin part\u201D mean? You either commit an offence in whole or\u2014is this in relation to an investigation process that someone might be through a process of investigation, as opposed to part before commencement, remains subject to this Act as enforced before commencement?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000538\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f17b3c7f4e6b31da7ba22423e67c5ee7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan. We\u2019re coming near the end of this, members, so it\u2019ll be pretty specific and new.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022c90f6191c4dd71467644f883e2ddf86d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000539\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c90f6191c4dd71467644f883e2ddf86d\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I just actually want to ask the Minister a couple of very quick questions around the Minister\u2019s amendment; noting that this Amendment Paper 508 has not gone through select committee stage but is relevant here for this Part 1. I just want to check with the Minister that, particularly when we\u2019re looking at the new clause 18A that the Minister has amended section 98A(1)(a)(ii)\u2014just checking. Oh yeah. I just want to check with the Minister on the rationale behind this particular part. Because with new clause 18A, this part refers to the authorisation to the Commissioner of Police to give notice prohibiting the sale or disposal of. I want to check, in this case, when you are looking at the changes, how would that work in practice? Also noting that it now requires a court to order the forfeiture or the forfeiture and destruction of the vehicle. Would that then mean that if the person did not give permission for that, the court now is able to do that instead? Is that the whole point is to close that particular loophole in the existing system?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI want to check specifically on new clause 18A. With that\u2014no, actually, that one has been answered. So, yeah, I guess that particular one question for the Minister on his new Amendment Paper 508. Is it to do with now the court is able to do that instead of the registered person?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022f14e17e0a0ea83771d43886a70fd0bd2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f14e17e0a0ea83771d43886a70fd0bd2\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (17:17)\u003C/span\u003E: In relation to Schedule 1 that Mr Utikere raises: yes, I\u2019m comfortable the cross-references are correct, but you never know. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsTerm\u0022 style=\u0022font-style: italic\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E] Well, you don\u2019t. I mean, yes, I\u2019m comfortable, but also I\u2019m not a legal drafter. As the member points out, there 20, 25\u2014give or take\u2014so let\u2019s hope and wait and see.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000542\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m advised that the maximum penalty phraseology with the replacement that the person is liable to reflects modern day Parliamentary Counsel Office drafting, so it\u2019s a drafting decision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to \u201Cin part\u201D, I did take some advice about this. It\u2019s an interesting little issue, which is Schedule 2. So \u201Cin part\u201D covers the unlikely situation where the offence takes place at the time of or the moment of commencement, which is theoretically possible. If we passed this bill at midnight and there are some yahoos on the good streets of Palmerston North, you never know. Let\u2019s hope not! The good local MP, I\u2019m sure, will be very worked up about that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227db9d6037599be5af034bb7ac45990dc\u0022\u003ETangi Utikere\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s right. You know it!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000545\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221b4e7a95b3e70864ccb33adbff5fb01c\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000546\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022073b8b1424879ade64894c63fcca1ba0\u0022\u003ETangi Utikere\u003C/span\u003E: You know it!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000547\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fc7e38806046fbf00487ea2a92574be6\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, ha, ha! Yeah.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022440a125e85954bae9f5d470b7551e4f3\u0022 data-id=\u0022fd6b27ebb11627795e58e548bc3b5793\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000548\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022440a125e85954bae9f5d470b7551e4f3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fd6b27ebb11627795e58e548bc3b5793\u0022\u003ECAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (17:19)\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000549\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221969cece12bb3cab98691bcec54eedf6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: One final question for Ginny Andersen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022 data-id=\u002229f11d6e3911580ce0d9c63d0e3e3068\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000550\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002229f11d6e3911580ce0d9c63d0e3e3068\u0022\u003EHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (17:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Mr Chair\u2014that\u2019s so good of you. I have a genuine question around new section 118B in Part 1. It\u2019s the requirement for a transport service licence holder to provide information. I just want to know, genuinely, is that like a taxi driver or a bus driver? What is actually a transport service licence holder? I\u2019m assuming it\u2019s like a taxi driver.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAssuming that there\u2019s been a boy racer or someone and then the taxi driver knows something about them\u2014like know that they were the person who did the alleged crime. I\u2019d just like to understand practically how this would operate. So then the police officer goes around to a taxi driver\u2019s house and says, \u201CDo you know about Gary doing a burnout? Did you see that?\u201D And therefore, if he doesn\u2019t cough up\u2014if there\u2019s some evidence that the taxi driver knows some information\u2014will the police take the licence off the taxi driver for failing to provide the information? Just interested to know, practically, is it taxi drivers and bus drivers? What is the transport service licence holder, and how does this play into whether or not there\u2019s a conviction for illegal street racer activity? I\u2019m really, genuinely interested to know whether police have advice on how do you know if the Uber driver or the taxi driver isn\u2019t telling the truth with their withholding information? And has there been any analysis on the risk of someone who relies upon that licence\u2014for their weekly income, to provide for their family\u2014if there\u2019s been an allegation that they have information the police would like to receive, they don\u2019t provide that. Can they lose their licence, and what\u2019s the recourse for that should they lose it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u002231731c35f52937ee5833776a62c8a726\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002231731c35f52937ee5833776a62c8a726\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (17:20)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s the licence holder. So in relation to a taxi company, it\u2019s the company; they hold the licence, that\u2019s who it applies to. And there\u2019s a range of\u2014in 118B(1), (2), and (3), around that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022297bc572c27f45308dffb067ca3e7915\u0022 data-id=\u0022ad17def5063f356d6ea55d94e2405f2f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000553\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022297bc572c27f45308dffb067ca3e7915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ad17def5063f356d6ea55d94e2405f2f\u0022\u003EDr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National\u2014Ilam) (17:21)\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000554\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000555\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000557\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000559\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222c53e43b306fa3317a9bb659fdf9e208\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 508 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000561\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 101\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000563\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000564\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000567\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000568\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 101\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000569\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000570\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000571\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000572\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 1 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000573\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00221dcaa1ec083aab270a28b29975584c69\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000574\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022da73b9c37945880f49b01d39c1b12861\u0022\u003EPart 2 Amendments to Sentencing Act 2002, and Schedule 3\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000575\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002243c4337fb1e3eb04089e8f16a0e48a3d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: We come now to Part 2, the debate on clauses 24 to 39\u2014\u201CAmendments to Sentencing Act 2002\u201D\u2014and Schedule 3. The question is that Part 2 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022 data-id=\u0022bc193f182fdbf430e788dbadebd17d79\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bc193f182fdbf430e788dbadebd17d79\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North) (17:24)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I welcome the Minister into the chair as well. Look, the way I see things is that this is around the workability of the court process in terms of\u2014not just in, well, empowerment by the police or by the enforcement officer, but actually the decisions to be taken by the court around destruction and all of those sorts of things. So it\u2019s about workability.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000577\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EMy question for the Minister is in relation to clause 29. This is where section 129A is replaced. It\u2019s around the \u201CConfiscation and destruction after third illegal street racing offence if substitute owns or has interest in vehicle\u201D. This is applying to someone who has been convicted of two previous offences\u2014under a specified section of the Land Transport Act\u2014and that there is a time period of four years before the current offence would have been committed. Now, in this provision it talks about \u201Ca substitute for the offender owns or has an interest in the specified motor vehicle;\u201D. Now, I think section 123J relates to \u201Csubstitute\u201D and the definition, but my question to the Minister: given that there is a discretion that follows by the court in 129A(3), where the court does have discretion to order the destruction\u2014well firstly the confiscation of the motor vehicle in question, and then the destruction and we\u2019ll have some questions around that. But this use of the term \u201Csubstitute\u201D, is the Minister comfortable\u2014well, you know, perhaps even first clarify what that term actually means, even though it\u2019s contained in 123J. But is he comfortable that there is reference to a substitute as opposed to either the person themselves or any other way in which that provision could be expressed to meet the needs of the court\u2019s consideration?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022c960acf58a686cb8c52c8e489bbe2f7f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000578\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c960acf58a686cb8c52c8e489bbe2f7f\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:27)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to start with a question around interpretation of this new subpart 5A which is clause 25. The two interpretations I want to check with the Minister on are the hire purchase agreement and lease.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, the hire purchase agreement. My understanding is, looking at particularly if, let\u2019s say, what looks like the \u201Csoon to be registered person\u201D\u2014let\u2019s use the terminology under the Land Transport Act and not the Sentencing Act. Let\u2019s say you get the registered person, and this is to do with if they are buying a vehicle in instalments, or potentially other mechanisms, would that be the correct interpretation? We\u2019re looking at hire purchase agreement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second question is: I understand if a lease does not include a hire purchase agreement, but what then would be the difference between a lease and a rental service agreement? Because surely \u201Crental\u201D and \u201Clease\u201D would have comparable meanings. So those two definitions are the two that I want to kind of explore, and get the Minister\u2019s clarifications on first.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u0022556342266f575e53043374c87947c7e4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022556342266f575e53043374c87947c7e4\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (17:28)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. You\u2019ve been in the wars, Mr Chair. Poor fella.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022440a125e85954bae9f5d470b7551e4f3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e997f4fab0b873cfd3e9e0fe1702cf93\u0022\u003ECameron Luxton\u003C/span\u003E: He\u2019s been in a rumble.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000583\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b72d346a015efc8a8ec4dfb3f387b937\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER\u003C/span\u003E: Don\u2019t you start. I\u2019ll just address Mr Utikere\u2019s question. It was around the definition of \u201Csubstitute\u201D and the question was \u201CWhat does substitute mean?\u201D At a high level, a substitute is either a registered party to, or a person who owns or has an interest in a vehicle that is used to commit certain offences by someone else. So in that context, the offender or driver can\u2019t own or have an interest in the vehicle that was used to commit the offence. So that\u2019s how you get the substitute reason in there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022 data-id=\u00224ce6ae7b23435fb7ee062ff46b71a476\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000584\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224ce6ae7b23435fb7ee062ff46b71a476\u0022\u003EHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (17:29)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I do have a question for the Minister\u2014and apologies, I think I asked this in the wrong section earlier. So there is a genuine issue with legislation here; in the past it\u2019s resulted in very few vehicles being actually confiscated and destroyed. The primary reason for this is that they\u2019re registered to somebody else, and when that person fronts up in court quite often hardship is used. We\u2019re not backing away from the fact hardship is a legitimate reason, and we\u2019re supportive of the fact that that can be used. But it has been, in the past, a fundamental reason why attempts to curtail street racing and illegal street racing haven\u2019t been effective. Because they\u2019re registered to someone else and because they front up to the court and say, \u201CI need this to get to work\u201D, and it\u2019s hardship.  I just would at least like to know if the Minister\u2019s turned his mind to this problem. We asked this question in select committee, and we asked officials if they could even tell us how many vehicles under the previous legislation were up for being destroyed but weren\u2019t, because this provision had been utilised, so that we could get an understanding if this was really a driving factor for why so few cars had been crushed under the previous legislation. It\u2019s clear, from asking, that no one had even done that level of analysis. I\u2019ve looked through the regulatory impact statement. I can\u2019t see any analysis here either. If the fundamental problem is that cars aren\u2019t crushed, because they\u2019re registered to someone else and the hardship clause is in, what is it that will prevent that from occurring again?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u002296516acc1db74570da3dbb5c7fa307ba\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002296516acc1db74570da3dbb5c7fa307ba\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (17:30)\u003C/span\u003E: I should just finish off the remaining part of that answer to Tangi Utikere\u2019s question, which is that the substitution won\u2019t apply to this regime, because you need to have ownership or an interest in the vehicle. Just to clarify, that is, under my understanding, from the old regime.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022 data-id=\u002250b0017435bfc4c78edb49e083a49441\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000586\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002250b0017435bfc4c78edb49e083a49441\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North) (17:31)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Can I just follow up on my colleague the Hon Ginny Andersen\u2019s points and just take them one step further. It would be good to get a response from the Minister around this. Clearly there is an ability for the court, under clause 29, to consider when not to make an order. This is not actually saying that the default position will be that an order of the court will naturally follow but, instead, that there are circumstances where the court must not make an order, so there is no discretion in terms of its ability, but they must not. That\u2019s outlined in new section 129A(4), and it does talk around the \u201Cundue hardship\u201D. Now, naturally, this is kind of interrelated. Now, my colleague referred to the lack of information in front of the select committee at the time. Now, it\u2019s worth noting that there has actually been a significant passage of time since this bill emerged from select committee and we\u2019re dealing with it now. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister if any further information is forthcoming and if any modelling has been undertaken to deal with the issue around capacity. Now, we support this bill, and we think it will provide a legislative framework to give Police the tools to do so, but we also want to make sure that this bill, as it stands currently, is going to be able to be enforced. What we very clearly have in this country is a track record when it comes to giving Police and Ministers the tools to be able to do this, but, actually, the number of cars that were crushed under \u201CCrusher\u201D Collins was actually much fewer than perhaps some thought would have been the case. It is an important\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000587\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290f442a79aea4ce0aeae083763135935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022966f2aa3fe5ba5c909d4ad8ad0b13029\u0022\u003ECarl Bates\u003C/span\u003E: Because the deterrent worked.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222ed4383301189543a6b42ea95d95d9a7\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000589\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290f442a79aea4ce0aeae083763135935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224eba02399153dc4300761f0777b876d0\u0022\u003ECarl Bates\u003C/span\u003E: Because the deterrent worked.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002211f69d8199a0d95e26e39679d4452799\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE\u003C/span\u003E: Well, you know, we\u2019re back here with another piece of Government legislation to deal with this issue, and it\u2019s important that we have a look at what that will mean in terms of its workability. To the Minister, have the Government or officials done any modelling on the actual number of vehicles that could be forfeited, not confiscated, not impounded, but forfeited? Forfeiture means you give it up whether you like it or you don\u2019t. Is there any modelling that\u2019s been provided around forfeiture? That presumption, if you\u2019re wanting a legislative reference, sir, is new section 142AAH. That\u2019s the new presumption for each year, so has any modelling been undertaken?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u002292a831c87831b2bb43dddc7e38081955\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002292a831c87831b2bb43dddc7e38081955\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (17:34)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. There were some questions from Ginny Andersen and also Tangi Utikere about hardship and numbers around vehicles that were confiscated under the previous regime. There are some statistics and numbers available, and I can read them out to the committee. Between 2014-15 and 2024-25, for street racing and burnouts, failing to stop, and failing to provide information, there were 136 confiscation orders, three confiscation and destruction orders, 24 destruction orders, and two forfeiture orders. Because of the way that the information is collected decentrally\u2014it\u2019s collected through district courts\u2014it\u2019s almost impossible to tell how many orders weren\u2019t given or weren\u2019t made based on the offending at hand. It\u2019s very difficult to collect that information. However, now that there\u2019s a presumptive mechanism in place, we would expect higher numbers, because the presumption is for forfeiture unless an order is made not to do so. From now on, we\u2019ll be able to better collect statistics around the number of confiscation and destruction orders as compared to those which are not made because of that presumption. I guess it\u2019s just generally not possible\u2014well, it\u2019s hard\u2014to accurately describe how many vehicles will be forfeited and destroyed under the new regime. It will depend on whether the court orders forfeiture or forfeiture and destruction and on the circumstances of the case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000592\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThen, just finally, on the hardship question that was raised, the court must not make an order when there\u2019s undue hardship to a substitute for the offender. That\u2019s the case where an offender is driving someone else\u2019s vehicle\u2014if I get this right\u2014and an order for destruction of that vehicle would cause undue hardship to the substitute, to the person who owns the vehicle. That might be an instance where a court must not make the order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022 data-id=\u0022c8cc4cfb4eca7ac0ec4372f54fecbc4f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000593\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c8cc4cfb4eca7ac0ec4372f54fecbc4f\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North) (17:35)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I thank the Minister for that response there. It does beg the question whether there\u2019s been any assessment on the administrative burden on the Ministry of Justice, for example\u2014particularly given this Government is making cuts to the Public Service\u2014and their ability to be able to carry through on there as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to ask a question about clause 32. Now, clause 32, as it\u2019s titled there, is the amendment around the \u201COffender must not acquire new interest in motor vehicle for [a period of] 12 months\u201D. This is a circumstance, as we understand it, where someone has been convicted of an offence under this Act and they would not be able to acquire a new interest. They could retain an existing interest perhaps, although maybe not if their vehicle had been forfeited and disposed of. But we have this real situation where it is possible where offenders who might not acquire an interest in a new motor vehicle as such for a period of 12 months but they certainly might perhaps apply some pressure on to other family members who might be, perhaps, in vulnerable circumstances for them to acquire the vehicle and for the person themselves to actually undertake the use of it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo is there a difference in acquisition of an interest in a motor vehicle and actually losing one\u2019s licence so that you\u2019re not able to actually drive? It\u2019s one thing to say you\u2019re not allowed to acquire any additional interest in motor vehicles. Of course, it\u2019s a new interest, so it\u2019s one that they didn\u2019t, obviously, used to have, but how is that going to serve as a deterrent where it is entirely possible for\u2014and we hear about it\u2014those that don\u2019t necessarily have an interest in a motor vehicle but they\u2019re able to get around that by having a family member acquire the interest for them and, therefore, potentially still have the offender utilise aspects of the vehicle themselves?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u00224b2fb5e1895ff62358ad8a372d0f5a06\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224b2fb5e1895ff62358ad8a372d0f5a06\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (17:38)\u003C/span\u003E: One possible deterrence factor in preventing someone from acquiring an interest in a motor vehicle may well be that it\u2019s just not cool to have the vehicle that you race around in being owned by your mum. That could be a deterrence factor. There is quite a lot of pride and respect given to car ownership. As a young person who once owned my own car, it would be a deterrent, I would have thought, to me and my friends to not be able to own vehicles. Some of these activities are based on the status of that person, and, sometimes, one of the deterrents might be that if you don\u2019t own your own vehicle and you\u2019re running around in your mum\u2019s Honda Civic, you might not have that status or be as cool to your mates any more. That could be a deterrent against this kind of behaviour, so that\u2019s one possibility.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022 data-id=\u002201664b1a72633641fb621fbbcbb0f353\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000597\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002201664b1a72633641fb621fbbcbb0f353\u0022\u003EHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (17:39)\u003C/span\u003E: I just have some further questions in relation to the provisions around \u201CForfeiture, or forfeiture and destruction, of vehicles used in specified offences\u201D. We\u2019ve traversed the two key problems with \u201CWe\u2019re worried about the towies not picking up the cars and storing them without any cost allocation.\u201D We\u2019ve covered that in Part 1. We\u2019ve also covered the concern that there has been a history with this type of legislation where we don\u2019t see the level of destructions, because of loopholes that have been utilised. I really would like the Minister to comment on whether he thinks a really good deterrent\u2014a really good, effective way of getting on top of this problem\u2014would be better resourcing of front-line police.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBecause my understanding, when I visited those areas that have a disproportionate number of antisocial road users and boy racer activities that are disturbing the public, was those areas that have actually managed them better have had a dedicated group of road policing where those police officers get to know the repeat offenders. They repeatedly green-sticker them or sticker their vehicles; they have a dedicated resource that goes out into key areas and polices. It\u2019s in some of those places where we have seen that where there\u2019s been a dedicated resource in place has been the most effective way to ensure that communities are not disrupted in an ongoing manner. And it\u2019s been where those areas are tight on resourcing\u2014they have inadequate front-line police resource to be able to do that\u2014where we see this behaviour where they do a one-off sting and then there\u2019s retribution by the boy racer community, and we end up seeing potentially an escalation that not only endangers front-line police officers but also increases potentially the risk to bystanders and community members when we\u2019re having this kind of retribution and escalation of activities going on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000599\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m interested to know whether he has a view that some of the weaknesses that we\u2019ve already discussed in this bill might be actually encountered that if, for example, we\u2019d reached the 500 by now\u2014promised police that was meant to be achieved in, I think, November last year; was it September? I forget\u2014that it\u2019s actually a police resourcing issue to be able to have adequate police officers who can routinely and regularly check in; that they have good intelligence on who those repeat offenders are and they\u2019re able to use an existing range of legislation to be able to apply this in a way that is consistent, that is clear, and that there is an understanding within that community that this is not tolerated. My concern is that this is the second time National\u2019s had a crack at this bill. Wouldn\u2019t you be better off just appropriately resourcing the front-line police to do their job as they can instead of them being so stretched?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u00224e6c6c7d622c1b8796e26ba61538a185\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000600\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224e6c6c7d622c1b8796e26ba61538a185\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (17:42)\u003C/span\u003E: We may be a wee way from the strict clause of the bill, but the question is an important one. Of course, resourcing our police and our justice sector is incredibly important to us. That\u2019s why Budget 2026 invested $1.3 billion into law and order, led by people like justice Minister Paul Goldsmith. That includes $391 million for front-line policing resources, upgrades to our police stations in Greymouth and Whanganui, and of course investment in technology to better track and apprehend the criminal actors in our country. Of course, one of the best deterrents\u2014along with resourcing our police force\u2014is the certainty and swiftness of punishment under our law and order system, which has proven to be an effective deterrent. That is the point and the purpose of this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022 data-id=\u00224ce0d34bace22ae05eea63f075660690\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000601\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224ce0d34bace22ae05eea63f075660690\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North) (17:43)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to have a look at new section 142AAI, inserted by clause 36. This is where a court must not make an order under new section 142AAH. Now, this is in relation to either a forfeiture order, where the vehicle is forfeited to the Crown; or a forfeiture and destruction order, which speaks for itself\u2014it\u2019s forfeited to the Crown and then it\u2019s crushed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, the court needs to be satisfied\u2014there are a couple of things there about the \u201Cmanifestly unjust\u201D, OK, they won\u2019t make an order there; the resultant \u201Cextreme hardship to the offender\u201D, so not just hardship but a higher threshold of extremity there; or \u201Cundue hardship to any other person;\u201D, so that could be, one assumes, a family member or perhaps an impact of hardship on the household that might relate to employment prospects if someone is reliant on a vehicle for their employment and that means that the household would suffer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, in new subsection (b), though, it talks about the fact that for any of the following sort of offences that were committed, if the vehicle was \u201Cstolen or converted\u201D at the time. Earlier on in this bill, there are four offences. Only three of them are captured here for there to be some discretion for the court not to make an order for forfeiture or forfeiture and destruction. It is the \u201Caggravated failing to stop an offender:\u201D as an offender, the \u201Cfrightening or intimidating convoy\u201D piece, or being a street racer in terms of activity. The one that\u2019s missing out here is the offence where you fail to provide information when requested to do so by an enforcement officer. That naturally creates a little bit of an anomaly in terms of the four offences in this bill that have been identified, three of them are captured under here where the court may not place an order for forfeiture or forfeiture and destruction. But that then implies that there is no discretion for someone who fails to provide information and that the court must then actually either make a forfeiture order or a forfeiture and destruction order for an offence of that nature.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question for the Associate Minister of Transport is why there is that discrepancy as part of Part 2. It might be that the Government is relying on a provision elsewhere, but surely if there are four offences contained earlier in Part 1\u2014no issue with the three being carried over, but why is the anomaly with one of them not being carried over?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022297bc572c27f45308dffb067ca3e7915\u0022 data-id=\u0022e336354354c3e584a2d2778941a8ba83\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000605\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022297bc572c27f45308dffb067ca3e7915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e336354354c3e584a2d2778941a8ba83\u0022\u003EDr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National\u2014Ilam) (17:46)\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\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022 data-id=\u002256830137c1e44d23470190a5770d2df8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002256830137c1e44d23470190a5770d2df8\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North) (17:46)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Perhaps the Associate Minister of Transport would like to take a bit of time to respond to that, but I will move now to the new section, which is new section 142AAJ, inserted by clause 36. We haven\u2019t talked about this. This is the offence to sell or dispose a motor vehicle that is subject to forfeiture or a forfeiture and destruction order. We assume that someone has gone\u2014an offender, a charge has been laid, the court has made an order for forfeiture or forfeiture and destruction, and that is not going to necessarily happen over time. We therefore infer that there is a time period that a vehicle would be subject to that court order, whatever that period might be.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000607\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ENow, it seems that there are circumstances where someone might interfere with that court order in that process. This particular subsection, 142AAJ(2), identifies that if someone actually does that\u2014if someone does either interfere with a vehicle by selling it or disposing of it\u2014the person is then liable to a conviction; to a fine not exceeding $2,000. Well, what if a person sells it for 15 grand? What if someone goes through and sells a vehicle for something that is more than $2,000? What provision is there, Minister, to recoup effectively a profit that is made when someone\u2019s\u2014and, as we know, often in the court system the maximum is not applied; maybe the maximum might be applied in those circumstances of $2,000 because someone made a net gain of 13,000 bucks. There is a question there around the level of the fine\u2014whether that is appropriate\u2014but also where is there, if anywhere, a provision to recoup effectively profit that might be gained by someone who can gerrymander an outcome, effectively, in their favour?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022 data-id=\u00228031093ac2ec0e807429600a5a4956ff\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000608\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228031093ac2ec0e807429600a5a4956ff\u0022\u003EHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (17:48)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I just had a couple of questions in relation to the process outlined in the legislation pertaining to appeal by a third party against forfeiture or forfeiture and destruction\u2014I think that\u2019s new section 142AAM, inserted by clause 36, on page 24 of the legislation. This section applies if the court has made, in respect to the vehicle in question, an order for forfeiture of the vehicle or forfeiture and destruction, and it provides that the person may appeal to the appropriate court on one or more of the following grounds. This is my question: is the third party another impacted person, or is that applying to the person who did the illegal street racing? That\u2019s my question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe forfeiture or the forfeiture and destruction order\u2014as we\u2019ve already discussed\u2014can cause hardship. But also, if the appellant is a secured party under the security agreement relating to the motor vehicle but has no relationship of another kind to the offender. Maybe it\u2019s a financer, so there\u2019s the cut of cars over a long period of time being paid off and there\u2019s actually a company that owns part of the car. Is that able to stop that destruction if they\u2019ve got a financial interest in part of that car that\u2019s going to be potentially destroyed? It also provides that the appellant is the lessor of a motor vehicle under a lease that has no relationship of another kind with the offender. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnother situation would be that the motor vehicle was on hire at the material time in accordance with the rental service licence under the Land Transport Act, and I\u2019m really interested to understand what the chances of that are. I mean, there\u2019ll be lots of financial companies out there who would be interested to know that if they\u2019re required to lodge the appeal within 20 working days after the date of the order, what if they miss that? If they\u2019re late or if they\u2019re not notified, is there any way through the legislation for the courts to notify that potential entity that has a financial interest in order for them to have notification within the 20 working days after the date of the order? How would that be carried out through the courts? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAlso noted here is the service of the notice of appeal. It talks about the prosecutor in the proceeding that has resulted in the relevant conviction, and how that is actually being served upon some of those\u2014and sometimes there are finance companies, and sometimes they\u2019re on high-interest terms in many of these situations. I\u2019m really interested to know how the communication of that court order is done and how we\u2019d find the person who is the interested party. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000612\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also have another question, and I\u2019m really sad that Chris Bishop is not able to be answering that one, but I\u2019m interested to know this from the Minister in the chair. When the first car was crushed under the previous legislation, I vividly remember that it was Anne Tolley who was the Minister at the time. There was a great front-page picture of her in a pink high-vis vest and stiletto heels standing on top of the crushed car, and I was just wondering whether we would get the same undertaking from the current Minister of Transport to re-enact that photograph. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u0022c6cba50793299b690a652f2522696550\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000613\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c6cba50793299b690a652f2522696550\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (17:51)\u003C/span\u003E: I can only speak for myself, but I don\u2019t think they make heels in my size at the moment, and so I can\u2019t make that\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000614\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221d58ee799bce18f1ac6b68be6c3ea3fb\u0022\u003EHon Ginny Andersen\u003C/span\u003E: They do\u2014I think they do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000615\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aed20d302241caa35fe629044c551438\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, they do? Well, there you go\u2014never say never.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELook, just to address the questions from Mr Utikere and Ginny Andersen, there was a question on new section 142AAI in clause 36, about why the offence of failing to provide information offenders is not being carried over. It\u2019s because the provision itself anticipates a vehicle which is stolen or converted, and if you were an individual who was asked to provide that information, it would be a reasonable excuse not to provide that information because, as the owner of the vehicle, you wouldn\u2019t necessarily know who the thief is. So it wouldn\u2019t be necessary to port that provision over because the two wouldn\u2019t necessarily marry up. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000617\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second question, I think, or the second contribution was around the proceeds of sale. I think that the key point to that one is that if the offender sells a vehicle despite an order, the courts can recover from the proceeds of that sale. That\u2019s the key point around that issue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000618\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen there was the first of two questions from Ginny Andersen. The first one was around third parties. The third party must be a person other than the offender\u2014I think that that was the key thing\u2014and the court must then set aside the order of forfeiture if one of those grounds of appeal in subsection (2) applies. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000619\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe final point was around notification. The third party is notified of the order by the court and can then apply to the court to have the vehicle transferred to them, or the proceeds thereof. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022 data-id=\u0022f8a16f68bcdf7d459b111df963027fa5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000620\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f8a16f68bcdf7d459b111df963027fa5\u0022\u003ETOM RUTHERFORD (National\u2014Bay of Plenty) (17:53)\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000621\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000622\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000623\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000624\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000627\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000628\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 101\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000629\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000630\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000631\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000632\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000633\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223fb23d684ab1b33cb11ce66002be22de\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the meal break. The House will resume at 7.30 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000634\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterItalicsCentred\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 5.56 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000635\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e88a2ab51692950e20c11a6703095bc4\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000636\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u002210bfadf7d2038d61a1f54ab8f38b1a81\u0022\u003EPart 3 Amendments to other legislation and consequential amendments\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000637\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002255c581f64e245b151ed65c552ece83bd\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Good evening, members. Before the dinner break we had a vote on Part 2 of the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill, and we now come to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 40 to 49\u2014\u201CAmendments to other legislation and consequential amendments\u201D\u2014and Schedule 4. The question is that Part 3 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022 data-id=\u0022d24f271b8c4b41b9bcb250cc2517fd9c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000638\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d24f271b8c4b41b9bcb250cc2517fd9c\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North) (19:30)\u003C/span\u003E: Kia orana. Good evening, Madam Chair. I\u2019ve got a number of questions. This is a pretty important part, because, I guess, fundamentally it gives the police the particular powers to do a whole range of different things, because it seeks to amend the Policing Act 2008. I want to direct the Minister\u2019s attention first to clause 42, which relates to the temporary closing of roads. This is a whole replacement of section 35. It effectively identifies where there is a need for the police to utilise the new power to close a road or part of a road to traffic.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000639\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen we look at replacement section 35(2), this is about the power to close a road or part of a road to traffic: \u201CThe constable may temporarily close to traffic any road, or part of a road,\u2014(a) leading to or from the place;\u201D\u2014which is fine. But there\u2019s a second paragraph there, (b), which is \u201Cin the vicinity of the place.\u201D Now, given this is a specific power that would restrict the liberty of people to move around freely, it is important that the powers are appropriately defined. My first question for the Minister is, where it refers to \u201Cthe vicinity of the place\u201D, how is that going to be defined?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000640\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf we think about different parts of the country\u2014rural parts of the country; urban parts of the country\u2014they are quite different in terms of landscape and how they are laid out. Can the Minister give an undertaking\u2014and if he does, it would be good to understand the scope of that undertaking\u2014that this won\u2019t be used as a power, for example, to completely close off whole suburbs in communities? I want to just understand what \u201Cthe vicinity\u201D looks like in terms of a definition for the police utilising that power.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u00229dfdf68c4a499285fd77e087d99bf7e7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000641\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229dfdf68c4a499285fd77e087d99bf7e7\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (19:32)\u003C/span\u003E: I think generally we\u2019ll just take a plain statutory interpretation to wording in our statutes and look at the plain English meaning of the word in its context and in light of its purpose.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000642\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIf you look at what the part of the Act is trying to do, it\u2019s giving police the power to temporarily close roads. That power already exists in the current Policing Act. The member was right to raise that this will also give the power to close to traffic any road or part of a road in the vicinity of a place in which disorder is or a range of other effects. Taking a common-sense approach, it would be a reasonable location from the particular place where the disorder or the danger exists for a reasonable time for the purpose of maintaining order over that place. It would be a stretch, I think, to try and stretch this to an entire suburb, but it would always be context dependent, depending on the circumstances with which the police are faced at the time. I think it\u2019s a reasonableness approach about what \u201Cvicinity\u201D might be.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022 data-id=\u0022131a3f089d245bd85f9aeae1cbb8b66c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000643\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022131a3f089d245bd85f9aeae1cbb8b66c\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North) (19:33)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister for that\u2014the context-dependent aspect. I won\u2019t, then, go into the other parts of that particular subsection, because he has addressed that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000644\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EOne change that the Justice Committee did make when it comes to new section 35A\u2014this is specifically in relation to utilising the grounds of antisocial road use. In new section\u00A035A(1)(b) \u201Ca person is operating, or may reasonably be expected to operate, a motor vehicle at or near the place in a way that\u2014(iii) causes, or is likely to cause, damage\u201D. It was \u201Csubstantial damage\u201D. Is it just that the utilisation is not really trying to find a quantifiable as to the type of damage but just that damage itself exists?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u00227f2ce7fc2f273a9ff57741c5f3b995ee\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000645\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227f2ce7fc2f273a9ff57741c5f3b995ee\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (19:34)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m just trying to dig through the select committee report, because I think that was a change made at the select committee stage. We\u2019ve got page 3 of the report: the select committee reports back that \u201Cthe reference to \u2018substantial\u2019 could limit the Police\u2019s ability to apply the new power. Further, it would require them to also consider whether any damage or potential damage was substantial, which could invite legal challenge.\u201D The committee recommended deleting the word \u201Csubstantial\u201D from new section 35A(1)(b)(iii), and the House agreed to that change at the second reading.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022 data-id=\u002240559a1daa9a07669919bf3d0b565318\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000646\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002240559a1daa9a07669919bf3d0b565318\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North) (19:35)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair; thanks, Minister. I want to move now to new section 35A(4). This is about where a constable is, effectively, utilising the power to do two things for a person: either you\u2019re not to enter this particular area or you are required to leave. This is a very important piece of the legislation because it outlines the power for the constable to engage that rest there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn a circumstance where a place or part of a place is closed, there needs to be some way in which that information is easily and readily relayed to members who are there. It is highly possible that there will be individuals that might be in the area that\u2019s just been closed by a constable who may not know what\u2019s going on there. If we think about a neighbourhood, for example, this is very common when it comes to some antisocial behaviours that are undertaken in neighbourhoods where someone might be coming out of a property or nearby, they happen to be in the area, and there is now a requirement to give some direction for people to vacate or move on from that area.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000648\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, it\u2019s not clear as to how that direction would take place. It is likely, I assume, that it is by audible means that a constable is empowered to simply indicate, \u201CRight, you need to move on.\u201D or whatever it might be. Is there any concern to be expressed by the Minister that there needs to be anything else around this? Is it his expectation that the police would utilise methods of communication that might be befitting of the gathering\u2014if we\u2019re talking about large gatherings, for example, an announcement by loud hail speaker, those sorts of things?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000649\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think it is important, because it\u2019s one thing for the police to have power\u2014we don\u2019t have any issues with that power\u2014but it is important for those who are there, either they are part of the initial gathering or may have joined subsequently, that there needs to be an understanding as to how that particular direction is expected to be relayed to the community, so they don\u2019t find themselves falling foul of this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u0022d0379d207b0013a8dac91a645f30805e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000650\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d0379d207b0013a8dac91a645f30805e\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (19:37)\u003C/span\u003E: The police currently have temporary closure powers that they do exercise, and there is existing supporting guidance within Police about how they direct people with regards to those powers. In terms of how the police do that, there is existing guidance within Police operations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000651\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e0df594320f16509f987ccea44d4d48d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Dr Tracey McLellan, did you still want a call? Oh, have you deferred to Tangi Utikere?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000652\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002272eef93ebc3fcee86e99f950c908e894\u0022\u003EDr Tracey McLellan\u003C/span\u003E: No, it\u2019s all right. You carry on with your line. I\u2019ll skip ahead.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022 data-id=\u0022551dafe206521006506e14c643bedcff\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022551dafe206521006506e14c643bedcff\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North) (19:38)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I appreciate the Minister for his answers. I think\u2014yeah, no, OK, I accept that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000654\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMoving on to subsection (5) in new clause 35A, inserted by clause 42. This is talking about what is an accessible place. It\u2019s important that we get the definitions right, where it says it\u2019s \u201Ca place that is capable of being used, or is being used, by the public\u201D. Now, what if it is a circumstance where it is a road that is capable of being used by the public but it is, effectively, already closed to the public?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000655\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m sure the Minister will have in his own electorate examples from time to time where there are stretches of road\u2014or, indeed, parks or reserves\u2014where a number of these gatherings can potentially take place. Let\u2019s not forget that we are talking about antisocial road-use behaviour. That does not have to mean that we\u2019re talking about a complete stretch of road; it could be a car park area, for example, where a number of these activities are undertaken. In a circumstance where access to the public has effectively been closed\u2014to those that might have longer memories of Palmerston North, we have a place called \u201CPork Chop Hill\u201D up there. It\u2019s not called that any more.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000656\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d52c571cdb246f6abf50a39de1a66f7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f0228f6d2bbda7a423f383ca438918d7\u0022\u003EGlen Bennett\u003C/span\u003E: Tell us more.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000657\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c7d2965b78873dfeeb684b756cd54839\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE\u003C/span\u003E: No, I\u2019ll leave that for others to talk about their own experiences, Mr Bennett, in terms of \u201CPork Chop Hill\u201D\u2014and I do like a pork chop. That was often an area where you would see some antisocial behaviour, and that would be utilised alongside vehicles. There were times when that was, effectively, closed. It wouldn\u2019t be available to be publicly accessible because it was closed to the public. How does this bill kind of relate with that and the ability for the police to still have powers in that circumstance?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u002288ea44d2b745a49b9f9f017ec249b6e9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000658\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002288ea44d2b745a49b9f9f017ec249b6e9\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (19:40)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I don\u2019t know what goes on up at Pork Chop Hill, but even if it had a sign saying \u201Cclosed\u201D or maybe had a fence or gate which closed off access, the section itself defines a place or accessible place as a place that is capable of being used or is being used by the public for motor vehicle access.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000659\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIf it is capable of being used, I guess you\u2019d have to look at the definition, or, again, the context-specific circumstance of \u201Ccan the public actually access that place at the time; is it capable of being used?\u201D If there is a gathering up on Pork Chop Hill of members of the public doing whatever it is they do on Pork Chop Hill, outside their car, if they\u2019re capable of accessing it and if the place is capable of being used, I guess it would fit that definition of an accessible place, regardless of whether or not they are lawfully entitled to be there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000660\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002282bd0edd9b29aec1e7dc4bc31d47908e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Tangi Utikere.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000661\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228397d5c0a79d4da93235c8e4c07d96e6\u0022\u003EHon Members: \u003C/span\u003EMadam Chair\u2014Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022 data-id=\u0022a7b3c8028067ba1c6fbb4948346bf0b8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a7b3c8028067ba1c6fbb4948346bf0b8\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North) (19:41)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair\u2014she\u2019s already called me, thanks.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000663\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022998d5b070de971bb011e3adc76a1bf61\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve just called Tangi Utikere.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000664\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002207746cfb576b276baa597427fdeea93c\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. For clarity, Pork Chop Hill is now known as Te Motu o Poutoa: Anzac Park, and there\u2019s a lot of change that\u2019s happened here, but that\u2019s all good.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000665\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002295e1806e089edf43d534956d0156a164\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Who would\u2019ve made the connection?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000666\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bad584adf436f7425da4269c65e54352\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE\u003C/span\u003E: There you go. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E] Still do. Now, I want to ask about new section 54D\u2014this is a new part of \u201CInfringement offences\u201D and how they are dealt with, under clause 44. Clause 44 is inserting a whole range of different options there. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000667\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI did allude to this in a previous part when Minister Bishop, I think it was, was in the chair and I was asking questions about the ability of an enforcement officer and aligned that alongside the commissioner. This one here, section 54B(2), is where an infringement notice may be cancelled or revoked before a payment is made. The change that the Justice Committee has made has been to remove that power or reference from a constable and to put it with the Commissioner of Police. Now, I understand from the committee\u2019s report that that is because that reflects the way in which things are done and it also allows for a more independent kind of approach to that, rather than that focusing on constable by constable having that particular call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000668\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIs the Minister comfortable that the changes that have been, effectively, agreed to by the House, through the select committee process\u2014that that is a comfortable move in terms of the commissioner, and that there aren\u2019t other parts within the bill as currently in front of the committee where those changes should also take place? That\u2019s the first thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000669\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second thing is about new section 54D, which is how the infringement notice may be served. Now, there are some changes there that relate to the inclusion of postal address. There is also some language in there about it, basically, being served by prepaid post and all of those sorts of things. I\u2019m assuming, Minister, that that\u2019s just an accurate reflection of how infringements are treated elsewhere within Police, and, if that is the case, whether he\u2019s comfortable that that, effectively, is fit for purpose for the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u002274a17f4eeb79603797df12608b53ca7b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000670\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002274a17f4eeb79603797df12608b53ca7b\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (19:43)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I think I can confirm both of those assertions by the member Tangi Utikere. The second one is that it, essentially, just reflects how infringement notices are served in part of the statute, but also just in general. I think the Justice Committee added some structure to better define where you could send it to, and the messages around prepaid post are probably accurate, although postage is quite expensive these days, so I\u2019m sure the Police, like most organisations, are looking to cover their costs and maybe send things electronically one day, if we get to that point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000671\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe point around replacing \u201Cconstable\u201D with \u201CCommissioner\u201D: it is outlined again, as the member said, in the select committee report. Essentially, having it with the constable wouldn\u2019t fit well with the current system. The function currently sits with the Police Infringement Bureau, and so the committee recommended amending new section 54B, inserted by clause 44, to replace references to \u201Cconstable\u201D with \u201CCommissioner\u201D, and that\u2019s consistent with the approach taken elsewhere in the Policing Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000672\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000673\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 101\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000674\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000675\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000677\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 3 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000678\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000679\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 101\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000680\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000681\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000682\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000683\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000684\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Schedule 2 be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000685\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 101\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000686\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000687\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000688\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000689\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000690\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000691\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 101\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000692\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000693\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000694\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000695\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 3 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000696\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221e2f7110988c6f2d6e7fe24611b89e41\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendment to Schedule 4 set out on Amendment Paper 508 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000697\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000698\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 101\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000699\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000700\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000701\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000702\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000703\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 4 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000704\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022410dfa1462f15c817c3d1ac9df99b48b\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000705\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022333415e7c78a9303e012d4c760a190b0\u0022\u003EClauses 1 and 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000706\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225369d7e3331a3c45a69fd411b556dc39\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: We come now to clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2, \u201CTitle\u201D and \u201CCommencement\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u0022c4b3653c09bad0ed40160ccead0de150\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000707\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c4b3653c09bad0ed40160ccead0de150\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (19:49)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll take a quick call just to point out that the commencement is one of those commencements where the Act comes into force not the day after Royal assent but on a couple of dates. The first is that the bulk of the Act comes into force six months after Royal assent\u2014that\u2019s to give Police time to operationalise the changes in the legislation. The second is, if we look at clause 2(2) and (3), there are some provisions that will come into force on a date set by Order in Council or, as a backup, the second anniversary of the Royal assent. Those provisions are all around the new infringement processing system, so that just reflects that it may take some time to get the new infringement processing system in place and so the law won\u2019t come into force until that system is in place. It could be faster than six months, or it could be slower.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022 data-id=\u0022339f5a713330a99cb2dc921d2f0cfaa4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022339f5a713330a99cb2dc921d2f0cfaa4\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North) (19:50)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Associate Minister of Transport for that. There were some questions around why there are different approaches there, and the Minister said that it gives adequate time. We obviously want to see this bill as containing tools available to the Police as soon as is possible, but we obviously accept that there needs to be an opportunity to operationalise that. Having said that, is it the Minister\u2019s expectation that, even though all the provisions will come into effect as outlined under clause 2, the roll-out of all of this will be across the country at the one time?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000709\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe reason why I\u2019m sort of asking this question is that we do have, for example, previous legislation when it comes to roadside drug testing, where working through select committee we had an expectation that it would come into effect, but the actual roll-out of that operationally has been staggered in particular areas until it\u2019s got to a point where it\u2019s across the whole country. While, on the one hand, the Minister is saying that it\u2019s been given time\u2014and hopefully adequate time\u2014so that it\u2019ll be rolled out as soon as it possibly can, we want to make sure that it works. I\u2019m just checking that the expectation is that this will be applied across all policing districts rather than a staged or staggered roll-out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u00222f62e7f0f1710b58cdd0033cef8769a8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000710\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222f62e7f0f1710b58cdd0033cef8769a8\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (19:51)\u003C/span\u003E: The intention is for it to be rolled out across the country all at once. There aren\u2019t the same, I guess, kinds of equipment requirements that were necessary for the trials or the pilots for the drug-driver testing. I should just clarify that, earlier, I said, strictly under clause 2, the commencement date for those infringement provisions could, in theory, be earlier than the six months, but it\u2019s unlikely to be, because the offences need to be in for the infringements to apply, so it\u2019s likely that, all going well, we can get it all in at the same time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022 data-id=\u0022132cd2248be9bc02d5a0ad25164d3c47\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000711\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022132cd2248be9bc02d5a0ad25164d3c47\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North) (19:52)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I guess this might be my final contribution in relation to clause 1, the title. This is, obviously, a bill that contains a number of different measures that seek to amend a number of different Acts, but primarily the Land Transport Act and the Policing Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000712\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWhat we\u2019re wanting to do here in providing our support for it is to quell the disorderly behaviour that is associated with the choices that some use, that has an absolute impact on communities. We certainly don\u2019t support that, but we often say that what it says on the tin is what it actually is about. Is the Minister comfortable that, actually, the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill is what it should be called, or should it be something that, actually, is more of a focus on antisocial use by road users and the impact that that has on communities and the need to empower our police out in communities so that they have the tools to deal to what is terrible behaviour that goes on and causes a lot of negative focus and experience out in the community?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u00223e85816d495e8dc975095c8993ed9c38\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000713\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223e85816d495e8dc975095c8993ed9c38\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (19:53)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, I think the select committee was comfortable with this title, and we are too. The member makes a good point that the purpose of the legislation is to clamp down on antisocial road users, but also inherent in that is the road use itself, so we\u2019re comfortable with the title. We think it explains pretty well what the bill does.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000714\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000715\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 101\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000716\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000717\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000718\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000719\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000720\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill to be reported with amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000722\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHouse resumed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022be3b3c9ac507ba53b1860c90aa86fbf9\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the report be adopted\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000724\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000725\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EReport adopted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000726\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002293b1a1b5596de64ca9565cb82e5f01e9\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000727\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ae2b100472255abc783d02eedafb3e5e\u0022\u003ELegislative Statement\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u002229369432946a246d724d7e1304c5b250\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000728\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002229369432946a246d724d7e1304c5b250\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (19:56)\u003C/span\u003E: on behalf of the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Transport\u003C/span\u003E: I present a legislative statement on the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000729\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222e2d50464e370ee3e55b056958383c0d\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000730\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00221dda4130c3affa834d28f55ce2ad1483\u0022\u003EThird Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u00222f6849e717f791cef5717ab871fb31c6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000731\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222f6849e717f791cef5717ab871fb31c6\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (19:57)\u003C/span\u003E: on behalf of the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Transport\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a third time\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000732\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EColleagues, today is a great day for communities up and down New Zealand. People have had enough of the chaos, the fleeing police, illegal street racing, burnouts, disorderly dirt bike gatherings, intimidating vehicle convoys, and siren battles. These activities are not harmless thrills. They are disruptive, they\u2019re dangerous, and they\u2019re deeply damaging to the sense of safety that people deserve in their own neighbourhoods. This bill is about restoring order, restoring confidence, and restoring the basic right of people to feel safe in their own streets. Throughout the legislative process, the purpose of this bill has remained very clear\u2014to ensure that Police and the courts have the right tools and penalties to deter antisocial road use and to protect the public. After select committee scrutiny and very robust debate at committee of the whole House, I\u2019m confident that we have a bill that does just that. The bill hasn\u2019t materially changed since it was first introduced into the House in July\u00A02025. I think that reflects the mandate that there is for these changes both from communities and from this House, as well as the well-crafted nature of the legislation, of course.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000733\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENone the less, I will celebrate some of the key features one last time. First of all, presumptive sentences. At the heart of this bill is the establishment of presumptive sentences of vehicle forfeiture or of forfeiture and destruction. This applies to first and subsequent offences of illegal street racing or burnouts. This presumptive sentence will also apply to the new offence for individuals participating in an intimidating convoy and the extended offence for failing to provide Police with information that will help them to identify drivers. Let\u2019s be clear what this means under the new legislation: if anyone out there commits any one of these offences, their vehicle will likely be forfeited or crushed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000734\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn the House, today, we tabled a minor and technical Amendment Paper in advance of the committee of the whole House debate to carry over the Police\u2019s existing power to prevent the sale or disposal of a motor vehicle following impoundment, and this helps to ensure offenders\u2019 vehicles are forfeited or destroyed. Another thing this bill does is it gives Police stronger powers. We are giving Police the ability to temporarily close a larger range of areas, notably those areas that are used for antisocial road use events and behaviours, such as beaches and car parks. The bill also creates a new $1,000 infringement fine for anyone who fails to leave a temporarily closed area when directed to by Police. These powers will help Police to prevent and manage unruly antisocial road use events, which can attract hundreds of participants and bystanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000735\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s not always safe for police to respond at the time of the event. Much of this dangerous behaviour occurs at night, which poses some enforcement challenges for our police. This bill will strengthen the existing powers that police have to help them identify a broad range of offenders and will penalise vehicle owners who then withhold that identifying information. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000736\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, to the issue of siren battles, and we all know what these are and we all know what we\u2019re talking about. This bill will increase the penalty for excessive noise coming from within or on a vehicle to $300\u2014no more $50 slaps on the wrist. This is primarily to target and deter what\u2019s known as siren battle behaviour, where people compete with each other to make the loudest noise. It reminds me a lot of Parliament sometimes, and maybe we need some siren battle prohibitions here in Parliament. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000737\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESubmitters and other members of the public have spoken or have written to our offices to remind us how distressing this is. It\u2019s distressing due to nights of having no or disrupted sleep because of this totally inconsiderate behaviour. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000738\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s important to note that the bill maintains important protection. Appeal rights remain available, courts maintain discretion as to whether or not offenders are allowed to purchase new vehicles, the new offence for participating in an intimidating convoy applies to individual drivers rather than a whole convoy, and\u2014let me repeat what has been said many times\u2014this bill does not target car enthusiasts or legal car meetings. It targets illegal, antisocial behaviour. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000739\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI thank my colleagues and previous Ministers of Transport for commencing this work, alongside the Minister of Police, the Hon Mark Mitchell. I want to recognise colleagues from across the House who have also supported this bill and its passage throughout select committee and here this evening. Finally, thank you to the members of the public, the councils, organisations, and the community who have submitted on this bill and who have told us how these events interfere with their sleep, restrict access to their homes, and create an atmosphere of intimidation. It is their experiences which reinforce why this legislation is necessary, and today is a win for those who have been asking for action. I think that we all commend this bill to the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000740\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cde7d79742a6ffeaf5a8a40c7d54f97c\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022 data-id=\u002222ad1a421e8d717ca1834c2b56899766\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000741\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002222ad1a421e8d717ca1834c2b56899766\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North) (20:02)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Speaker, thank you. \u003Cspan lang=\u0022rar\u0022\u003EKia orana\u003C/span\u003E. I rise as Labour\u2019s transport spokesperson in support of this bill. We supported this bill at first reading. There were a couple of aspects that we wanted to have teased out at the select committee stage. The bill has emerged through that process, and it has come through this evening in a state where the Labour Party will continue to support it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000742\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is, as we know, a bill that was introduced as an omnibus bill that sought to change a number of discrete pieces of legislation\u2014the Land Transport Act, the Sentencing Act, the Policing Act, and the Land Transport (Offences and Penalties) Regulations\u2014and when we step back and look at why that was, it was because the police in New Zealand needed to have the tools to be able to deal with what is a very clear form of antisocial road-user behaviour in New Zealand. It\u2019s important that our police are resourced and equipped to undertake the roles that they do to protect the community from a whole range of different offences and aspects, and I\u2019ll go through some of them in a moment. But before I do, I also want to acknowledge those who submitted through the select committee process. As a result of that, this bill did receive a number of changes that we think have actually made it much more usable and workable. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000743\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere are still some aspects in the bill that I think are not yet tried and tested. The Minister of Transport, during the committee of the whole House stage, did indicate that there was no guarantee that this bill would deal to some of the things that were contained in the bill as it currently stands, but there was a lot of hope and promise that it would. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000744\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe fundamental concern that we have around the workability of this, of course, is that it\u2019s one thing to give the police the tools to be able to do this\u2014it is already a police force in this country that is not fully resourced in terms of numbers; despite the current Government\u2019s attempt to say that they will increase resourcing for police, they have failed to deliver that\u2014but the other side of that is that when the police have these tools at their disposal and they utilise them, it is expected that they do actually make a difference. One only needs to look back to the person who was colloquially known as \u201CCrusher Collins\u201D in terms of the nickname that she got and the inability to deliver a huge number of cars that were actually crushed. On the one hand, it\u2019s great to have these tools, but on the other hand, we expect them to be utilised, where appropriate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000745\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen we think about the enforcement opportunities that will follow through this bill, it is important that there are three components around enforcement: firstly, that the enforcement is fair\u2014and that is why on this side of the House we have been keen to ensure that the language that is included in this bill is able to reflect a fair approach to the implementation of this legislation\u2014secondly, that it is consistent, so that when the bill says that it\u2019s going to do something, then that can consistently be applied across a whole range of circumstances; and the final point is that the bill is transparent, and this is fundamental. Where this Parliament gives a number of powers to the New Zealand Police to utilise, if they choose to, it\u2019s important that we understand that there is that level of transparency so that everyone knows exactly what those powers are. The police know what they are, what they\u2019re entitled to do, and what they\u2019re not, and it is also so that the public\u2014who may be innocent bystanders in some of these activities and who are going about their normal day or evening activities\u2014don\u2019t get caught up in this, but are able to actually have a fair go in terms of when they\u2019re told to disperse and move on that they\u2019re able to do that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000746\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s why things like how a police officer or a constable is going to communicate the direction for people to move on or to leave are very, very important. It might be one thing for the Government and the Minister to say, \u201CLook, there will be a training process rolled out.\u201D, and it is important that there is training\u2014particularly when it comes to new legislation that is rolled out in our community and out in the public\u2014but it is important that that\u2019s able to be relied upon as something that is not just transparent but is also able to be followed through. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000747\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe types of behaviours that we are talking about are behaviours where some folk, unfortunately, flee from the police. That is a behaviour that is captured under this bill. Where there is illegal street racing, nobody in communities around the country, whether it\u2019s rural communities or urban communities, wants to have the constant, or even non-constant, experience of having illegal street racing or events of that nature in their own neighbourhood or outside their own home. Unruly dirt bike gatherings, frightening or intimidating convoys\u2014these are the sorts of examples of behaviours that would be captured by this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000748\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen it comes to a convoy, a \u201Cconvoy\u201D in this bill is defined as \u201C2 or more motor vehicles\u201D. I do think that there is a risk here in terms of the workability of this bill where you could have a circumstance where there are individual vehicles coming to one location and it might be very difficult to define that as a convoy. Now, I know that those are some of the concerns that have been expressed in this House, and I do hope that in terms of the workability and implementation of the structures that will be stood up to support this bill, they are worked through and they are considered. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000749\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe final one\u2014and it\u2019s one that the Minister himself touched on\u2014is excessive noise. Nobody who is in their homes around the country wants to deal with excessive noise blaring out from motor vehicles\u2014no. I don\u2019t, you don\u2019t, and no one else does. I know that my colleague the Hon Phil Twyford certainly doesn\u2019t, and there was the suggestion that if it was Celine Dion, perhaps that was an aggravating factor to disturbances of that nature. But this is a particular bill that will ensure that there is a little bit of peace and harmony around households\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000750\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b897b3cce003cd291dd4de152587f744\u0022\u003EHon Julie Anne Genter\u003C/span\u003E: So harsh on Celine!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000751\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d9270dcfc2f8f515aa4b9f18f9682be1\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014well, each to their own\u2014around the country, as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000752\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere are some concerns here around the ability for some offenders who would be banned, effectively, from gaining a new interest in a motor vehicle for a period of 12 months. If you are an offender who is someone who is constantly offending and this is your third time, there are more limitations on your liberty and restrictions are imposed as a result, and we all know that sometimes it is very easy for some to perhaps sidle up alongside perhaps a vulnerable member of a community\u2014an older person or a friend who perhaps doesn\u2019t have the compunction, necessarily, to say no\u2014and this could be used as a workaround that defeats some aspects of this bill. So I do hope that whilst there is no kind of review or monitoring process as part of this bill, if there are some aspects that are simply not workable, then there needs to be some understanding as to how those can be addressed to make sure that these powers that we\u2019re giving to our police and that this harmony that we\u2019re expecting in neighbourhoods and communities is able to be addressed, because it is important that that is the case. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000753\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere are some changes in this bill that we do support\u2014you know, we do support this bill. We do support neighbourhoods and households being able to go about their daily business without the constant barrage of some activities and behaviours that some road users\u2014not all, but some road users\u2014actually utilise from time to time. I know, in the conversations that I\u2019ve had with my local Police hierarchy in Palmerston North, that there is an absolute need for the police to have more tools and more powers to deal with what are becoming frequent opportunities for antisocial road users to come together and to cause havoc in communities. This is an opportunity to have a bill that says that simply will not be tolerated; that it must cease, it must stop; and that we\u2019re prepared to give the police the tools to be able to do that. When the police now will be able to go into neighbourhoods and communities and require people to effectively cease what they\u2019re doing and to move on from this antisocial behaviour\u2014these gatherings that do gather a whole pile of folk around them\u2014that is a good move.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000754\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe do have the concern, though, in terms of it being rolled out by a police force that is constantly under resourcing pressure, to ensure that we do things right. This Parliament needs to pass good laws, but it also needs to pass laws that can actually be rolled out. What we don\u2019t want is to have a false expectation for communities that this is a bill that\u2019s going to make a difference; that the police have the tools to be able to use this to good effect, but actually the choices are that they don\u2019t do that because the resourcing is not there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000755\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn conclusion, this is a bill that\u2019s taken a wee while, actually, to get from the Justice Committee through to where we are tonight. This is about giving some certainty to communities, giving tools to those that need them, and we certainly believe that this bill will make a difference, provided that it\u2019s workable and it\u2019s able to be resourced to be rolled out in the community. We commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022e44f8bec335124deb6844f8cdf64e6b7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000756\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e44f8bec335124deb6844f8cdf64e6b7\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:12)\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022cmn\u0022\u003E\u4F17\u9662\u8BAE\u957F\u665A\u4E0A\u597D\u3002\u003C/span\u003E Happy Chinese Language Week.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000757\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to oppose this bill, and for very good reason and I want to lay some of that out. A lot of that comes down to the conversations we had with the Minister, both during the committee of the whole House stage and also at the Justice Committee. I want to unpack parts of this bill\u2014noting that this is an omnibus bill and it covers a few specific areas\u2014and I want to start with the Land Transport Act; so, Part 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000758\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think, in terms of Part 1, a lot of the conversations we had, both during the committee of the whole House stage and also during select committee, were partly around clarifications in terms of some of the definitions and what it would mean, for example, if the registered person and the actual driver are different. Part of the responses that we got from the Minister around this is, \u201CLook, we just have to let things happen and all will be well if we just implement the law.\u201D, which is not the most convincing argument at times, particularly when it comes to when you\u2019re looking at offences and criminal charges and fines of exorbitant amounts\u2014up towards $20,000 in some instances.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000759\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think, more broadly, fundamentally there is\u2014and we did discuss this\u2014this philosophical underlying question around this bill, which is this bill and the offences that are introduced. A number of them are existing offences, if you\u2019re looking at the regulatory impact statement. If you\u2019re looking at the regulatory impact statement, illegal street racing already has an existing penalty\u2014there are already existing penalties. Fleeing drivers\u2014existing penalties. Reckless, dangerous driving or careless driving causing injury or death\u2014existing penalties. Impounding penalties for those illegal street racers, fleeing drivers, and intimidating convoy. And the fact that the vehicle owner failed to provide information they have on the driver. You already find that there are existing penalties around this, which then begs the question of why, then, introduce a new bill into the House with additional elements if the existing penalties or the penalties we have for any of these punitive actions do not have the deterrence effect that we want them to have.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000760\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat brings me to the second part of that philosophical discussion when we\u2019re looking at bills such as this: that international evidence shows that deterrence\u2014particularly for smaller crimes\u2014simply does not work. For larger crimes, particularly when we look at murder, manslaughter, and some of the more serious sexual violence and family violence crimes, deterrence is an important factor, and harsher penalties have that effect of deterrence. But a lot of these smaller crimes? There\u2019s just simply not enough data to suggest that they have that effect. When we do ask the Minister some of those questions as well, there is no convincing data that has been produced that suggests such a thing would work. In saying that, does that mean that we simply don\u2019t care about things like excessive noise intimidation? Absolutely not. But producing these additional, I guess, tiered penalties and offences is going to have that outcome we\u2019re seeking without the kind of resources that we need to actually be able to implement some of these new penalties.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000761\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think that is the real question when we\u2019re looking at a bill like this. Like I said, when you\u2019re looking at existing offences under the Land Transport Act, we already have those, but we\u2019re still seeing that excessive noise; we\u2019re still seeing illegal street racing; but what we\u2019re seeing is the inability for people to be able to report and for police to be attending on time and for those sorts of cases to be caught on the spot\u2014convoys, I understand, are ostensibly a different issue, and I\u2019ll come to convoys in a little bit. I think, in those kinds of cases, if we have an existing penalty, wouldn\u2019t it be better if we actually simply resourced the kinds of areas we\u2019re looking at so they will actually be able to undertake some of these? We are seeing, for example, the Government had a target of how many new police we\u2019re going to have, and we have seen that target consistently being delayed again and again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000762\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat then comes to the question of what we\u2019re seeing this entire week, which is an increasing amount of legislation being introduced. Again, we are probably one of the countries with the fastest turnaround time when it comes to legislation. Although Australia and the UK sit longer than we do, they also have a two-House system so it takes longer for any bill to pass. Yet what we\u2019re seeing this week is 22 pieces of legislation will be going under urgency, and that\u2019s just simply not how we\u2019re looking at the democratic process or anything that we\u2019re looking at with a bill such as this, which could have been addressed through a policy decision as opposed to a legislative decision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000763\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the other areas in Part 1 around the Land Transport Act is around convoys. Again, I think we had a lot of questions during the committee of the whole House stage around what that convoys potentially could look like. The idea, I believe, is if it\u2019s \u201Cfrightening or intending to frighten or intimidate\u201D. It\u2019s incredibly subjective. As a part of the committee of the whole House stage, we talked about the mens rea component of this and who would then determine such mens rea, particularly when you\u2019re looking at the intention to frighten and intimidate, because the onus is actually on the prosecutor to prove that a person is intending to frighten and intimidate, as opposed to subjectively any person who may feel that they are being frightened and intimidated. Then that actually opens up the entire, incredibly broad scope. I think, in one of the earlier readings, we gave an example that, for example, Groundswell, where we saw lots of people come out in opposition of the so-called \u201Cute tax\u201D. That, to some members of the public, would be considered intimidating or frightening. In those kinds of cases, would that then mean all of those people would have their vehicles seized and impounded and forfeited, etc., under this current legislation? I think that is the important question to check, in terms of what is, then, the scope of that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000764\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think another piece, when we\u2019re looking at clause 20 of this particular bill, is it also talks about the fact that, when it applies, you\u2019re looking at the enforcement officer being able to judge some of these intentions or whether they\u2014I think the term is\u2014\u201Cwithin reasonable doubt\u201D think that the person is intending to intimidate or frighten a person. I think that also potentially opens quite a broad scope in terms of the presumption that we have, one of the key fundamental presumptions we have under both the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, but also a general legal presumption, the presumption against self-incrimination. Again, this is something we asked the Minister about during the committee stage, because it was also something that was noted in the committee report as a part of the consideration where the board report itself didn\u2019t identify section 14 with freedom of expression, and precisely that presumption against self-incrimination. What would that mean in this case, and how would the officers, for example, be able to have the skills, or would they have that basic requirement we see, to recite the rights of a person before they pursue with any sort of impounding of the vehicle?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000765\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI know I\u2019m running out of time, Madam Speaker, but I want to touch on a few other things. One of them is in Part 2, in terms of sentencing. Again, this is something to do with the idea that the Minister mentioned before around the presumptive sentence. The fact that this also sets an incredibly high potential legal threshold when you\u2019re looking at the way that we allow the judiciary to make some of those balanced judgments, because the only way for you to appeal such presumptive sentencing is using what we\u2019re seeing frequently, over and over again in legislation, this idea of \u201Cmanifestly unjust\u201D. I think that\u2019s also an important consideration of the role of\u2014and the burden it will place on the judiciary, in a lot of these.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000766\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think for the last few seconds, the Green Party absolutely believes that people should be able to have their enjoyment at home and be safe at home and be free from being frightened or intimidated. But again, this bill\u2014through select committee, through committee stage\u2014fell short of that. Without the proper resourcing, this will have no more effect than what we\u2019re currently already seeing in our legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022443f23de4cbd464f91833e6c466c98c0\u0022 data-id=\u0022bd03f10a8bc232f8c20333269007fac7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000767\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022443f23de4cbd464f91833e6c466c98c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bd03f10a8bc232f8c20333269007fac7\u0022\u003ETODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (20:22)\u003C/span\u003E: I rise on behalf of ACT to speak in support of the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill. ACT campaigned at the last election on actually protecting our community, cracking down on crime in our community, and making sure victims were safe. We then got into coalition with National and New Zealand First, and that is something we have shared through this Government. We actually want to focus on victims in our communities and actually making sure people that feels safe in the places that they live and work and raise their families. We\u2019ve seen a number of quite disturbing antisocial road activities, and I\u2019m very happy to commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002248ce26e54d83406399b875df20400dec\u0022 data-id=\u0022158b1ae55f8afbc95597a78c5003783c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000768\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002248ce26e54d83406399b875df20400dec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022158b1ae55f8afbc95597a78c5003783c\u0022\u003EANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (20:23)\u003C/span\u003E: Thanks, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on this Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill. Look, it\u2019s got a very singular policy intent: to deter antisocial driving behaviour. New Zealand First is proud to stand fair and square on behalf of the victims of antisocial behaviour and crime, not on behalf of those who conduct that sort of behaviour. We all know about the impacts of antisocial road-user behaviour. We talk about boy racers, the excessive speed, risk, substance abuse, noise, damage, intimidation\u2014communities essentially feeling unsafe. This bill really is all about giving police the powers to act not just once something has happened but also proactively, with reason.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000769\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve heard a little bit about closing areas off, and I take the point about that, but it\u2019s about doing that with good reason. It also gives the power to police to take action ahead of large and potentially explosive gatherings. Just before this legislation was introduced, of course, there was that a major event in the Horowhenua when about 1,000 people gathered, which was clearly a very intimidating and explosive event. It creates new offences\u2014the frightening or intimidating convoy\u2014and put some rules around fleeing police as well. It gives police powers to act, powers to require information disclosure, confiscation powers, penalties to support our police as well. I did hear from Tangi Utikere about police resources. I would have thought the police can do a lot more with less resources, if they actually have the powers behind them to do that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000770\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill is about proactively keeping law-abiding New Zealanders safe. \u201CCrusher Collins\u201D has left the building, but whether it\u2019s a long-lived \u201CMasher Meager\u201D or \u201CBasher Bish\u201D, I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000771\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f3aeb8778958fb369d29160387671cd5\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Julie Anne Genter, five-minute call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022 data-id=\u00227f5ea6650e999adb38e799d055426893\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000772\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227f5ea6650e999adb38e799d055426893\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green\u2014Rongotai) (20:24)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think, unfortunately, this bill is more of a PR and marketing exercise than genuinely making our communities safer, and that\u2019s why the Green Party won\u2019t be supporting the bill. I note, as usual when I stand and speak in this House, there\u2019s a whole lot of heckling from the other side of the House that for some reason my colleagues don\u2019t experience. But I\u2019m fine with that, because I\u2019ve been here much longer than most people in this House. I\u2019ve seen them all come and go.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000773\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn my own electorate, I know that, just like every other part of the country, it is frustrating when there are people driving loud cars around and doing burnouts. There\u2019s several parts of my electorate that are afflicted by so-called boy racers and that activity. But as I regularly work with the community constable and community policing, I\u2019m well aware of the steps that they have taken under the existing legislation to take significant action that has resulted in a significant decrease. In fact, no activity in problematic parts of the of the electorate, like up at Mount Crawford Prison, M\u0101tai Moana, in the Miramar Peninsula. This is the point that my colleague was making, which is that police already had the powers and many of the offences already existed. We\u2019ve seen, demonstrably, it is possible to take action to prevent this antisocial road use.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000774\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPolice already have the powers to impound vehicles. They already have the ability to give fines for excessive noise. They already had the power to close roads. The real challenge was they couldn\u2019t always use those tools quickly or effectively. This bill doesn\u2019t really change that fundamental problem. I can tell you that, in my electorate, the community policing team is really, really great and they work really well, but they don\u2019t have enough resources. They\u2019ve actually had quite a long period of time of a decline in resources for policing and there aren\u2019t sufficient people to be able to address all the different issues there are. Oftentimes, just their presence can be enough to contribute to less of the antisocial behaviour, whether it\u2019s with a car or not. Until we fundamentally resource our public services properly, we\u2019re not going to solve the issue simply by increasing the penalties that are available.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000775\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is the other point that my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan made, which unfortunately none of the members of the Government parties seemed to grasp, which is when you\u2019re dealing with young people, and young men in particular, the frontal lobe is not fully formed\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000776\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ae8855a202d1bacb3345c49295a2e632\u0022\u003ETom Rutherford\u003C/span\u003E: Oh my gosh.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000777\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bedb25b3d8316aceb3b23eb63aee183f\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014and they take a lot of risky behaviour. That\u2019s true, up to the age of 25. So there\u2019s no point\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000778\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221c0d9ddcedef7e59178181456a592982\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Tom Rutherford\u2014we know you\u2019re over 25. Carry on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000779\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002204b669e62af8d14ced9d22a77425b99b\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I did know that Tom Rutherford was over the age of 25. But like, the point is that sometimes teenagers and young people will get together and do silly things and they will be annoying to many of us, and even dangerous. The last thing we want as parents or members of the community is for them to be doing so with motor vehicles, which are lethal if used incorrectly. But simply changing the law and giving the police more powers and increasing penalties doesn\u2019t address the issue because people aren\u2019t deterred by the consequences. They\u2019re not thinking about the consequences when they do stupid things. And when they run from the police knowing that there might\u2014one, they probably won\u2019t know that the consequences are worse than they used to be. But secondly, when they run from the police, if the police chase them, it\u2019s far more likely that there will be a deadly or devastating outcome for innocent bystanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000780\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWhy are we doing things that make the harm worse? It\u2019s silly. There are much better ways to look at engaging youth, giving them opportunities to have challenges and to do various things. Taking a punitive approach simply doesn\u2019t work in the medium to long term. If we take an evidence-based approach, this bill, I guarantee, is not going to reduce antisocial road-use, unfortunately. It is kind of a shame that we\u2019re wasting the time in the House when there\u2019s so many significant issues facing our country that this Government just wants to go around and be like, \u201COh, we\u2019re putting the baddies in jail. And, you know, we\u2019re cracking down on the bad people so the good people can live their lives.\u201D I\u2019m surprised to see the supposedly libertarian party just throwing out any sort of commitment to civil liberties. You know, a Police State is not going to make us safer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002290f442a79aea4ce0aeae083763135935\u0022 data-id=\u0022e6234630eb506a5fda64a923c43e1b8c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000781\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290f442a79aea4ce0aeae083763135935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e6234630eb506a5fda64a923c43e1b8c\u0022\u003ECARL BATES (National\u2014Whanganui) (20:29)\u003C/span\u003E: Constituents in the Whanganui electorate are sick of antisocial road users. In answer to the Opposition\u2019s question earlier in this debate, I can see the headline on the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EWhanganui Chronicle\u003C/span\u003E as I press that button as the first car gets crushed: \u201CCrusher Carl, Let\u2019s Get This Done\u201D. I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u0022d050dd03ae36e2be770d2acdd588fc44\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000782\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d050dd03ae36e2be770d2acdd588fc44\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (20:30)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. That\u2019s about as much substance as you\u2019ll get from the current National Party.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000783\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019re not going to stand in the way of letting the National Party have a go with this bill, but I just want to point out that we have real concerns around workability. If you look at the centrepiece of this legislation, the offensive \u201CDangerous or reckless activity conduct[ed] in [a] frightening or intimidating convoy\u201D\u2014if you look at the ingredients that you have to prove to get that across the line, I struggle to see how it will ever be done. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000784\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, the first thing you have to show\u2014the first thing you have to show\u2014is that another offence is being committed, because you can only be convicted of this offence if you are also committing an offence in subsection (2) of new section 39A. They\u2019re not trivial offences; they\u2019re not speeding or driving carelessly. No, they\u2019re offences like dangerous driving causing death, reckless driving, dangerous driving, racing, or intentional loss of traction. The first thing you\u2019ve got to do is prove all of the ingredients of that offence, and then you have to prove a whole lot of other things. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000785\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EYou then have to show that the conduct while operating the motor vehicle was part of a convoy, so you have to show that this person is intentionally part of a group of moving vehicles. Now, I\u2019ll come to that a bit further on, because there\u2019s some funny twists and turns in that, as well. You\u2019ve got to show that they\u2019re intentionally part\u2014so not just that they\u2019re parked up watching someone do burnouts but that they\u2019re actually part of a moving group of vehicles. Then you have to show that they intended it \u201Cto frighten or intimidate another person\u201D. So you\u2019ve got to look\u2014and this is the mental element; Lawrence Xu-Nan pointed this out\u2014into their heads, or at least show that they were reckless.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000786\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, Julie Anne Genter just pointed out that not all people engaging in this kind of behaviour are particularly thoughtful, but it isn\u2019t being stupid as to whether you were acting in an intimidating manner, because that certainly happens a lot. Recklessness is a particular kind of knowledge. It\u2019s the kind of knowledge where you turn your mind to the question, but you don\u2019t care. Most of these young people\u2014and, yes, they are generally men\u2014don\u2019t even turn their mind to the question, so stupidity won\u2019t do it. You\u2019ve got to actually, positively not care. If you think about all of those ingredients coming together, I don\u2019t think there\u2019s ever going to be a situation in which this particular offence will be proven. Now, it may well be that what the police really want is an ability to seize these vehicles, because they reasonably believe that\u2019s the case, but that will run into problems of its own.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000787\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETurning, then, to another problem of this\u2014and this is what I particularly like\u2014and this is what amounts to a convoy. In our mind, when we think of a convoy, I wouldn\u2019t have thought a convoy is two cars travelling together, but this definition says two\u2019s enough. But here\u2019s the really\u2014and this is funny, because it is truly bizarre\u2014the person who\u2019s subject to the charge \u201Cintentionally or knowingly operates the vehicle to travel as part of that convoy\u201D\u2014but here\u2019s the funny bit; this is new subsection (4): even if the other vehicle or vehicles travelling with that convoy are not intentionally part of the convoy. So if Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s driving down the road and I\u2019m like, \u201CI want to hang out with Lawrence.\u201D, and I chase him and drive behind him, it\u2019s a convoy that Lawrence is part of and he doesn\u2019t know he\u2019s part of it, which is absolute madness. The idea that you could just be following someone because you want to be part of that group\u2014no one else knows they are; there could be 10 cars in a line and nine of them don\u2019t know they\u2019re part of a convoy\u2014is absolutely ridiculous. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000788\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf22a832d14a4c99ab5dfd16e24446e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225602893f1ac6653a7626c11d944caaea\u0022\u003ERima Nakhle\u003C/span\u003E: Then why are you voting for it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000789\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f09abc555a628b797e45624f51cf8786\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB\u003C/span\u003E: The other thing\u2014well, Rima Nakhle, you can have your play in the sandpit, but the fact of the matter is this is one of the worst-drafted and least-effective pieces of legislation that I\u2019ve seen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000790\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other thing, of course, is that you\u2019re going to seize these vehicles for 28 days, and we know that many of these vehicles are not high value. In the Justice Committee, we tested quite a lot how this is going to work, and it turns out that most of the time the costs of detaining a vehicle for 28 days and taking it to the place of detention exceed the value of the vehicle. And who pays for the storage costs? Well, these people who have had their card confiscated don\u2019t come up and say, \u201COops, here you go: here\u2019s my life savings.\u201D They just disappear into the ether, and what happens is it becomes an impost on the State. If we do get to the point where cars are, in fact, seized, the chances are that maybe you\u2019ll get to crush them, but it\u2019ll cost the State an enormous amount of money. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000791\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis kind of policy where you give the police these relatively sweeping powers and you have these tough-on-crime, car-crushing approaches\u2014they don\u2019t actually address the problem. I\u2019m the MP for Christchurch Central, so I know what antisocial road use looks like, and I\u2019ll tell you, the Christchurch City Council has\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000792\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e5b408219486746574f5e5a962d072d9\u0022\u003EHon Matt Doocey\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, settle!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000793\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022239dc2d55878399ce44bcb2ce3d14b4c\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB\u003C/span\u003E: Not because I\u2019m an antisocial road user, Matt Doocey, but because I\u2019ve seen it. But the Christchurch City Council has grappled with this for some time, and it had no-cruising zones and all this sort of stuff, but you know what actually solved it in the long term was traffic management. They had the genius idea of changing the phasing of the traffic lights so that people would have to stop more frequently, and it wasn\u2019t as much fun. All of a sudden, that problem abated. It didn\u2019t disappear, but it abated significantly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000794\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo, yes, look, we all accept that intimidating use of motor vehicles and all of those other things\u2014although this piece of legislation doesn\u2019t actually address the problem of people simply driving noisy, noisy cars around in circles. This piece of legislation doesn\u2019t actually address that; it addresses something quite different. But, in fact, if that\u2019s the problem, that kind of antisocial road use, we have to think about more innovative ways to address those problems. Giving an under-resourced police force more powers to try and enforce very complicated, multi-layered legislation to seize cars which will be in storage at the Crown\u2019s expense is not the way to go about it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000795\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe endorse the idea that we need to encourage, one way or another, more responsible road use. We have agreed that if the National Party wants to put this legislation in place and try and apply it, well, good luck to them. I mean, I do worry that there is going to be an expectation in the community that this legislation will be a panacea\u2014that, as soon as someone does a burnout, the police will immediately appear and arrest that person and confiscate their cars. Well, that\u2019s simply not going to happen. Having said that, we would like to see a more thoughtful approach to how we address this problem, including things like the regulations around car modifications, which are part of the problem, because most of these cars are modified vehicles; many of them are not legal. Why wait for the burnouts when these cars can be stopped and detained on safety grounds as they drive past, in any event? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHave a go, but the legislation itself is largely unworkable. In summary, the idea that you\u2019re going to charge someone with driving in a convoy in an intimidating manner when they\u2019ve just been engaged in dangerous driving causing death or injury kind of makes me think that that you\u2019ve probably got bigger fish to fry, and that won\u2019t be the particular offence that they\u2019re charged with. But the National Party seems determined on this perverse course of action. We\u2019re not going to stand in their way tonight. Good luck to them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022 data-id=\u0022eabc056ce33a81e31d0640b7bf1032b5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000797\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022eabc056ce33a81e31d0640b7bf1032b5\u0022\u003ETOM RUTHERFORD (National\u2014Bay of Plenty) (20:40)\u003C/span\u003E: New Zealanders across the country are sick and tired of these people taking over the roads and causing absolute havoc and impacting on innocent victims across our country. We, on this side, put victims at the heart of our justice system. That\u2019s what this piece of legislation is doing. I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f988bc72b5e47b8856ba70e41dfbbaf\u0022 data-id=\u002255a18fd955e7a3cba35b865979da8199\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000798\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f988bc72b5e47b8856ba70e41dfbbaf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002255a18fd955e7a3cba35b865979da8199\u0022\u003EGEORGIE DANSEY (Labour) (20:40)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s good to take a call on the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill in its third reading. Labour supports safer communities and safer roads, and that is, essentially, why we are supporting this bill. We know that dangerous, antisocial driving causes harm, and we support decisive enforcement. There are different aspects, I guess, when we look at what it means to have safer streets and safer communities. This bill is one part of that, but there is a much larger picture that must be considered in this context when looking at creating legislation in this space.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000799\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe first one, other speakers have spoken to already this evening, is around how you\u2019ve got to have the resource to support the increased powers given to Police. The National Government promised 500 extra front-line police. We haven\u2019t seen them, and we\u2019re still waiting. I\u2019m not sure how we can truly implement and manage this new piece of legislation when we don\u2019t have the resource in our police force to support it. We know that laws only work if Police have the staff and the resources to enforce them, and my main concern, moving forward, is that we simply do not have that resource in place. In order to create safer streets and safer communities, we need to make sure those resources are there. Some of the actions that the bill sets out to achieve are actions around aggravating, failing to stop, street racing, sustained loss of traction, and frightening or intimidating convoy offences. These are new offences that police will be able to take action on if seen in our communities, but if we don\u2019t have the police in order to enforce this, these actions will continue to occur, and we won\u2019t have the safer communities that I think we all would like to have.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000800\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think there\u2019s a question here around the community impact, and other speakers have spoken to this. For me, I\u2019m looking at parts of the legislation that allow vehicles to be seized and impounded for 28 days. I understand, in situations where people are acting unlawfully and antisocially on our streets, we need tough penalties, and they\u2019re justified for these serious offences and dangerous behaviours. I\u2019m pleased this select committee considered a broader lens when it came to looking at the 28 days of seizing and impounding vehicles and were able to consider individual circumstances of different people in these situations. We have concerns for young people, people living in rural situations, and low-income people if they have either their vehicle impounded for 28 days or a 12-month ban on acquiring a vehicle, because we know that people use their vehicles for things other than boy, girl, or non-binary racing. At night, they might be boy racing, but during the day, they might be going to work, or during the day, they may be lending their car to a family member who\u2019s using it to work or sharing a car with a family member.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000801\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe need to make sure that we know this is predominantly young people and young men that are acting in an intimidating way on our streets. We need to make sure that we are not preventing them from having a future beyond their bad decisions, and if they need to lend their car to someone else the next day, we don\u2019t want that to impact their family members or prevent them from getting to work and continuing in their employment. To summarise, those are the concerns we have with the bill, but, overall, we support safer streets and communities. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022 data-id=\u0022aaba0a8601d36a03d6d4725308724da1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000802\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022aaba0a8601d36a03d6d4725308724da1\u0022\u003EDr CARLOS CHEUNG (National\u2014Mt Roskill) (20:45)\u003C/span\u003E: People of Mt Roskill are fed up with reckless drivers tearing through our streets in places like Keith Hay Park, putting families at risk. This Government has zero tolerance for that behaviour because National stands as the party of law and order. If you want to drive dangerously, face the consequences. Race on our streets, and you will be walking home. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022 data-id=\u0022f6d00a2d5ae151de6361794aa8056565\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000803\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f6d00a2d5ae151de6361794aa8056565\u0022\u003EDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (20:46)\u003C/span\u003E: Gosh! Talking about Speedy Gonzales, that was a very, very fast contribution. I rise in support of the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill. This is one of the bills where the title can sound a little bit technical but the issue itself is actually really real for real people. We\u2019re talking about illegal street racing, the burnouts, siren battles that the Minister had previously spoken about, dangerous convoys\u2014although there\u2019s some contention with what that definition actually entails\u2014fleeing drivers, and vehicles being used in ways where, quite frankly, the intentionality behind it is something to intimidate people, and, ultimately, that makes communities feel unsafe where they shouldn\u2019t feel unsafe, which is in their own neighbourhoods.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000804\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFor the people who live with this, I do want to reiterate that it\u2019s not just a bit of noise and it\u2019s not just young people mucking around with nothing better to do; the sound of cars gathering late at night, screeching tyres, engines revving, and all of that sort of stuff leaves people wondering whether the next sound will be a crash. I really want to make that quite explicit. I\u2019ve spoken to people\u2014and I\u2019ve got colleagues in this House that would have spoken to people\u2014in Governors Bay, who sit there at night listening into the evening with the background noise and are anticipating whether someone makes the next bend and whether this results in an accident. They can\u2019t relax, and it\u2019s really stressful. They\u2019re living on their nerves, and it\u2019s not fair. It\u2019s families worrying about narrow local roads being, essentially, treated like racetracks. That is why Labour is supporting this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000805\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs has been said by other colleagues, we were happy to support this bill at first reading. We had some reservations. We do believe that the select committee process was able to afford some opportunities to improve the bill. It\u2019s not a perfect bill. There are still some remaining issues with it, and I will get to that, but, at this stage, we are happy to support the bill because something does need to be done.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000806\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn Banks Peninsula in particular, this issue isn\u2019t abstract, and I know, for some people, it will be. Some people never face this kind of issue in their homes or in their neighbourhoods, but for people in Banks Peninsula, it\u2019s certainly not an abstract issue. Communities around Lyttelton; Governors Bay, as I said; Cass Bay; and the wider harbour basin, actually, in totality have dealt with antisocial road users for quite some time. Whether it\u2019s the illegal street racing, the burnouts, the excessive speeding, and the siren battles, it doesn\u2019t matter. It comes and goes in cycles and people move around. It\u2019s unpredictable, but one commonality that it always comes back to is those very alluring, windy, attractive roads through those hills that seem to draw this type of antisocial road user to them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000807\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s dangerous, and I may be quite biased, but these are stunning roads. They\u2019re also narrow. They are a bit winding. They\u2019re residential, first and foremost, but they\u2019re also, in places, incredibly unforgiving. Ultimately, though, they are roads that people use to get to and from work, to drop their kids off at school, and to access local business, etc. It\u2019s where people are supposed to enjoy living, certainly not racetracks. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000808\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill does give police and the courts stronger tools to deal with this type of dangerous and intimidating road use that, quite frankly, a lot of communities have had an utter gutsful of. I want to acknowledge those residents, many of whom have not just made complaints\u2014and they have, over a lengthy period of time\u2014but they\u2019ve also tried to solve the problem themselves. They\u2019ve raised it with police. They\u2019ve pushed for more patrols. They have looked at ways that they can actually gather their own information. They\u2019ve set up stations where they can collect data. They\u2019re doing that kind of community service to provide authorities with the information and the intelligence that they might need to be able to put a stop to this, and that\u2019s what community advocacy looks like. If people are saying that they\u2019ve got a problem, I think that we should do anything we can to restore the fact that they need to be able to continue to love where they live and not accept that this type of behaviour is normal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000809\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn general, though, the bill gives police and the courts some stronger tools to deal with the serious end of antisocial road use. It creates a new offence for frightening and intimidating convoys. We\u2019ve heard tonight, though, however, that there\u2019s not necessarily clear agreement on what constitutes a convoy. We\u2019ve heard of a couple of examples of how that could seem quite farcical. It does sometimes see particular examples of, as my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb said, someone in front of a two-person convoy not necessarily knowing that they are part of a convoy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000810\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHowever, the bill also strengthens the consequences for lots of other things, and in serious cases, vehicles can be impounded, they can be forfeited, or they can be destroyed. We have actually also heard about that tonight and about some of the practicalities about actually making that happen and the costs that could be involved. On the surface, there could seem like there are big consequences, but the proof, as they say, will be in the pudding. Whilst I say that the bill potentially helps police get to the bottom of this problem, the police need to be able to fundamentally access the resources and have the resources available to them to turn this into something that doesn\u2019t just sound good on paper but actually can practically make a difference, and I\u2019ll come back to that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000811\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut the bill has been improved in a couple of different ways through the select committee process, as I said, and I do want to acknowledge the many people who made submissions on the process and gifted us some of their lived experience. One important change is around court discretion. The bill originally had a much more rigid approach to stopping someone from acquiring another vehicle after forfeiture, and submitters did raise some really sensible concerns about how that could potentially affect people in rural communities, young people, people on low incomes, and anybody who genuinely needed to be able to continue to use their car for work, education, or daily life. The bill also allows the courts to take some of those circumstances into account, and I do think that that has been an improvement through the select committee process. The bill is kept largely intact, but also makes it a little bit more fair and a little bit more workable, which is a good thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000812\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere are a couple of other practical changes too about including how infringement notices are managed. I don\u2019t think that\u2019s necessarily quite hit the right spot, but making police powers more clear when closing areas temporarily is required. So we continue to support the bill because of those changes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000813\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut what needs to happen next? Passing this bill, or continuing with this process, certainly doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s the end of the job. As I said, this has the potential to simply be window dressing. It has the potential to merely do nothing more than symbolise that the Government has taken an issue seriously and provided an actual, specific, concrete solution to a very, very real problem. But if we do want this to work, police and courts absolutely need the resources to be able to do so, so that they can exercise these powers properly. Impounding vehicles, as we\u2019ve heard, takes storage, forfeiture, destruction\u2014all those sorts of things. It takes a process and it takes storage and it takes time. And enforcement, as we said, has to be consistent and fair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOf course, road safety isn\u2019t actually achieved through punishment alone: we still need to see prevention; we still need to see a suitable and appropriate youth engagement; we still need safer roads, better infrastructure, and strong local partnerships; and we also absolutely need to listen to communities who know exactly where the hotspots are and what is happening on the ground. However, this bill is a start. It\u2019s part of the response. It says clearly, potentially, that public roads belong to the public, but what it says and what it does could easily turn into two very different things, as I said, unless it is resourced properly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000815\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo the people in Lyttelton, Governors Bay, Cass Bay, and all of those communities around the Banks Peninsula, I really do hope that this bill is able to be implemented in a way that actually does provide some relief and provide them with a little bit of hope that they could finally get to the bottom of this absolute problem. Despite having some very reasonable concerns, and a little bit of cynicism, given this Government has made lots of cuts and not resourced Police properly, I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cf22a832d14a4c99ab5dfd16e24446e5\u0022 data-id=\u0022f2200b5b4853f03caad6710e55c8c847\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000816\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf22a832d14a4c99ab5dfd16e24446e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f2200b5b4853f03caad6710e55c8c847\u0022\u003ERIMA NAKHLE (National\u2014Takanini) (20:56)\u003C/span\u003E: \u201CThere\u2019s just not enough data.\u201D They were the exact words of one of the Green Party members\u2014essentially saying, or justifying, that strengthening the laws and giving police more tools around antisocial behaviour is not warranted. Well, I want to ask Dr Vanessa Weenink whether her neighbours in Banks Peninsula, Carl Bates\u2019 neighbours in Whanganui, Tim Costley\u2019s neighbours in K\u0101piti, Phil Twyford\u2019s neighbours in West Auckland, and my neighbours in Takanini are waiting for more scientific, elitist, academic proof that antisocial driving is making them experience fear, disruption to their lives, and intimidation. I\u2019m pretty sure they\u2019ll say they don\u2019t need extra evidence; the evidence is happening every day to them. It\u2019s antisocial driving, and we\u2019re making it even more unlawful. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000817\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226e6c0cffaa284c7d276272804ee8f983\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Scott Willis, are you seeking the Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori call?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000818\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002239b883662173d5e96bd3baac4a122103\u0022\u003EScott Willis\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000819\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f38dd671c36f14f17550a96d8e0788af\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: I note Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori are here. Are Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori happy to give you that call?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000820\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002259d2729e21b133c7321aae8d34e65a64\u0022\u003EScott Willis\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000821\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220ac2cc1061b3fc89924d5d5db4457bb9\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Scott Willis.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022 data-id=\u00226fbe929ab735be19d580a8b4d7a867ad\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000822\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226fbe929ab735be19d580a8b4d7a867ad\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS (Green) (20:57)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It\u2019s my pleasure to take my first call on this bill, particularly, because I have just heard the convoy of fast calls from the other side of the House, and it is really disappointing. I will be talking to Vanessa Weenink\u2019s neighbours about the issues that are faced in that neighbourhood in Banks Peninsula, because my sister happens to live there. I\u2019m very concerned that they do not share the National Party\u2019s concern that this is such a serious issue. In fact, this bill, really, is an example of how the Government acts. It\u2019s really just virtue signalling. It\u2019s the way in which they try to promote something, saying they\u2019re going to do something, when we know it\u2019s going to have very little effect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000823\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe heard the concerns from my colleague Duncan Webb about the workability of this. We heard the concerns from over on the Labour side. We heard the concerns from Tracey McLellan that without the resourcing, how on earth is this going to work? We\u2019ve got our police, who will have the powers to act, but what are they going to be doing at the moment? They\u2019re going to be enforcing \u201Cmove on\u201D orders. They\u2019re going to be doing all kinds of other things. They\u2019re not going to be able to be resourced to do this because we haven\u2019t even got the police that this Government said they were going to provide us with. So we\u2019ve got a situation where we\u2019re creating legislation that\u2019s going to give the police something more to do and no resource to do it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000824\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m a bit surprised that this bill has more support. In fact, I wonder whether, you know, on the Labour side, they\u2019re just simply supporting it to see it fail miserably and then to laugh at it, because that\u2019s really where this bill\u2019s going. It\u2019s really sad that there\u2019s not the funding for the police, there\u2019s not the funding to make this work, and that\u2019s where this is all going to fall down.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000825\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe know as well that the police already have the ability, because there\u2019s the existing legislation. We\u2019ve got the legislation for illegal street racing, as we heard from my colleague Lawrence Xu-Nan. We\u2019ve got the legislation for reckless driving; we\u2019ve got the legislation for fleeing drivers; for an intimidating convoy; for failing to give details. That\u2019s all existing legislation. What we\u2019ve also heard is that, when there are local politicians able to work with community police, when people take an intelligent approach, staggering rights, there are solutions already that have a better outcome than simply the punitive, unresourced approach that this Government wants to take.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000826\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s an example of the desperation of this Government, not being able to think through things with any depth; knowingly introducing legislation that will do little; using it as PR. Why can\u2019t this Government invest in our youth? Why can\u2019t this Government invest in vocational training?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000827\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002258131329ebbd859d4dd9f076362e9cf8\u0022\u003ESuze Redmayne\u003C/span\u003E: Back to basics!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000828\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002254198436f84b73355c260d55a96da860\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Why can\u2019t this Government do something basic and invest in our education and help our youth? Let\u2019s think who this might apply to. Let\u2019s think of the convoys that they might be able to attack. Yes, as we heard, this would fit very well with Groundswell NZ, that intimidating convoy trying to get rid of the Paris Agreement. This would certainly fit there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000829\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222ef82fea557c065ba7b60a5c9517be53\u0022\u003EFrancisco Hernandez\u003C/span\u003E: Ok, so we can use it then?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000830\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002235e587926829057b2263fc9fee9d3f12\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: We could use that, possibly. Would this have applied to the 2022 Wellington protest, the anti-mandate, anti-lockdown convoy? Would this have applied to that convoy? Would it have applied to that? In that case, you might get some support. This is where this just doesn\u2019t stack up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve certainly dealt with intimidating behaviour\u2014anti-social road user behaviour\u2014where I live. I\u2019ve seen cars racing down narrow, rural streets; mothers out, concerned about children on bikes on the street, having to call in the council. Part of that involved the community working to put in speed bumps, judder bars, etc. We\u2019ve got the examples of where local politicians\u2014our local MP for Rongotai\u2014working with community law, can get a great result. So let\u2019s invest in our community. Thank you, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000832\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a third time\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000833\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 101\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000834\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000835\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 20\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000836\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000837\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000838\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000839\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022182d43641c8818ae8503cb9f08b6d2cc\u0022\u003EHealth and Safety at Work Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000840\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00226078f9d146a8e617f86cc2dc8c801dc7\u0022\u003ESecond Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000841\u0022\u003EDebate resumed from 24 June.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022420f72e8bcc84c869a366ff712af8e49\u0022 data-id=\u002214110964c2f126b7e106dfb9718d5a27\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000842\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022420f72e8bcc84c869a366ff712af8e49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002214110964c2f126b7e106dfb9718d5a27\u0022\u003EHANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori\u2014Hauraki-Waikato) (21:04)\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003ET\u0113n\u0101 r\u0101 koe e te P\u012Bka, otir\u0101 t\u0113n\u0101 r\u0101 t\u0101tou e te Whare. E t\u016B ana ahau ki te waha i ng\u0101 k\u014Drero m\u0101 Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori i te p\u014D nei ki t\u0113nei o ng\u0101 pire, ar\u0101 ko te Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000843\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EE t\u016B ana ahau ki te waha i t\u0113nei o ng\u0101 pire i te p\u0101nuitanga tuarua. I t\u0101 m\u0101tou submission i wh\u0101rikihia ng\u0101 \u0101wangawanga me ng\u0101 k\u014Drero a ia tangata i tono atu ki te komiti whakahaere, me \u0101 r\u0101tou tono e p\u0101 ana ki ng\u0101 whakawhiu a t\u0113nei pire, waihoki ng\u0101 \u0101wangawanga o t\u0113nei pire.  \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000844\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EAn\u0101 ko t\u0101ku mahi i te p\u014D nei he wh\u0101riki i ng\u0113nei o ng\u0101 nawe me ng\u0113nei hoki o ng\u0101 kaupapa e p\u0113hi nei i ng\u0101 t\u0101ngata, i ng\u0101 kaimahi ki r\u014D ki \u0101 r\u0101tou mahi. An\u0101 ko \u0113tehi o ng\u0101 w\u0101hi mahi ko te forestry, ko ng\u0101 unions, waihoki \u003C/span\u003E M\u0101ori health and safety advocates, employers, and wh\u0101nau.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000845\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThank you, Mr Speaker; indeed, greetings to us all in the House. I stand to give voice to the M\u0101ori Party\u2019s statements tonight regarding this particular bill, that is, the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill.  \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000846\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EI stand to give voice to this particular bill in the second reading. In our submission, the concerns and comments of each person who made a submission to the select committee were laid out, and their submissions with respect to the harms by this bill, and, furthermore, the concerns over this bill.  \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000847\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EMy job tonight is to lay out these particular concerns and these particular initiatives that oppress the people and the workers in their work. Now, some of these workplaces include forestry, unions, and, also, M\u0101ori health \u003C/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003Eand safety advocates, employers, and wh\u0101nau.\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000848\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENothing has changed in our position since our first reading and our submission that we put through. It still treats health and safety as red tape instead of what it really is: the right of every worker to return home to their wh\u0101nau healthy and safe and whole. It\u2019s not just a technical amendment; it lands directly on people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000849\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EM\u0101ori are overrepresented in high-risk industries\u2014forestry, construction, agriculture, transport, manufacturing, contracting. These are the jobs that keep this country moving. These are the jobs that build roads, harvest the whenua, move the goods, and grow the economy, but too often M\u0101ori workers carry the costs of that economy in their bodies, their health, and sometimes their lives. Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori\u2019s submission was very clear: any law that weakens health and safety protections will disproportionately harm M\u0101ori people, already over-represented where low pay and insecure work, poor training and unsafe conditions are common. Yet, this bill narrows health and safety duties as critical risks. That sounds tidy in a press release, but it is dangerous in real life because harm does not always arrive as a fatal accident. Harm can be back injury, it can be hearing loss, it can be fatigue, it can be stress, violence\u2014\u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Eng\u0113nei momo nawe e tuki nei i a t\u0101tou i roto i te kaimahi me t\u014Dna w\u0101hi noho\u003C/span\u003E [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003Ethese types of concerns that afflict us within the sphere of the worker and their workplace\u003C/span\u003E].\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000850\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EAn\u0101 koinei \u0113tehi o ng\u0101 \u0101wangawanga kua kitea, kua rangona e te komiti whakahaere i te p\u0101nuitanga tuatahi. Kua tae m\u0101tou ki te p\u0101nuitanga tuarua.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000851\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ENow, these are some of the concerns that have been seen and felt by the committee at the first reading. We have now come to the second reading.\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000852\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill risks making our health and safety system blind to harm. A worker should not have to be almost killed before the law decides these safety matters. This bill also creates two-tiered systems. \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EE rua ng\u0101 w\u0101hi, e rua ng\u0101 wahanga i roto i t\u0113nei o ng\u0101 pire.\u003C/span\u003E [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThere are two places, there are two sections, within this particular bill.\u003C/span\u003E] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000853\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBusinesses with fewer than 20 workers will have fewer obligations beyond critical risk, but risk does not count how many people are on the payroll before it becomes a cause of harm. \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EI roto i t\u0113nei o ng\u0101 pire, ka tono atu ki ng\u0101 take\u003C/span\u003E [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003Ewithin this particular bill, it appeals to the issues\u003C/span\u003E], the evidence, i roto i [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003Ewithin\u003C/span\u003E] Te R\u014Dp\u016B Marutau o Aotearoa the M\u0101ori Health and Safety Association, for the mahi they have done in this space. They have warned that these amendments will disproportionately impact M\u0101ori health workers. They have called for a system that protects workers from all reasonable foreseeable harm, not just the so-called critical harms that are within this bill. \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EN\u014D reira, t\u0113n\u0101 r\u0101 koe e te P\u012Bka\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000854\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022df1eee6da8fb30039c735bcfe4f682cc\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Just before I say that, aspiring speakers from my right should just leave it to the Chair to decide whether members will be pulled up for reading speeches or not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022 data-id=\u00221638f5287c80dd103b6b64c6860b3ee0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000855\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221638f5287c80dd103b6b64c6860b3ee0\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (21:09)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of the Green Party to take this split call in opposition to the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill. It has not taken long for some in this House to forget the reasons why we previously strengthened New Zealand\u2019s health and safety legislation. We\u2019re debating a bill that, if passed, will see even more people harmed at the workplace with an aim of reducing compliance costs. This bill is not cutting red tape; it is cutting safety tape. As Winston Peters and Brooke van Velden play a game of \u201Che says, she says\u201D about who is wrong, Christopher Luxon\u2019s Government is marching us towards legislation that will harm more workers.  Just this evening, the Minister has deferred the implementation of the bill for five months to April next year instead of 1 November this year. While Winston Peters is trying to claim this as a win, the ACT leader, David Seymour, has said there have been no concessions to New Zealand First.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EReally, what we have here is a Minister saying that the problem with the bill is not the bill itself but that everyone doesn\u2019t get it and the Government needs some time to explain it. Basically, people like the wh\u0101nau of the Pike miners who stood in the forecourt last week, like people who actually work in the health sector, don\u2019t know health and safety like the Minister does! As quoted by the Minister, \u201Cthe delay is designed to provide more time for businesses, workers, and sector groups to understand the law and develop advice and guidance\u201D. I\u2019m calling on Winston Peters and New Zealand First to put politics aside and do the right thing now, not just for the families who have suffered in the past and fought to strengthen legislation but for those who will be harmed if this bill passes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000857\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENo amendment will make this bill workable. No delay will make it workable. It is time to kill the bill tonight. No one should go home hurt and, even more importantly, no one should die from doing their job. However, that is what currently happens, and it will become even worse, because when you make systems designed to keep workers safe and healthy weaker, more people will suffer. Every action has a reaction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000858\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022168a0bd5973ecd226f5f8ae70e580282\u0022\u003EHon David Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: Who wrote this?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000859\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224686e1b6ff7eb6fc91fb02266c9059ef\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON\u003C/span\u003E: The problem we have here\u2014well, if you just keep to your same lines, we wouldn\u2019t have to write more notes down. The problem we have here is we have a Government and a Minister who see health and safety as a cost. Health and safety is not a cost to business; it is an investment. Good health and safety at the workplace will see productivity rise. The fatality rate for a worker in New Zealand is 1.7 times higher than in Australia and 6.5 times higher than that in the UK\u20146.5 times higher. We should be strengthening legislation and regulation, not winding it back.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000860\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ECreating a two-tier system where small businesses are carved out\u2014businesses that make up 90 percent of businesses in Aotearoa\u2014will create more harm. A desire to cut compliance costs will see costs being added and worker absences, staff turnover, and increased ACC costs. It\u2019s not cutting costs; it\u2019s shifting the cost, and it\u2019s pretty much impossible to have an answer to the question about how much this cost will increase ACC\u2019s costs. In scrutiny week, the ACC Minister was asked, questioned, by Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan, and the Minister for ACC could not answer the pertinent question that will affect his ministry, instead deferring it to the ministry of workplace relations. The Minister for ACC does not know the cost impacts to his ministry from this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000861\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI have been very fortunate to be on some of the oral hearings to listen to the people, the people in the sector, the workers, the people that actually get health and safety, and it is very clear this bill is not workable. This bill, when passed into legislation, will see more people harmed at work. The Green Party completely opposes this bill, because it will see more people hurt at work. Kia ora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000862\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fc1ab0ded3f35ed9124c04ff87ba88b6\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Just before I take the next speaker, I know the last two speakers are relatively junior members, but I notice how well you speak when you get away from your notes, and I encourage you to continue that. Carl Bates.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000863\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f83c00f8387abefb4f6a88b91e656d66\u0022\u003EHon David Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: I didn\u2019t notice that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002290f442a79aea4ce0aeae083763135935\u0022 data-id=\u002291178f000deb3f00a803d8ab5d194161\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000864\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290f442a79aea4ce0aeae083763135935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002291178f000deb3f00a803d8ab5d194161\u0022\u003ECARL BATES (National\u2014Whanganui) (21:14)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000865\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b545aaa8d3e47cc65d6e5dc37096efe4\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: David Seymour, stand, withdraw, and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000866\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e60bd409a27ed8e31ada0a6adb8f9fbe\u0022\u003EHon David Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000867\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002294790503c08d0ccc283e10ee7c32fec4\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Seymour. Coming in halfway through someone\u2019s speech and starting to make comments about it, particularly for a senior member, is out of order, so just behave yourself.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000868\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022560fc49190028b6a58a586966fd2ec28\u0022\u003EHon David Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: I was here for the whole speech.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000869\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fbc541e431793619dd766811eddee29a\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, are you contradicting me?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000870\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226f25347e84040e0ab6ab58fa4954694b\u0022\u003EHon David Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: No, I\u2019m just commenting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000871\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220ef5c4e6053867e60340874bca3953f8\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Right. OK. Don\u2019t come in here and upset the balance of the House. Leave the Speaker\u2019s job to the Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000872\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290f442a79aea4ce0aeae083763135935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e2bde07716f6c9365244cfec144707d2\u0022\u003ECARL BATES\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In the National Party, unlike the Opposition, we don\u2019t think about these things in absolutes. It is not credible to stand up and say that the bill in its entirety is completely unworkable and cannot be implemented and that there may not be tweaks that could improve the bill. That\u2019s just not credible.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000873\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn the National Party, we understand the concept of implementation, as well, something that the previous Government, the Opposition, never quite understood, basically, across their range of activity. Because we understand the importance of implementing something well, we want to see that we allow time for the approved codes of practice to be well drafted and to have that opportunity to be executed on. We also, through having been through the select committee process and the hearings, want to recognise that there may be further tweaks that we can make to this process prior to its implementation in the new year. That\u2019s why there has been this amendment that\u2019s going to be brought to the House to extend the time frame for their implementation. The National Party supports that and is behind that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000874\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is part of our plan to fix the basics and build the future, and therefore I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022 data-id=\u0022c63ea3c48c659fc1763e9d8b6c1fe26a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000875\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c63ea3c48c659fc1763e9d8b6c1fe26a\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B) (21:16)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s important that people understand what\u2019s really going on with this bill. A Government that sees health and safety as primarily red tape, a cost to business, is, with this bill, gutting the health and safety system and substantially weakening the protections for 650,000 workers in New Zealand. The main effect of the bill is to define and separate out so-called critical risks\u2014\u201Chazards likely to result in death, notifiable injury, illness, or incident\u201D\u2014from all of the other so-called non-critical risks; secondly, to carve out smaller firms, those with fewer than 20\u00A0employees, and say that those firms only need to focus on, manage, the critical risks. Now, there are other elements, but these are the most significant and the most dangerous.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000876\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s important to understand also that New Zealand has an abysmal health and safety record. New Zealanders are six times more likely to die at work than workers in the United Kingdom; twice as likely to die at work than workers in Australia. So\u2014and here\u2019s a multi-choice test for the members\u2014why is the Government doing this? (a) Because some small businesses complained that the health and safety laws were too onerous, (b) because the ACT Party is ideologically opposed to regulation unless it benefits the rich and powerful, (c) because Christopher Luxon was so inept that he agreed to this in the coalition negotiations with ACT, (d) because this Government doesn\u2019t really care if this law means that more New Zealand workers will be maimed and killed at work, or (e) all of the above. What is it? It\u2019s (e). It was a trick question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000877\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe select committee process was interesting. One after another of business groups, unions, and health and safety experts came along and debunked and demolished the central idea that underpins this bill\u2014that small enterprises are somehow less risky to their workers than large enterprises. The idea is completely illogical. There\u2019s no evidence that small businesses are less risky. Some of the small businesses clearly do some of the most dangerous work. In fact, there\u2019s evidence that small businesses, on the whole, are more risky, because they lack the infrastructure and the specialisation and the resources to properly manage the risks to life and limb.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000878\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EUnder this bill, a demolition gang with 19 employees will have fewer health and safety responsibilities than a human resources consultancy with 21 employees. Now, what kind of sense does that make? In fact, Shamubeel Eaqub said recently that small businesses are one-quarter more likely to injure their staff than large firms, and that\u2019s when the statistics are adjusted for the size of the workforce. ACC data shows that firms with fewer than 20 employees generate three quarters of all work-related injury costs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000879\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat did the submitters say to the committee? Downer, one of our leading infrastructure firms, said the bill would \u201CAdd cost and complexity \u2026 without improving outcomes\u201D, and it would \u201CAdversely affect the health and safety of workers \u2026 particularly those in small businesses\u201D. Fulton Hogan, one of our leading civil construction firms, said the small business carve-out is particularly problematic in the construction industry, where many subcontractors and others in the supply chain work alongside them in high-risk sites. The New Zealand Minerals Council\u2014that\u2019s the peak body for mining and quarrying\u2014said that \u201CThe small business carve-out will be unworkable in complex workplaces, such as mines and quarries\u201D, some of the most dangerous workplaces in New Zealand. The CEOs of every major port in New Zealand said the small-business carve-out would \u201Ccause confusion about accountability\u201D and risks disadvantaging small firms because the ports would choose not to work with them and not to contract to them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000880\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWoolworths, our biggest grocery firm, said the carve-out would \u201Ccreate significant confusion\u201D, and, \u201Cthe Bill [would] degrade health and safety outcomes.\u201D, and, get this, \u201CA worker\u0027s baseline protection should not depend on the headcount of their employer.\u201D Civil Contractors, the umbrella association of the entire infrastructure building industry. What are they say? Get rid of the carve-out entirely. It will create confusion and complexity, and it is unworkable. The Business Leaders\u2019 Health and Safety Forum\u2014440 CEOs; 25\u00A0percent of the workforce they\u2019re responsible for\u2014said the carve-out was \u201Cinequitable\u201D and it \u201Cignores the reality of modern workplaces\u201D, and it \u201Cwill \u2026 lead to higher rates of harm\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000881\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Employers and Manufacturers Association of Auckland, representing 7,000 businesses\u2014what did they say? The bill may unintentionally increase harm, complexity, and uncertainty for businesses and workers. It will create a two-tier health and safety framework based on the size of the business. The New Zealand Institute of Safety Management, the peak body of health and safety experts\u2014what would they know about this bill?\u2014say that they are fundamentally opposed to the small business carve-out. The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions called the bill \u201Cregressive\u201D, and said that it \u201Cactively [weakens] the laws and systems designed to keep workers safe\u201D and it \u201Csends the message that harming workers is acceptable.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000882\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to give the final word on the submissions to Anna Osborne and Sonya Rockhouse of Stand With Pike. They said, \u201CRemember that the law that this bill is trying to weaken was a cross-party effort to put in place a modern health and safety system to protect workers after 29 of our men died at Pike River.\u201D Sonya Rockhouse said, \u201CIt\u2019s crap. It\u2019s dangerous. We need to do all we can to stop it.\u201D Anna Osborne said, \u201CNew Zealand workers should be very afraid. It\u2019s absolute crap, this bill. It won\u2019t do anything but damage and kill more workers in New Zealand.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000883\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe stated intention of the bill is to \u201Csupport continued reductions in the incidence of workplace fatalities, injuries, and illnesses.\u201D That\u2019s what it actually says in the purpose statement. But it\u2019s clear to 90\u00A0percent of the submitters who came along to the select committee, and to anyone who\u2019s not bound by party discipline in this debate, that the bill will, in fact, have the complete opposite effect of that purpose statement. The overwhelming majority of the country\u2019s experts on health and safety came to the committee and said, \u201CDon\u2019t do this.\u201D It is illogical. There is no evidence base to suggest that small businesses are less risky to life and limb of their workforce than larger businesses. They said, \u201CDon\u2019t do this. It will do harm, and it is unworkable.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000884\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe big employers who came along to the select committee, one after the other, all said the same thing, except for the most cravenly political of them. The rest of them all said, \u201CDon\u2019t do this. It will do harm.\u201D, and yet when the Minister came along to the select committee for scrutiny week and she was asked, on a number of occasions, about the logical fallacy that lies at the heart of this bill, that somehow small enterprises are less risky than large ones. She was asked about that, and she was asked about all of the evidence that was presented at the select committee, and she acted as if she hadn\u2019t heard any of that evidence, any of those objections. She talked on and on, repeating the misinformation that small businesses are less risky, the small businesses that employ 97\u00A0percent of the workforce in New Zealand, that somehow they\u2019re less risky, and the Minister thinks that\u2019s funny.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000885\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAfter that, what hope is there? What hope is there? It\u2019s been suggested in recent days that some members of the National Party and New Zealand First don\u2019t like this bill. I say to those members, if you don\u2019t like it, don\u2019t vote for it. Get a backbone or else know this: workers will die and be injured on your conscience.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002288978fb9592a4911a8e47eae04d164f3\u0022 data-id=\u002213c62684b4c55206ac9d0ce4b504c0ee\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000886\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002288978fb9592a4911a8e47eae04d164f3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002213c62684b4c55206ac9d0ce4b504c0ee\u0022\u003EDr VANESSA WEENINK (National\u2014Banks Peninsula) (21:26)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill has some very, very important pieces to it that are requested by the sectors\u2014in particular the Approved Codes of Practice, which allow the true guidance on safety to be implemented. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000887\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002217a5bcb4d83eae75c1967c7627a586de\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Rachel Boyack\u2014five minutes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002242067e22c7a349218b3b868f58eda79d\u0022 data-id=\u0022f56c7244f983897fc2379a9a09e94344\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000888\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002242067e22c7a349218b3b868f58eda79d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f56c7244f983897fc2379a9a09e94344\u0022\u003ERACHEL BOYACK (Labour\u2014Nelson) (21:27)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Mr. Speaker. This is, again, a really sad day, actually, for working people, and I hear the people across the House scoffing at this, but I think it\u2019s worth remembering that we have a country where people go to work and they don\u2019t come home, because they\u2019re dead. The original bill that this amends came off the back of cross-party work, as my colleague Phil Twyford this said\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225acade38be3b6195ac0a08f34484809b\u0022\u003EHon Phil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: John Key\u2019s legacy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000890\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002242067e22c7a349218b3b868f58eda79d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022245cfcba6a45c113022b405ae75f1bdf\u0022\u003ERACHEL BOYACK\u003C/span\u003E: Absolutely, and Michael Woodhouse\u2019s as well; I want to acknowledge John Key and Michael Woodhouse from the National Party\u2014following the deaths of 29 men at Pike River and an acknowledgement across New Zealand that we have a terrible approach to health and safety in the workplace and that there are far too many people in this nation going to work and not coming home or going to work and coming home badly injured.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000891\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPrior to coming to Parliament, I spent two years working as a health and safety officer with the Anglican Church in Nelson, and that role came about following the dreadful tragedy of a worker dying on Anglican Church property in a forestry incident. The church owned a forestry block. You might think: why would a church have a health and safety officer? They put in place my role to work across a number of small parishes, many of whom would probably be considered small under this piece of legislation, to identify a number of very serious risks across the church\u2014physical and psychosocial risks, risks to the safety of children and vulnerable people. Actually, it was about changing the culture within the church, and my big concern is this approach to limit the management of risks that aren\u2019t deemed critical only to those businesses that have 20 employees or more.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000892\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere are two parts I want to touch on just in the short contribution I have tonight. The first is around the definition of a \u201Ccritical risk\u201D and the challenging part of that, and the second part is this idea that small workplaces somehow have lower risk than others, because it\u2019s just not true.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe first part is just to talk around critical risk, and I have some observations around this. It will be very, very difficult to actually determine what a critical risk is, and, as other colleagues have pointed out, this is going to add complexity and add compliance cost for businesses when they\u2019re making these assessments. They have to decide whether the risk is likely to cause death. If it does, then it\u2019s a critical risk, but the definition of \u201Clikely\u201D is unclear, so what does that mean? Is it likely on one particular day or across a year or across a working life? When we have this confusing definition, what it means is we\u2019re going to have employers having to spend a lot more time actually doing this risk assessment rather than getting on with the job of mitigating against the risk.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000894\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESecondly, it also has implications for determining whether a business actually has to manage that particular risk or not. A small business could say, well, we don\u2019t think that\u2019s a critical risk because it\u2019s not likely to happen every single day. It might only happen once every three or four years, so therefore it\u2019s not critical. But actually, that risk, if it does occur, even if it\u2019s not likely to occur regularly, it has enormous impact in that it could cause death. And so, for some very confused reasons, a smaller business, even if they\u2019re operating very heavy machinery, even if people are perhaps operating sole charge in a place where they could get attacked aggressively\u2014think about our electorate offices for example\u2014all sorts of scenarios where, actually, just because there\u2019s less than 20 people doesn\u2019t mean that the risk is low. Think about a small forestry crew. It could be a small forestry company that only has 15 employees. Forestry is one of the most dangerous industries in New Zealand. Farming is another one. A farm may employ, let\u2019s say, five people. They won\u2019t be covered by this part of the legislation anymore, and if they determine that a risk is not critical, even if that actual risk occurred it could cause immense harm, they\u2019ll be exempt from having to comply with these parts of the legislation. It\u2019s very confused. There\u2019s no way this can be implemented, and I guess the core, really, now is for New Zealand First to actually put their money where their mouth is tonight and vote against this bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b7cff05e64f346e68983b2fdbfba3ad8\u0022 data-id=\u00220b72d5643feadce68a594bcb16a80ae1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000895\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b7cff05e64f346e68983b2fdbfba3ad8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220b72d5643feadce68a594bcb16a80ae1\u0022\u003EDAN BIDOIS (National\u2014Northcote) (21:32)\u003C/span\u003E: This bill makes pragmatic changes to our health and safety laws. It\u2019s all a part of our Government\u2019s plan to fix the basics and build the future. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225322e0a4529b497cbc59faf0515037dd\u0022 data-id=\u00226433b7eb490f0899048b437b9d84cee5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000896\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225322e0a4529b497cbc59faf0515037dd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226433b7eb490f0899048b437b9d84cee5\u0022\u003ESHANAN HALBERT (Labour) (21:32)\u003C/span\u003E: There we have it: 12 seconds from Dan Bidois on one of the most important bills that comes before this House in this term of Parliament.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000897\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224175a3f2aea013ebc18a60aeeba8f499\u0022\u003EHon Matt Doocey\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s why he wants it passed quickly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000898\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225322e0a4529b497cbc59faf0515037dd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eec631046aaa656d1b49b2917dae88d0\u0022\u003ESHANAN HALBERT\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Doocey, you can\u2019t hold your nose and pretend that the seriousness of this particular bill can be ignored as it passes through, when we\u2019ve heard from a number of submissions over a number of times, and as the Minister for Mental Health, I would expect in this House, when we are speaking about such a sensitive matter, that you would show some empathy and some compassion to the people that have submitted and shown their concerns on this bill. Shame on you, Matt Doocey.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000899\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EKa t\u016B au ki te k\u014Drero i runga i t\u0113nei kaupapa, he kaupapa nunui m\u014D t\u0113nei Whare, he kaupapa m\u014D ng\u0101 mahi a ng\u0101 t\u0101ngata katoa mai i Te Taitokerau ki Te Tai Tonga.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000900\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EI stand to speak on this subject, an important subject for this House, a subject for the efforts of all people from Northland to Southland.\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000901\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI stand on behalf of the Labour Party tonight to oppose the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill. We oppose this bill for very simple reasons: because it weakens protections that keep New Zealanders safe within our workplaces. At its heart, this bill creates a two-tier health and safety system, one where the standard of protection a worker receives depends on the size of the organisation that they work within. For us over this side of the House, we reject that proposition because we believe that every worker deserves the same chance to return home safely to their wh\u0101nau at the end of the day, whether they work for a business with five employees or whether they work for a business with 500 employees. That principle, in my view, should never, ever be compromised.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000902\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety argues this bill is about reducing compliance costs and making life easier for small businesses. Labour agrees that businesses deserve practical guidance. We agree health and safety law should be clear, it should be proportionate, and it absolutely should be easy to understand. But there is an absolute fundamental difference between making compliance easier and making workers less safe in their work environment from Monday to Friday, or whatever days that they work, or time that they work during their working week. Sadly, this bill absolutely crosses that line. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000903\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI sat alongside many MPs in this House as part of the Education and Workforce Committee, and I had the opportunity to hear directly from those who would have to live with the consequences of this particular legislation before us tonight. We listened to health and safety experts; we listened to a significant number of employers; we listened to business leaders from across our country; and we listened to workers themselves. But most of all, we listened to families who have experienced the worst consequence of workplace failure, and what struck me was that many submitters supported reducing unnecessary bureaucracy, yes, but they were equally clear that this bill goes too far. Time and again, we heard the same message: support businesses to comply with the law, but don\u2019t lower the standard that keeps workers safe.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000904\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne witness whose evidence stayed with me was Mike Cosman from the New Zealand Institute of Safety Management. He said to our committee, \u201CSmall businesses have a 24 percent higher injury rate than large firms. Carving them out makes no sense.\u201D That evidence should concern every single member of this House. If small businesses already experience higher rates of workplace injury, why would Parliament reduce their obligations to manage workplace risks?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000905\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI was also struck by the evidence provided from the Employers and Manufacturers Association. This was not an organisation arguing against business regulation. This was an employer organisation asking Parliament to make sure that we choose and get the balance right. Their submission stated simply for us, \u201CBusiness size has absolutely no bearing on risk.\u201D That one sentence exposes the fundamental flaw of the bill that is before this House tonight, because risk is determined by the work being carried out. It\u2019s not determined by the number of people that any organisation has on their payroll. A construction site does not become safer because there are 19 kaimahi, or workers, instead of 21. A forestry contractor employing 10 people faces the same hazards as one employer hiring and employing 100. The risks, Minister, remain exactly the same, and that is why this side of the House, the Labour Party, believes that the answer is better to support businesses to meet their obligations, not to lower the standards that we expect of them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000906\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b0026421838aadc374cf6ddfb420d463\u0022\u003EHon David Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: Has the member read the whole bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000907\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225322e0a4529b497cbc59faf0515037dd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221548a4b88d80626fa8f6e56315d36b5e\u0022\u003ESHANAN HALBERT\u003C/span\u003E: This bill will also have a disproportionate\u2014and wait for it, David Seymour\u2014impact on M\u0101ori, on Pasifika, and on young workers, because we know that M\u0101ori and Pasifika workers are overrepresented in industries like construction, forestry, manufacturing, transport, and logistics. That is our day-to-day reality of where Aotearoa New Zealand is at. They are also more likely to work for small businesses, and that means that they are more likely to be affected by the weaker protections that this bill creates.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000908\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn New Zealand, we already have unacceptable inequities in workplace injury and fatality rates. That is a fact, and this bill makes those inequities absolutely worse. Young workers deserve particular attention, and we know that many begin their careers through apprenticeships and through vocational education. For an apprentice, the workplace is also a classroom. It is where they learn, not only the technical skills of the trade but the safety practices that will stay with them throughout their career. As legislators, surely, our responsibility tonight is to ensure that every worker, every apprentice, steps on to a work site that is protected by the strongest possible health and safety standards, not weaker ones.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000909\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf this Government is serious about rebuilding New Zealand\u2019s skilled workforce, it should be strengthening protections for all workers, for all apprentices, for all young people that work on site. They should not be watering them down. We all want more tradies on site, we all want more workers to feel safe, but we also want every worker to return home safely at the end of their working day. As we listened to the submitters before our select committee, we heard directly that this piece of legislation before the House is not workable\u2014it is not workable. Anyone that sat around that table and is voting in support of this bill has not directly listened to the people that submitted within that forum. They have not listened, and this is another example of a Government that is out of touch. They\u2019re squabbling with each other at the cost of the lives of workers in this country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022 data-id=\u0022d22a812fea1cb7c237b3a1f39e32aaf4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d22a812fea1cb7c237b3a1f39e32aaf4\u0022\u003EDr CARLOS CHEUNG (National\u2014Mt Roskill) (21:42)\u003C/span\u003E: Both worker health and safety and reducing unnecessary red tape for businesses is important. It is all about striking the right balance, and this is what this bill is all about. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000911\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227feaddb43b929dcb75ddd4b385491a39\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments recommended by the Education and Workforce Committee by majority be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000912\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000913\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000914\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000915\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000916\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000917\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000918\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill be now read a second time\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000919\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000920\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000921\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000922\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000923\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000924\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a second time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226ccb3740c2d30401644f718e4333448d\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000926\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00224f9e41fd1597815f75a50515a7518fcf\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000927\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e48c07e154c07df6789034d8adc7c8da\u0022\u003EPart 1 Amendments to Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, and Schedules 1 and 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000928\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225be284a5c32978a9f68185a36b8a3c5c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the House is in committee on the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill. We begin with the debate on Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 31\u2014\u201CAmendments to Health and Safety at Work Act 2015\u201D\u2014and Schedules 1 and 2. The question is that Part 1 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u00224792615a7db1ab127201c5d8e5ff8757\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000929\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224792615a7db1ab127201c5d8e5ff8757\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (21:46)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Madam Chair. I\u2019ve tabled an amendment to Schedule 1 of the bill and to clause 2, changing the commencement date so that all provisions of the bill come into force on 1 April 2027. This change will provide more time for businesses, workers, and sector groups to understand the law and to develop advice and guidance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000930\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI welcome debate on this particular part, particularly by the members who have actually read the bill, in particular because, through the second reading, I was amazed at the factual inaccuracies about the bill. Therefore, I welcome debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022 data-id=\u00224d53c9e4b692179d81b37fc59f325099\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000931\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224d53c9e4b692179d81b37fc59f325099\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (21:46)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I know that we will be talking about the changes to the Minister\u2019s amendment later on in the debate, so I won\u2019t go into that now, other than to say that it seems a bit odd that we\u2019re even here having this debate when, from what I read in the media, it seems that New Zealand First have negotiated this and that it would be likely they would vote this out or repeal it when they came back into Parliament if they got back into Government. Given the fact that our party and our side of the House have said that we would do the same, it seems a bit of a dead duck bill, but we will be having that debate later on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000932\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI just want to set a scene here, and then I\u2019ve got a number of questions that go through clause by clause as we\u2019re going through this particular part of the committee stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000933\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFirstly, we\u2019ve heard some really good debate; that\u2019s happened in the second reading, and that followed a rather robust select committee stage. We had a lot of people who had come in and organisations who had come in and submitted, both in writing and orally. We heard from some real experts in this area and people who are absolutely passionate about making our workplaces safer, because we do know that we have abhorrent statistics in this area, and it is something that we can hang our heads in shame about. It\u2019s not often, as New Zealanders, that we can\u2019t say we punch above our weight, but we can\u2019t say that in this particular instance. It is something that we have to really take seriously, because we do want to see our people come home safe at the end of the day. We do want to see people go to work with the security that their workplaces are as safe as they can be.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000934\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat brings me to my first round of questioning, which is on Part 1, and it\u2019s clause 4, and it\u2019s where the purposes part of the bill\u2014it\u2019s clause 4, where section 3 is replaced, and it\u2019s the \u201CPurpose\u201D. I\u2019m really troubled by what the purpose is there for a number of reasons. The word \u201Ccritical\u201D and the focus on the critical risks is one of those areas. Overall, it makes this bill sound quite rosy, and I don\u2019t believe that that is the case after listening to so many experts\u2014and still having them come through my door just about on a daily basis.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think Mark Patterson said in his second reading speech last week that it was like a conga line that he was getting coming through. I\u2019m getting the same people coming through like a conga line through my door as well, and these are people, as I said, who are absolutely passionate. They don\u2019t believe that this purpose section reflects what this bill is at all. I\u2019ve got an Amendment Paper in that says that the purpose at the moment is what they\u2019re telling me\u2014that it\u2019s weakening protections in place to protect people while at work, and it\u2019s driving up the cost of ACC. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000936\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy question for the Minister is: what empirical evidence is this bill based on? I\u2019ve never been able to get to the bottom of the evidence and the research that shows that this bill is the right way to go. People have said that they\u2019re confused and they want to simplify the Act. That is not evidence. I want to know what the evidence is, and I also want to know\u2014because we\u2019ve been told by many of these people that it will drive up the costs of ACC\u2014what work ACC have done on this bill, and what changes were made as a result, if any, from the feedback that ACC have given? Those are really serious questions, because I cannot get to the bottom of that evidence, and I want to know that that exists. Those are my first questions in that area.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u00221615a97abfa01a01598552a7faa7f725\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000937\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221615a97abfa01a01598552a7faa7f725\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (21:51)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you Madam\u2014oh, Mr Chair. You\u2019ve changed in the last two minutes!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000938\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221fe165ee5527f7c77b891d3929016959\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Not everything.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000939\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225c3dc430b1d6eea199a5256dde999c00\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, taking the first question about clause 4, about the contribution being opposed to the current purpose, saying it makes the bill sound rosy. No, look, I just don\u2019t take that as a good faith argument. It\u2019s normal for a bill\u2019s purpose to be factual and based on what the purpose and the intent of this law is, and that\u2019s exactly what this law does\u2014as it does in all other legislation that we pass in this House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000940\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo the further questions that the member had in regards to not liking some of the evidence that she may have seen and asking about what evidence came from ACC: look, it\u2019s really the same as essentially a debate that occurred over a decade ago, where, at the time, ACC never provided costed factual evidence for what the effect of the Health and Safety at Work Bill would be, because it didn\u2019t exist then, and it doesn\u2019t exist now for the same reasons then as now. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000941\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s also the case that when Labour looked at the Health and Safety Work Bill back in 2015, they were also opposed to that on the basis of \u201CWe don\u2019t like some of the stuff that\u2019s happening based on the evidence\u201D. I think you\u2019ve got to really ask what Labour actually cares about for health and safety. They didn\u2019t pass their original law. Then we heard contributions from other members from Labour saying, \u201COh, we miss the days of John Key, and we miss the days of Michael Woodhouse.\u201D Well, they opposed it then. My goodness gracious! Like, hindsight is rosy. It\u2019s not about this purpose statement sounding rosy; their own memory sounds a bit rosy. So that\u2019s the end of my contribution on that one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022 data-id=\u0022aa6ee0ad427857d7a1412a850fde65b8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000942\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022aa6ee0ad427857d7a1412a850fde65b8\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (21:54)\u003C/span\u003E: Just quickly following up on that: is the Minister saying, from that contribution, that ACC have given no advice to this? That was what my question was: what advice, if any, have ACC given? I took her contribution to mean that no advice has been given here, and no action taken on that, therefore.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022920e3ffd3e5383f37717c12759160f6c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000943\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022920e3ffd3e5383f37717c12759160f6c\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (21:54)\u003C/span\u003E: I can answer that: ACC gave no advice on this particular actual bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022f40e39f14f0b95b83291cafc9e115f4f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000944\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f40e39f14f0b95b83291cafc9e115f4f\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (21:54)\u003C/span\u003E: That does actually leave the House, I think, quite confused, because it was clear during the select committee stage that ACC did provide advice on this particular bill\u2014and actually very concerning advice on this particular bill. This is indeed something that we mentioned in the scrutiny week a few weeks ago as well, and we got confirmation from the chief executive of ACC, who said that advice had been provided. I think that clarity is important from the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000945\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to just continue on and just check, specifically when we\u2019re looking at clause 4, section 3 replaced, around the purpose. This is something we have seen happening in some of the other legislation as well, where we have this one, principal purpose that is above all else. The example I can think of is section 127 of the Education and Training Act. In this case, I want to check with the Minister: if we take section 3(1) as being the priority, as being the main principle\u2014in which case you\u2019re prioritising the critical risks\u2014how would they interact with, let\u2019s say, subsection 2(a) to (h)? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000946\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFor example, in a workplace situation, if a person conducting a business or undertaking is looking at this piece of work and, like me in my previous role as the health and safety manager of my old work, is looking at this, am I supposed to go, well, you know, I will fulfil the requirements of section 3(1), which is the critical risks, but from my work perspective, anything that is in subsection 2(a) to (h) contradicts, in terms of my work capacity, what I should prioritise under this bill. Therefore, I can safely say that I can prioritise critical risks and critical risks only, and anything else is considered secondary. Would that be a correct interpretation of the purpose clause now? Because, again, this has changed from the existing legislation. I think that clarity is important from the Minister, and I do have follow-up questions for the Minister around the purpose clause.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u00223e421d0a5c508c5b1d0e984a1242af93\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000947\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223e421d0a5c508c5b1d0e984a1242af93\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (21:57)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I\u2019m happy to take that contribution. The advice I\u2019ve received is that how section 3(1) interacts versus the principal\u2014how does it interact with other purposes? Look, businesses will look at their duties and not the purpose.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000948\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAlso, to clarify the commentary around ACC, given that I know it\u2019s very keen and on people\u2019s minds on that side: in relation to ACC, they gave an opinion, but they gave no costed advice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000949\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022969da35f0d6370682feb02a2b4167130\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee will resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow. Have a good evening.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000950\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EDebate interrupted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000951\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterItalicsCentred\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 9.58 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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000952\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c381b4dbae61a8912b371f730cfce69a\u0022\u003EUrgency\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000953\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00229f5eeefa51c46299caa4df0df50150b7\u0022\u003EWednesday, 1 July 2026\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000954\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ef301eeb2d9ce14da6938c8b79e85d84\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000955\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00228a21d9a966a331f8a001f9d1e0f4616a\u0022\u003EHealth and Safety at Work Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000956\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00225b41df7bd03d5c86455c3deb15b7ccaf\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000957\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u00229d60a640924d2304c72753944913394e\u0022\u003EPart 1 Amendments to Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, and Schedules 1 and 2 (continued)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000958\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228e413288e263bed5722e7f81d28c57f6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the committee is resumed on the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill. When we were considering the bill last night, we were debating Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 31\u2014\u201CAmendments to Health and Safety at Work Act 2015\u201D\u2014and Schedules 1 and 2. Once again, the question is that Part 1 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022 data-id=\u00226e3e75fef73dea667ac378a9877ad479\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226e3e75fef73dea667ac378a9877ad479\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (09:00)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety for her fulsome answers last night. It was good to hear some of the rationale, but before we leave clause 4, I do have a couple of questions that I want to ask, and it does go back to just asking a further follow-up on the answer that the Minister gave about ACC last night, because as I said, one of my amendments does bring ACC into it because of what we\u2019ve heard around the potential of the rising costs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000960\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Minister last night said that ACC gave advice or made comment on the bill but didn\u2019t give any costed figures. I know that that was something that we tried to get ACC to come to the Education and Workforce Committee on, but I think that got voted down, that recommendation, which I am surprised about because I think we need to hear more fulsome replies or comment around the potential of this. I really want to have an understanding of why we didn\u2019t get some sort of costings from ACC, whether that was because they weren\u2019t asked because we weren\u2019t able to ask that in select committee or whether that was just an oversight, because it does concern me that we don\u2019t know that information.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000961\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s, as I say, just in follow-up to last night. There is another question I do want to ask about this\u2014not ACC, but about this clause\u2014after that. So I\u2019ll leave it at that. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022c5223babcd4d8bbd7ab5b5f4f4460b36\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000962\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c5223babcd4d8bbd7ab5b5f4f4460b36\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (09:02)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just also following on from yesterday regarding clause 4, I just want to check, because I haven\u2019t received a response from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety regarding the shift in terms of only having one main focus. The Minister did kind of clarify between the purpose and the duty, but I do want to check with the Minister, because when something does happen, looking from a perspective of statutory interpretation, the purpose clause is what sets the tone for the entire Act. If it were challenged on whether a person conducting a business or undertaking has fulfilled their obligation, any lawyer will be drawing on the purpose clause. So I want to check, from a statutory interpretation perspective, if the Minister has considered the tangible effect of not having the remainder of new section 3(2)(a) to (h), inserted by clause 4, as all being part of that same purpose. I want to check with the Minister on that. I have an amendment, which is 8.00.01, which sort of combines all of these purposes into one, into a broader purpose, and that way all of these purposes, both in terms of new section 3(1) and also 3(2), are considered on equal footing, which means more fulsome cover when it comes to health and safety.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000963\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other thing I want to check with the Minister, if the Minister would be interested\u2014and these are my amendments: 8.00.02; 8.00.03\u2014is around the fact that in all of the work we\u2019ve done with WorkSafe and in terms of the scrutinies, one of the things we consistently see is the disproportionate impact and injury ratio when it comes to M\u0101ori. So I wondered: how is the Minister planning, through the purposes, to address some of that, and whether it would be prudent for us to include Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a part of the main purpose of this bill, either as part of the main purpose under new section 3(1) or as a following purpose under new section 3(2)\u2014if that\u2019s something that the Minister would consider.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000964\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think, finally, I want to draw the Minister\u2019s attention to my amendment 8.00.04, which, essentially, also\u2014and I have further questions on this which pertain to a later part of Part 1. But, fundamentally, we see certain obligations under the International Labour Organization conventions, specifically conventions 155 and 187, which are mentioned in some of our trade agreements in particular\u2014and I will be discussing more about trade agreements when we\u2019re looking at the approved code of practice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000965\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo I want to check with the Minister if it is also wise, under the purpose section, which sets the tone for the bill, that we should include our obligation, or to give effect to New Zealand\u2019s obligation, under the International Labour Organization conventions, including but obviously not limited to conventions 155 and 187.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022 data-id=\u0022e0e18917d7fec2fc902d052bfaa164fd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000966\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e0e18917d7fec2fc902d052bfaa164fd\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (09:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Before we leave this particular clause, I do want to just talk to the fact that this is the first time in the bill, in this clause, that the terminology of classifying risks as critical risks comes up. It comes up, can I just say\u2014I\u2019ll just read out\u2014in clause 4, clause 7, 9, 11, 11A, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 32A, 33, 36, 37, 38, and in Schedule 2. I just want to mention it here because, as I say, it is the first time that it comes up in the bill. I don\u2019t want to confuse what I\u2019m saying here with the definition of critical risk, which comes up in a different clause later on, or how you work out the definition, but I do want to talk about how the bill proposes to classify risks as critical risks or non-critical and create different responsibilities on persons conducting a business or undertaking according to which category of a risk they fall into.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000967\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat we heard during the Education and Workforce Committee\u2014and some of this has come up after select committee, which is why I\u2019m asking it now. I\u2019ve had people that have come in who are working tirelessly in the health and safety at work area who have said this would be extremely complicated and expensive for business to administer while also delivering worse health and safety outcomes around their responsibilities of categorising that risk.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000968\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy question for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is: has that been given enough consideration, what I\u2019m hearing business tell me since select committee of how complicated that is going to be? Why is that justification there, and how are businesses going to be supported in identifying that critical and non-critical risk?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000969\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAgain, I don\u2019t want to get into the classification or the definition so much, because that does come in a later clause, and I would like to talk about that in the later clause. But I would like to just ask at this stage about support that businesses might or might not get, and also why that justification of that terminology has been used at this particular point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u00227fe50dff4188610f9a0ad0291387b8a6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000970\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227fe50dff4188610f9a0ad0291387b8a6\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (09:08)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Firstly, in regards to Jan Tinetti\u2019s first point regarding clause 4 and ACC, I do note this picks up on some of the comments I was making last night: that my officials advised me that it\u2019s not possible to cost the net impact of the changes, in the same way it wasn\u2019t possible to cost the net impact of the changes for the 2015 Act, which is why it didn\u2019t exist then and it doesn\u2019t exist now, because potential costs of the health and safety system depend on business behaviour, individuals, ACC performance, and the health sector performance, amongst a wider range of variables. Health and safety doesn\u2019t act completely in a silo, but neither does ACC, and so we would actually expect a focus on the most serious risks to reduce costs from harm.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000971\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo the contribution from Lawrence Xu-Nan in regard to clause 4, he queried why we had a main principal purpose and then subsequent purposes. Look, there is one main purpose, and additional purposes. The benefit of this is that it provides a clear hierarchy to aid interpretation for anybody looking to follow the law, including the interpretation of the broader prospective principles of new section 3(3). This is clearer than the current law, because there are many aspects to the purpose with no hierarchy. That kind of follows on, then, into his later contribution, talking about his tabled amendment wishing to combine all the purposes rather than having a hierarchy. I wouldn\u2019t be supporting that, because the tabled amendment would return the Act to the current mix of purposes that we already have, and the desire here is to prioritise risks, which means setting out that \u201Ccritical risk\u201D is the main purpose and then there are subsequent purposes of the Health and Safety Act that follow from there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000972\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other query he had is: should the Treaty of Waitangi only be in the purpose? No is the simple answer\u2014in part, because the overall goal of the Health and Safety at Work Act is to reduce risk of workplace harm in general. It\u2019s not specifying any particular race or actually any need for the Treaty. It\u2019s talking about the drivers of high injury rates\u2014which are high for M\u0101ori, but that\u2019s not because people are M\u0101ori; it\u2019s because the industries that many M\u0101ori work in are harmful, and so addressing critical risks will address the level of harm for M\u0101ori people. You don\u2019t need the Treaty to do that. You can also just reduce risk by focusing on critical risk in industry where M\u0101ori are working, which are higher-risk areas. That will also reduce risk for people who are from Pasifika, ethnic communities, and other Kiwi communities. We don\u2019t actually need a Treaty of Waitangi clause in order to reduce harm for M\u0101ori workers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022577efd79ccc963fc04b252aa05b30c45\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000973\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022577efd79ccc963fc04b252aa05b30c45\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (09:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for those responses, Minister; I do appreciate them. I think the point of clarification around my amendment is that Te Tiriti o Waitangi does in fact benefit everyone. I think the tangible manifestation of that is that we\u2019ll see a more equitable approach when it comes to health and safety for all, but what we\u2019re seeing right now is that it hasn\u2019t actually happened. I\u2019m not sure\u2014I\u2019m looking at the regulatory impact statement, as well as what has come through select committee\u2014whether that is something that could be achieved by having just one simple main purpose, but I guess we\u2019ll see once the bill gets implemented.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000974\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoting that other people may still have questions on clause 4, I want to move on to clauses 7 and 8. I want to start with clause 8, and this is something that a lot of submitters in particular had a lot of concerns about. I wasn\u2019t a part of the select committee for this particular bill. Even though I\u2019m a permanent member of the Education and Workforce Committee, I didn\u2019t partake in the consideration. One of the things that jumps out at me when I\u2019m looking at the definition, for example, for \u201Csmall PCBU\u201D over here\u2014two things, and I\u2019ll seek the Minister\u2019s clarification. One of them is: what was the rationale behind a small PCBU having fewer than 20 workers? For example, I would understand when we\u2019re looking at small PCBUs, particularly if you\u2019re looking at family businesses of, let\u2019s say, fewer than three workers, or even five workers\u2014that makes sense. Twenty workers is actually quite\u2014though possibly not to the size of Meta or Apple, but it\u2019s actually quite a sizeable company and it\u2019s actually quite a lot. About 25 percent of our businesses here in Aotearoa would be captured by that, so one-quarter would be captured by that. I want to check with the Minister: why 20 workers, and is it appropriate to cut out 25 percent of our businesses so that way they don\u2019t have to fulfil certain requirements? That is my first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy second question on this, and I do have some follow-up questions on this clause, is the concern, possibly, around the nine-month mark. There have also been submissions that certain industries, particularly some of the seasonal industries, will be able to manipulate or stack it in a way, of having more staff for three months of the year during those peak seasons and fewer for that rest of the nine months. Therefore, overall, under this bill, they are considered as a small PCBU when in fact they are not. These also can be some of the higher-risk industries where you do see a lot of injuries, particularly when it comes to seasonal work. I want to check with the Minister on those two questions to start off with, for clause 8. It\u2019s clause 8(4), anything that\u2019s (3) to (5) within that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u0022c57f986d02327427a24a71957b3b8d97\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000976\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c57f986d02327427a24a71957b3b8d97\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (09:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. It\u2019s my first time to be able to contribute to this committee stage on this bill, but I was watching last night, and this morning as well, so I understand that we\u2019re now looking at clause 7. I did have some questions for the Minister around clause 7\u2014and I\u2019ve tabled some amendments, and I know other colleagues have as well\u2014focusing on the size of the PCBU and the impact that the size of the PCBU has on the clauses within this bill. The Minister has indicated that there is a change from the impact of the health and safety legislation on smaller businesses. I wanted to ask her if she could let us know the reason for deciding that small businesses were less dangerous than larger businesses, because that\u2019s, essentially, what is outlined in this particular bill. Obviously, we use PCBU as a slightly larger type of organisation than just a business, so I can use either term: \u201Csmall business\u201D or \u201Csmall PCBU\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000977\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe know that a large majority of New Zealand businesses are actually small businesses, and a number of injuries are often felt when small businesses don\u2019t have the same staffing and the same resources to be able to look at mitigating the effects of potential health and safety risks. This is a huge issue in the bill. That amendment that I have tabled would delete the definitions of \u201Csmall PCBU\u201D and \u201Clarge PCBU\u201D, and that would, essentially, give the effect of having health and safety requirements applying despite the size of the organisation which someone worked for. I have heard\u2014and I apologise; I was not part of the select committee process into this\u2014the Minister comment publicly that there were some changes at select committee around looking at when there\u2019s a large PCBU and a small PCBU working side by side, which is defined in clause 7, and stating that there would be some ability for the larger PCBU\u2019s health and safety requirements to impact on the small PCBU. I wondered if she could explain that\u2014if that is, in fact, the correct and true interpretation of that\u2014and also the justification.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000978\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere is an outcome here, if this bill does become law, that those who work for small businesses may be more likely to be injured at work, given that they don\u2019t have the same requirements for health and safety as larger businesses. This is quite a key point in the bill. It is specifically outlined here, in the changes in clause 7, defining what those small PCBUs and large PCBUs are. I think I won\u2019t take my full call to ask that question, but I thought it was important if the Minister could please outline if there has been some changes, and the thinking behind this quite fundamental change in our health and safety system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022bf03c763b9d3b365f9bd26f8b50ddcaf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000979\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bf03c763b9d3b365f9bd26f8b50ddcaf\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (09:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much. Look, I will start firstly with Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s contribution talking about the rationale for fewer than 20 workers and how we landed on\u00A020. This threshold of 20 was advised to be used by officials as an accepted definition of small business that currently exists under law\u2014that is used in the Employment Relations Act\u2014and it has also been used in the past in the Health and Safety at Work Act. It was already a definition that had been used.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000980\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen, to Camilla Belich\u2019s contribution, talking about whether I believe that small businesses are less dangerous: no, I think that\u2019s just a fundamental misunderstanding of the law that sits before us. If you\u2019re a big business or a small business, if you have critical risks\u2014which are actions or risks that could likely lead to death or serious injury\u2014you have to manage those, whether you are big or small.  There\u2019s nothing in this law that says just because you are small, you are inherently less risky. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000981\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is the case that when I was developing this policy, I thought of mining as one example where it is possible that you could have some small mining operations that are inherently extremely risky. Therefore, it just doesn\u2019t fit the member\u2019s idea of how this bill, as designed, works, because it was intentionally designed so that small outfits like a very small mining operation could not be seen as inherently less risky. They also need to follow all the critical risks and all of the mining regulations that fall under the law. Whether you\u2019re big or small, it\u2019s actually to do with whether or not you have critical risks or actions, or risks or harms that could lead to death or serious injury.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000982\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat is really behind this is\u2014and I haven\u2019t actually read the member\u2019s amendment in detail, but she talks about how maybe it would be simpler if we got rid of the distinction between big and small. I kind of in some ways agree, but I would hope that her amendment is going the other way and it\u2019s putting big businesses into the small category so it\u2019s just that everyone has to follow critical risks and not the other stuff. But I have a high suspicion that it goes the other way, in which case I won\u2019t be supporting that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000983\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn part, the reason why I didn\u2019t extend the small business carve-out to all businesses is because I\u2019ve heard from some of the very, very large ones who have got lots of systems and lots of money and lots of resource, as well as some of the unions, that they didn\u2019t want change; they did actually want to manage everything down to a hot water tap. We\u2019ve done this for the small businesses who are resource-constrained, but for the big ones, they can still manage all the risks, as they currently do under the law now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022 data-id=\u00226f0c3feabe96345d8ae18e53a4b3b4bf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226f0c3feabe96345d8ae18e53a4b3b4bf\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (09:21)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Minister, for your answers. When I hear those answers, I still weigh those up against the people that have, since the select committee, been coming to me. They are people like the Health and Safety Association of New Zealand and people who are volunteers who have come out of business and work in that space absolutely for no monetary reward whatsoever, but they have been working in this space for 30-plus years because they want to make a difference in health and safety and have the most appropriate qualifications and experience, both in a regulatory level and on the front-line level. They still have concerns about this particular clause, and they see that there is a two-tier system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000985\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAt the meeting that they asked to have with me last week, they said that they see that we are treating business and people differently. Now, in the departmental report and, indeed, in the legislative statement that was made for the second reading, which is the Minister\u2019s own statement, it said that people had misunderstood the Act. But they take exception to that because they see that this particular clause\u2014and they have gone through it with a fine-tooth comb with their legal advisers, as well\u2014is going to create that two-tier level system. They have been in this, as I\u2019ve said, for a long, long time. They state that they are not misunderstanding this. They have sought several legal opinions in this area, and they can see that this is going to have only negative outcomes for New Zealand because it will not meet that legal threshold of holding those smaller businesses to account.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000986\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI put it to the Minister and ask whether she is absolutely confident that this is going to stand up in the court of law\u2014these particular clauses, clauses 7 and 8\u2014when people who have worked in this area are getting legal advice from several different sources and saying that it is not going to meet that legal threshold. I think, for me, the crux of this whole bill is in these two clauses, which are of concern to the majority of people here because of what it is actually doing. We\u2019ve had people sort of say, \u201CNo, that\u2019s not what the intent is.\u201D That doesn\u2019t matter when it comes to the legal interpretation of what this law is trying to do. When you\u2019ve got people that have worked in this area for quite some time saying this, I have huge concerns, and I\u2019m wondering if the Minister does, too.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000987\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also just want to point out that with regard to those people that have been to see me\u2014and it\u2019s not just that association that I\u2019ve mentioned; it\u2019s quite a number of people who have worked in this area for some time\u2014I have made some amendments to clause 8 that replace the figure \u201C20\u201D with \u201C1\u201D, because they tell me that any time that you have more than one person working on the site, you have a huge health and safety issue that you have to be really cognisant of\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000988\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022440a125e85954bae9f5d470b7551e4f3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fcdae2bbc760f5f72c7baf16ab7d3325\u0022\u003ECameron Luxton\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, like the critical risks\u2014the ones that you have to be.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000989\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fba1147f1d0b6ce51f4311f38609dc2f\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014particularly with critical risks. I say that for the member on the other side that\u2019s calling that out over there, who obviously doesn\u2019t understand this and hasn\u2019t had the same discussions that the rest of us have had.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000990\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThose are my questions to the Minister. It really is about that legal threshold and the confidence that she has that this will uphold, because, essentially, that is where people are seeing the huge issues with this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u00226a5e9e2c83eeb3cab38d151b642d5dfb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000991\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226a5e9e2c83eeb3cab38d151b642d5dfb\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (09:26)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I\u2019m taking some of the contributions that I hadn\u2019t quite ticked off yet. For Lawrence Xu-Nan, who inquired about the purpose of potentially having International Labour Organization conventions within the law and how it interacts with our free-trade agreements. Convention 155, which he referred to, is a high-level convention which imposes a general obligation on businesses to ensure safety as far as reasonably possible. The purpose of this law already covers those requirements.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000992\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere was also a concern about seasonal fluctuations for small persons conducting a business or undertaking (small PCBUs) and the rationale behind how we landed at the 20 threshold. Ultimately, having the seasonal fluctuation for the three-month period responds to real-world situations that I heard of while we were developing the law. A good example of this would be industries such as the retail sector, who have a potential Christmas period that requires more workers, but at other times the workforce may be actually much smaller than it would be outside the Christmas period. The businesses will be able to form a reasonable expectation of their workforce over 12 months based on their experience and knowledge of their industry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000993\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHe was also concerned whether people could manipulate the number of workers in order to be a small PCBU. Look, it was something that we had considered in terms of would people be able to have employees versus contractors, etc., but the bill refers to \u201Cworkers\u201D, and so it\u2019s not possible to manipulate this through different employment agreements. Businesses can and do change their worker numbers all the time, so if businesses do have fluctuating numbers, whether they are large or small, it really depends on the reasonable expectation of the workforce size over a financial year.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000994\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich also inquired about how small businesses, therefore, will go about working with large businesses, and I do want to take a little bit more time talking about this one, because I note this came up quite a lot over the last few weeks. There seems to be quite a misunderstanding that the select committee has, in fact, dealt with this issue that there were concerns raised at the time\u2014and I also had concerns that were brought to me, and I thought about this in a lot of detail\u2014that, yes, if you\u2019ve got areas, such as a construction worksite, where you have small businesses and you have large businesses interacting, you do want to ensure that there is a bit of simplicity on a worksite.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000995\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat has ended up happening in practice with the select committee\u2019s changes, which I also support, is that large businesses must cooperate with others on all risks, and small businesses must cooperate with others on critical risks and may voluntarily cooperate on non-critical risks. However, businesses remain free to enter contracts requiring cooperation on all risks, and so a large PCBU, or a large business, on a worksite can continue to impose their higher standards through contracts where it is appropriate. It does actually provide much more clarity that contract law still applies above and beyond a minimum standard of law\u2014for anybody who might be worried about overlapping duties on construction worksites\u2014although I do note that it\u2019s possible on other worksites as well, but that\u2019s the main one that\u2019s been brought to my attention. I believe that was a sensible change from the select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000996\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJan Tinetti also inquired whether I\u2019m confident that the law would stand up in court because of clauses 6, 7, and 8. Yes, I am confident, because my officials have advised it will stand up because the clauses are quite clearly drafted. It\u2019s my view that there are people who are opposed to the bill who are taking a more vibes-based approach to the bill than is actually written in legal drafting. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u002218ed2b604785b06ea5328983624d5631\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000997\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002218ed2b604785b06ea5328983624d5631\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (09:30)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your responses, Minister. It does clarify some of my questions, but I do want to kind of follow on, and this will be my last bit on clause 8. Regarding the number for small persons conducting a business or undertaking (small PCBUs), I acknowledge what the Minister said in terms of it being something that the Employment Relations Act uses and what previously maybe the Health and Safety at Work Act used, but I want to ask, for the Minister\u2019s clarity. Looking at page 15 of the regulatory impact statement\u2014and this is the one that\u2019s dated 20 May 2025\u2014there were four options given in those when it comes to the definitions for a small PCBU. So I want to check\u2014and I do correct myself: I said 25 percent of business, but, in fact, 97 percent of New Zealand businesses have fewer than 20 workers, according to the regulatory impact statement. So out of those four options\u2014which are sole trader only, five workers, 10 workers, or 20 workers\u2014what is the rationale for the Minister to then land on 20 out of those four options?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000998\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of the Minister\u2019s response for the nine months and then whether employers are able to stack it, she mentioned that it\u2019s a reasonable expectation, but I also think this is where the problem is. As the legislation is drafted, a seasonal employer, let\u2019s say, could have nine months of the year with fewer than 20 workers. My understanding is\u2014please correct me if I\u2019m wrong\u2014that then they are justified as a small PCBU, which means that for the three months when they have more than 20 workers, they do not need to fulfil the additional requirement that\u2019s appropriate for a large PCBU. So for those three months, even though they have more than 20 workers, they can still, by definition, consider themselves as a small PCBU. Is that the correct interpretation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30000999\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, just on this bit on clause 8, I want to check a couple of the amendments I had with the Minister\u2014and I want to acknowledge the Hon Jan Tinetti\u2019s amendment, as well\u2014to limit it to one, particularly for sole traders, which I think is an important one. I want to first speak to my colleague Teanau Tuiono\u2019s tabled amendment 8.00.05, which is actually deleting this section, because, again, from my conversations with my colleague Teanau Tuiono, his understanding from conversations with workers is that such a definition is, overall, arbitrary and doesn\u2019t really need to be in place, whereas my tabled amendment 8.00.06, is, I guess, sort of more liberal than both the Hon Jan Tinetti\u2019s and my colleague Teanau Tuiono\u2019s amendment, by reducing 20 to three.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001000\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also want to check with the Minister on one of my other tabled amendments, which I thought was an interesting one. This potentially would help alleviate the concerns I have, which are about a PCBU being able to determine for themselves whether they consider themselves to be a small PCBU. That\u2019s to do with new section 17(4) and (5) in clause 8(4), which provides that \u201Cthe PCBU is a small PCBU if the PCBU reasonably expects\u201D. I think that if we want to ensure the independence and transparency of this, rather than having the PCBUs themselves determine this, which would be a conflict of interest, it might be wise to have the designated agency\u2014which is a defined definition under the Health and Safety at Work Act\u2014determine that instead. My tabled amendment, which is 8.00.08, changes the word from \u201Cif the PCBU reasonably expects\u201D to \u201Cif the designated agency reasonably expects\u201D, and that then takes out the conflict of interest, and potentially protects the PCBUs themselves. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust one final just thing that I want to get clarity on\u2014this is not clause 8, but the Minister has touched on it\u2014is the new clause 11A from the select committee that the Minister has mentioned in terms of interacting or cooperating between a large and small PCBU. I  want to just check with the Minister if that interpretation also includes where there\u2019s a large PCBU with a lot of small PCBU subsidiaries\u2014for example, they have different businesses, with one in Auckland, one in Wellington, and one in Christchurch, but, overall, it falls under the umbrella of a single large PCBU. Would that be also captured in new clause 11A?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u002270f43c132173b0638b1f9095fbdf4c69\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001002\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002270f43c132173b0638b1f9095fbdf4c69\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (09:35)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think there\u2019s certainly a lot for us to be looking at from this committee stage. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety said that some of our objections amount to vibes, so I\u2019m very happy to take the Minister through every single clause of this bill and see if that bears out with the evidence that is put before us.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI would like to put it to the Minister that she has, again and again, said that this is not undermining the health and safety regulations for small businesses, but limiting their responsibilities to critical risk does mean that they have fewer responsibilities to look at risks to health and safety which are not considered to be critical, and that would be the majority of health and safety incidents that come up in New Zealand. So I would put it to the Minister that it is, in fact, correct that the health and safety responsibilities for small businesses have been lessened by this legislation, and that it is, in fact, her objective under this Act to make small businesses have fewer responsibilities to keep their workers safe. That can be evidenced through the select committee process and through the clauses that we\u2019re looking at today, which make a specific effort to look at the difference between small and large persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs). I\u2019m specifically looking at clause 8, which has the definition of a small PCBU in it, which is particularly important, because those with under 20 don\u2019t have the responsibility to look at things that are not critical risk. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Minister has, again\u2014and I\u2019ve heard her use it publicly\u2014used the example of a hot tap as almost like a ridiculous thing to be concerned about from a health and safety context. Now, I just want us to think about that for a second because burns are extremely serious. If anyone thinks about when they turn on the tap, how do they find out what the temperature is? They put their hand under it. If you have a tap that, as soon as you turn it on, is running at a level of boiling that is actually going to burn you, then that tap is going to cause a serious injury. I\u2019m not just talking about adults here; I\u2019m talking about children, or anyone who turns on their tap. That is something that I\u2019ve experienced personally within my family: taps running that hot have led to burns that have needed to have medical attention and hospitalisation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen we look at these examples that the Minister may seek to undermine through lack of seriousness, actually, those things that may not be seen as critical risk can actually turn out to be significant injuries. When we\u2019re looking at the definitions of critical risk, which we\u2019ve touched on in clause 7, and when we look at the fact that smaller PCBUs don\u2019t have the responsibility to look at critical risk, then we can see that some of those particular instances that aren\u2019t deemed critical or particularly life-threatening\u2014well, burns can be life-threatening, but I accept probably not in a tap situation as it\u2019s unlikely to be for a longer duration\u2014can be very serious. The purpose of this bill is to actually undermine the ability for people\u2019s health and safety be taken seriously by smaller PCBUs. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other issue that I wanted to ask the Minister is: in relation to this definition that we\u2019ve got in clause 8 and the fact that she is looking at limiting the number of workers to 20\u2014and I also just want to look at the nine-month period of time. I know that my colleague has talked about the fact that it might be difficult for seasonal workers, but the issue that I wanted to raise is in fact around the nine-month period and the term \u201Creasonably expects\u201D. I think that definition is very, very loose and it could potentially result in people who have PCBUs with more than 20 people actually being in a situation where they don\u2019t take the high-level health and safety assessments that they are required to make currently under the law, because they, for some reason, don\u2019t think that their PCBU will be growing to 20 within that period of time. So I think that that is important to understand why there aren\u2019t stricter criteria, and where the liability will lie. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAlso, I don\u2019t think that the fact that the select committee has said that it is possible for private organisations to enter into a contracting relationship that has higher health and safety standards than the law answers anything. Of course, private companies have very, very wide contracting power and can usually enter into contracts for whatever they like, and so I don\u2019t accept that that means that when there are mixed sites, this issue is resolved.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u002239ec1f8cfa2c712465431deb9db3cb49\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002239ec1f8cfa2c712465431deb9db3cb49\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (09:40)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. While the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety seeks some advice on the questions that we\u2019ve proposed, I do want to now move on to clause 9. Clause 9 is probably one of the more important clauses in this bill, and this is to do with the definition of \u201Ccritical risk\u201D. Madam Chair, if you\u2019ll indulge me, I was wondering if I can have just a few quick back and forth exchanges with the Minister, if the Minister is happy to do that. I have a few quick questions, and then we\u2019ll get into some more of the details of the bill. This is to do with new section 22A, \u201CMeaning of critical risk\u201D, particularly when we\u2019re looking at subsection (1).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIf we\u2019re doing a quick-fire round to the Minister, the first question is: could the Minister just clarify what the Minister\u2019s interpretation is of a risk and a hazard?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022197f9eccaecdc8a9e4725bd90a193711\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Carry on with your questions while the Minister gets advice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b1fff32209ca77f47f202fdda90fffaf\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: OK. How the Minister responds to my questions will determine what kind of questions I\u2019ll follow up with. So I guess my first question is: can the Minister define what is a risk and what is a hazard? My second question is: can the Minister define what is the difference between likelihood and consequence? The reason I ask those is because, as the Minister would understand, when we\u2019re looking at a risk management matrix for health and safety, those are some of the key areas that we look at whenever we do any sort of risk analysis using such a risk matrix. That is fundamental to health and safety, whether we\u2019re looking at safety level one or safety level two.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOn the basis of those questions, one of the things that jumped out at me when we\u2019re looking at new section 22(1)(b) is the fact that when the risk is associated with \u201Ca hazard of any kind\u201D and that if the risk occurs\u2014i.e., a consequence\u2014\u201Cis likely to result in any 1 or more of the following:\u201D\u2014but that\u2019s not the norm when we\u2019re looking at a risk management matrix, because, I think, as a starting point we look at the likelihood. The idea is that when we are determining\u2014and if you\u2019re looking at the risk matrix and we give a score, and the score varies depending on which jurisdiction you are based in, that particular score determines the level of intervention that is required for a workplace when you\u2019re looking at health and safety. So if you\u2019re looking at something with a high level of likelihood of a consequence, and particularly a higher probability of a consequence as opposed to a likelihood, you give it a higher score. But, in general, using the hot water example of the previous speaker and the Minister, the consequence is there as well as the likelihood, but in those kind of cases, what you want to do in terms of any form of intervention strategy is you look at elimination. You eliminate the potential hazard, then you limit or you minimise, and then you engineer and you kind of use signifiers, like if personal protective equipment is involved or if there\u2019s nothing you can do about it. Those are some of the hierarchies you\u2019re look at when you look at any form of intervention.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAll of those are crucial when we are trying to understand the definition of \u201Ccritical risk\u201D. In the hot water example, if a small PCBU\u2014person conducting a business or undertaking\u2014for example, is not considered a critical risk, a small PCBU will have no requirement to signpost \u201CThat is hot water\u201D, nor engineer it in a way that it needs a specific mechanism to ensure that the release of such boiling water can only be done via an engineered mechanism. That\u2019s how it works when it when we\u2019re looking at health and safety. So I do want to check those kind of quick questions with the Minister first, as well as what the Minister considers in terms of the example I just raised regarding the risk management matrix.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u00225111b52d147c7836432f86f4c16a1eb6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225111b52d147c7836432f86f4c16a1eb6\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (09:45)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. So, going back to the ones that I still needed to tick off, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, I suspect, will be having a very busy morning, standing up for the Opposition. But a little while ago, he asked why we have picked 20 as the option out of the regulatory impact statement (RIS) when there were four different definitions potentially given. It was because it was consistent with other definitions that already exist in the law, and so it would have been familiar to businesses. He mentioned the point about 97 percent of businesses in New Zealand being small businesses. However, I would also note that small persons conducting businesses or undertakings (small PCBUs) employ approximately 27 percent of all employees.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHe also then queried whether it would be correct that a seasonal business with fewer than 20 workers for nine months of the year would be a small PCBU. Yes, that is a correct interpretation of the law, and it aligns with the policy and Cabinet decisions to capture seasonal fluctuations in workforce sizes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHe also queried, and this is also the same query that Camilla Belich had, whether it is correct that businesses with more than 20 workers\u2014sorry: if they had three extra months where they had more than 20 workers, can they consider themselves small? Once again, it\u2019s to do with the thresholds. Look, if the business is in an industry where the numbers habitually fluctuate, then yes, they would be small if it has more than 20 workers for no more than three months. But, importantly, the small business must identify and manage its critical risks, whether or not they\u2019re big or small, which means that it puts the attention where it is needed most, which is where you\u2019re managing the things that will do the most harm. So if a business simply decides to increase their work numbers for a long term, they\u2019ll have to reassess and they would be a large PCBU.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELawrence Xu-Nan also then had another query\u2014which I guess really turns to the fact that we\u2019re ticking all of those ones off\u2014as to why are we leaving it to PCBUs to determine if they expect the workforce to be less than 20 for nine months, rather than an agency or some other organisation. Look, it\u2019s simply just not practical in an economy of our size to have an agency to assess each and every PCBU with a fluctuating workforce in order for businesses to know what their duties are. That\u2019s just a bureaucratic nightmare.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELawrence Xu-Nan then asked: what are the differences between risks and hazards, and likelihoods and consequence? A hazard is the thing that has the potential to cause harm, the risk is the harm that can arise from the hazard, the consequence is the outcome of something happening, and the likelihood is as it sounds, which is how probable it is that the consequence will eventuate from the risk arising.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELawrence Xu-Nan also then had another query: if a large PCBU has several subsidiaries, is it captured by clause 11A? Yes. If the PCBU shares a duty with another PCBU, it must cooperate on that duty. Where there are shared duties for critical risks, cooperation is required, whether the PCBU is small or large. PCBUs may also require cooperation and their contracting arrangements.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226aa6725740ef48a8bd0e0d084ac074fc\u0022 data-id=\u00221bb4c82cacbd21dd22a506e6eceee462\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226aa6725740ef48a8bd0e0d084ac074fc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221bb4c82cacbd21dd22a506e6eceee462\u0022\u003EMILES ANDERSON (National\u2014Waitaki) (09:49)\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002268eaae8053d8e2631c31d60a8865874e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, it\u2019s a bit early for that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022 data-id=\u00227bf00bc2bc92581f88bfa53209ce6434\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227bf00bc2bc92581f88bfa53209ce6434\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (09:49)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. We\u2019ve moved on to clause 9 now, and my colleague moved us there. I did mention right at the beginning that this is the one, when I talked about critical risk, and I said that I didn\u2019t want to get that muddled up with the definition, and this does bring the definition of \u201Ccritical risk\u201D into this. I do have a number of amendments and I don\u2019t want to talk to all of them, but I actually want to talk to my colleague Camilla Belich\u2019s amendment because I think her explanatory note sets this out really well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt talks about the current drafting of the new section 22A(1)(b) setting a probability test of the consequences of risks and it sets that probability at \u201Clikely\u201D, which is an uncertain term. I know that officials have said, \u201CWell, it\u2019s used elsewhere in legislation.\u201D  I actually think there\u2019s an issue there, in that so many people came into select committee, and since select committee, very much saying that people did not understand this particular term, and that is part of the issue. So just because it\u2019s used in other parts of legislation doesn\u2019t make it correct. Camilla Belich\u2019s explanation talks about the fact that it may be interpreted as greater than a 50 percent chance. And this requires a person conducting a business or undertaking to have the knowledge and resources to undertake such an assessment, and would result in uncertainty and disputes regarding these assessments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe first question that I\u2019ve got for the Minister is to ask whether the Minister is concerned that so many people came to the select committee\u2014it was many of the submitters\u2014and said that they did not understand this particular term. In this explanatory note, and this is the second question that I want to ask, it also sets the threshold unreasonably high when the safety, health, and lives of workers are concerned. Certain categories of risk, such as musculoskeletal and psychosocial, would largely be excluded from this definition. Now, why that is of concern is that musculoskeletal and psychosocial harm make up a huge percentage of ACC claims. While I\u2019m not saying that this is a critical risk, I am saying that this seems to be put aside from this bill and excluded from this bill. Is that the Minister\u2019s understanding?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EDoes the Minister have concerns around the fact that those areas aren\u2019t in there, and is there a thought that in the future, we would be doing something about that so that businesses have that oversight of what is a growing area of harm in this country in the workplace, and also a growing area that ACC are having to cover? Should we be doing something about that in this bill, because it seems like we\u2019re excluding it and we\u2019re not going down the track of actually doing something about it now? So those are the questions that I have.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u00220e91e2150efa08b4561597b140e2763a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220e91e2150efa08b4561597b140e2763a\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (09:52)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just had some questions, like my colleague, around clause 9, which we\u2019re now up to, which is new section 22A. I did check with the Clerk before, but I wanted to signal now that in new section 22A(2)(a), there is a reference to Schedule 1A, and that actually sets out the\u2014I\u2019ll just go to it myself now\u2014examples of what is defined as hazards associated with critical risk.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220281147a6200e5bb37ff773c1fc702f7\u0022\u003EHon Member: \u003C/span\u003E22.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a402627e85a2d4110d31ed098805c4a3\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. The reason that this is relevant is you can\u2019t really read new section 22A without looking at Schedule 1A. The complication here is partly the question, and the issue, for the Minister. So if I own a small PCBU\u2014person conducting a business or undertaking\u2014of, say, five people, when I\u2019m determining my responsibilities under this amended Health and Safety at Work Act, I will have to figure out if I have a risk associated with Schedule 1A. When we flick through to that, we see that it covers\u2014and I know that this is a very substantive part of the bill, so I will mention some of it but I know that there will be more detailed questions on this\u2014adventure activities, amusement devices, and general risk and workplace management.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt especially has some carve-outs in relation to work done by children, which, I have to say, was quite alarming; we\u2019re talking about envisaging a situation where someone under the age of 15 years old is involved in the manufacturing and preparation of goods for sale, and someone under 16 is working in between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., so a few questions around the situations that would lead to that particular situation occurring and whether that is a desirable outcome for those who are of that age.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs we\u2019ve mentioned previously in this committee stage, we do need to take into account different levels of ability when assessing health and safety risk; we\u2019re not always talking about fully compos mentis adults engaging in the workplace. We know that workplaces are open to every single body of every single ability and capacity, and age as well, so that is a specific thing that I think we need to look at.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn discussion with my colleagues, I think that it is going to be very difficult for us to be able to look at new section 22A without looking at Schedule 1A in detail, even though that does come in a later section. So my proposal would be that we do mention that now, and then it may be that it\u2019s relevant again to talk about that when we come to clause 30.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b043fdc5e58d0d2cdc0902eeaabb488b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: It is part of this debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224c6da2452871fd1e6c2cd813b82047d9\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is a question, really: how is this simplifying and getting rid of what the Minister has called red and green tape, by getting a small PCBU\u2014it might be a small start-up, or it might be someone who\u2019s just started a company\u2014to understand their responsibilities in relation to health and safety by first making them look, once they\u2019ve established that they\u2019re a small PCBU, at section 22A, and say, \u201COK, so we have to look at the risks within our workplace, and the only way we can do that is we have to assess whether any of the following is likely to occur.\u201D, and then we look at this list: a death, a notifiable injury or illness, a notifiable incident, or an occupational disease. I mean, that is a pretty huge expectation on a small business\u2014and the Minister may want to comment on that\u2014to know if anything that they are doing is likely to result in an occupational disease.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen, you haven\u2019t finished: you then have to go to see what the regulations say, and the regulations are set out in section 1A, and you have to go through the entire list, which I just alluded to, in Schedule 1A, which goes through all the different hazards and the different ages that people might be able to participate in certain things, all of the different substances\u2014whether it\u2019s in mining or quarrying, petroleum, gas extraction, when we\u2019re looking at pipelines. Sometimes this might be obvious, but, Minister, this is very difficult for a small business to understand, isn\u2019t it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u002285fe5fcdbdd0753d9bfcfb8c2bf063d8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002285fe5fcdbdd0753d9bfcfb8c2bf063d8\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (09:57)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much. These two last contributions have been exceedingly enlightening\u2014and, in part, I think, quite concerning, especially because Jan Tinetti\u2019s contribution said that she was listening to people talking to her about how difficult and confusing and potentially more costly this will be.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI just wanted to ensure that I was raising the correct point here. The term \u201Clikely\u201D is actually a term that is already used in risk management, in the Health and Safety at Work Act. So if she\u2019s got experts coming through her doors saying that using the term \u201Clikely\u201D is going to be very confusing and very costly for business, well, I\u2019m sorry, but they can\u2019t be experts\u2014I certainly hope they\u2019re not giving out expert advice to companies now, because they\u2019re currently needing to use the word \u201Clikely\u201D in the tests under the current law. So that is exceedingly concerning. The current law is that the likelihood of the risk occurring is a factor to be taken into account when deciding what is reasonably practicable in relation to a duty. So all persons conducting a business or undertaking should be familiar with this, especially experts on health and safety law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EShe went on and then had further concerns about where our people don\u2019t understand \u201Clikely\u201D. Look, the select committee did clarify the provision, because the current \u201Clikely\u201D test does not actually require a probability test of over 50 percent, as is claimed in Camilla Belich\u2019s Amendment Paper. \u201CLikely\u201D has the ordinary meaning of being more than possible but less than certain. That is consistent with the current approach to identifying and managing risks that appear.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo summarise the contribution made by Camilla Belich\u2014look, if she thinks that this term itself is, in fact, too confusing, then maybe she\u2019d be in favour of simplifying the law even further in line with the ACT Party principles, and she would go even further rather than trying to make it even more complicated by putting in place new standards that would go above and beyond.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019d also just make the point that I do struggle to see how the Labour Party does take itself seriously some days when\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226125727a3437e62380314ca00a5e3ac5\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s unnecessary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229906d5310199ee7525693cb257b5875a\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN\u003C/span\u003E: No, it\u2019s not unnecessary, and I\u2019ll give you an example, because last night we heard about how the Labour Party was so grateful that John Key and Michael Woodhouse had put in place this law. At the time, they opposed this law, and they\u2014I think, looking at some of the contributions from back when that law was done over a decade ago\u2014kind of alluded to the fact that they wished that the law would go further and would be stronger. But, well, guess what! They had two terms in Government and they did nothing on health and safety, so I don\u2019t understand how we can take them seriously on health and safety.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI know Jan Tinetti, in her contribution at the second reading, said, \u201COh, but we did do something. We put in place some basic drafting on a plant and structure regulation.\u201D I\u2019m sorry, but that Government put it on pause and they didn\u2019t even bother to pass that one. So, look, it\u2019s just a bit ridiculous, really.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002287c230abea3715bf58b80baa933f0257\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019ll stick to this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002278390aa76652623ccbef55de87a760db\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, sorry, Madam Chair\u2014I\u2019m getting a bit exercised here, but I\u2019ll end my contribution there. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00226f52ae01a771bf4b31f7f679f240f7b9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226f52ae01a771bf4b31f7f679f240f7b9\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:01)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to seek your guidance, Madam Chair: based on the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety\u2019s last contribution, are we allowed to extend the scope of our conversation and questions to the health and safety over the last 20 years or over the last 15 years? Is that something that we are able to expand the scope on?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e6e137f51d978a7d970674e47804513c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: You\u2019re able to do it, but I probably would end the debate quite quickly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002245e5eba26f6c994df58aafafe101ab76\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah\u2014thank you, Madam Chair. I do appreciate the Minister for responding to my questions so thoroughly. That is appreciated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI do have follow-up questions on clause 9, so the new section 22A. Following on from what the Minister responded to regarding new subsection (1)(b), I want to now look at some of the sub criteria within (1)(b). Madam Chair, I\u2019m also signalling to you that while Schedule 1A technically sits under clause 31, I believe, which is still Part 1, we\u2019re actually going to discuss Schedule 1A now, because it\u2019s most relevant to this new section 22A of this debate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022683ee78eb69f6419f5d617358013e445\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, it is part of this debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d120cc73d72aa13eb55f1520e5219ce7\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah. I just want to check with the Minister: number one, under the criteria, when we\u2019re looking at subparagraphs (1)(b)(i) to (iv)\u2014is that an exhaustive list, or is that open to anything, or are those examples of what would be considered a risk that is associated with a hazard of any kind? The reason I say that is because, potentially, again, there are other things that could be, also, a part of this. So that\u2019s my first question: are subparagraphs (i) to (iv) an exhaustive list?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy second one is around subparagraph (iv), which I think is probably one of the more concerning ones, which is \u201Can occupational disease listed in Schedule 2 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001.\u201D I\u2019m concerned about that, because Schedule 2 of the Accident Compensation Act (AC Act) is not an exhaustive list. In fact, a lot of what is considered occupational disease is left out of that, and I think my colleague Mike Davidson can speak to some of that as our ACC spokesperson.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy recommendation is\u2014and I\u2019m speaking on behalf of my colleague Teanau Tuiono and his amendment 8.00.13\u2014that, rather than limiting it to those listed in Schedule\u00A02 of the AC Act, whether we just delete \u201Clisted in Schedule 2 of the Accident Compensation Act\u201D and just say \u201Can occupational disease\u201D. Would the Minister be open to that amendment, which actually simply broadens the scope but, also, covers additional occupational diseases that could\u2014that should, rightfully\u2014fall under the definition of a \u201Ccritical risk\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to now move on to some of the things we\u2019re discussing, which is in Schedule 1A, which is also, technically, the list that is described that falls under the description or definition of a \u201Ccritical risk\u201D. We do have a few amendments for Schedule 1A, but I want to speak to one first at this stage, because my previous speaker, Camilla Belich, mentioned the general risk and workplace management, specifically relating to the Health and Safety at Work (General Risk and Workplace Management) Regulations 2016. This is on page 22. Apologies, Madam Chair: there are no clause numbers for Schedule 1A\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223c25753e6f05306d52d3549736c58ae5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, the schedules make a little difference to the conversation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a0f7f9e1c659254a418ee53e09e95c75\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah. So, with that, while it\u2019s good that they\u2019re in there, I think one of the some of the things that are missing from that, which is important to possibly also include under this general section, is around\u2014let me just quickly find it\u2014\u201CAny personal injury caused by work-related gradual process, disease, or infection\u201D. This is drawing from, but not limited to, the current section 30 of the Accident Compensation Act, since we\u2019re talking about the AC Act. This is something that is already identified as already reasonably nuanced within the main body of the Accident Compensation Act. Essentially, it is \u201Cany personal injury caused by work-related gradual process, disease, or infection, such as suffered by a person, caused by gradual process disease or infection, or caused by circumstances described in section 32 of the Accident Compensation Act\u201D. This is my colleague Teanau Tuiono\u2019s amendment at 8.00.33. I want to check with the Minister if the Minister would consider expanding the scope of that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u002209c79134d1107ded303783db480af16f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002209c79134d1107ded303783db480af16f\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (10:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. In response to Camilla Belich\u2019s contribution about simplification and how that would be achieved, under the current law, a small business has to identify all their risks and management, and the definition of critical risks under this law would guide the persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs) to identify the risks that caused the most harm. The schedule at the back provides immediate clarity on what is already regulated, which avoids duplication or reinterpretation of the existing rules. Schedule 1A is designed to provide certainty to PCBUs, which the Schedule 1A criteria apply to, and this relates to regulations that PCBUs need to comply and be aware of. Despite the amendment for the catch-all test, it is already expected that a PCBU understands the risks, including potential outcomes that arise from their business. It shouldn\u2019t be complicated for people, because it\u2019s what the law already expects.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere was a query about matters relating to children listed in Schedule 1A. There was an assumption being made by the member that children were being excluded from needing to be managed in these critical risks, but talking with my officials, the reason for that is that young people are excluded from doing that work, and it is already part of the law that young people can\u2019t do some of those tasks. That\u2019s why she may have misinterpreted that form of exclusion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELawrence Xu-Nan had a query about new section 22B(1)(b) and whether or not it was an exhaustive list: yes\u2014officials advise that this covers the most significant risks.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJan Tinetti had a query about why the critical risk does not specifically include psychosocial harm or musculoskeletal harm. Actually, the Education and Workforce Committee did make a change to clarify how psychosocial harm may be a factor in critical risk. If a workplace has a hazard, such as in inherently traumatic work, then there is risk of harm to workers\u2019 mental health in the workplace that involves\u2014you know, like driving at high speeds and emergency services personnel. The mental harm would be assessed as likely to cause serious physical harm and would be a critical risk. For musculoskeletal harm, it would be a critical risk if a workplace has a hazard likely to cause broken bones or other severe injury. Less serious musculoskeletal harm\u2014such as a sprain, I guess\u2014would not be a critical risk, but it doesn\u2019t mean to say that musculoskeletal harm is completely not in a critical risk definition. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELawrence Xu-Nan also then had a query about whether or not I\u2019d agree that critical risks include occupational diseases. Without reference to the Accident Compensation Act Schedule 2, no, it\u2019s appropriate that the ACC system decides on what is an occupational disease. The diseases included in Schedule 2 are the diseases overwhelmingly proven to be caused by work, and so that list is regularly reviewed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u0022a061a6c51521a330958830f4c4057a7e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a061a6c51521a330958830f4c4057a7e\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (10:10)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to respond to something that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety brought into the debate, which was whether or not the Labour Party can be taken seriously on health and safety. I was interested in her comments around the fact that we have the gall to object to the fact that she\u2019s watering down health and safety laws, and her point seemed to be that we didn\u2019t support the Act when it came in in the first place. I was interested in that, and I looked back and I wondered, why was it that the Labour Party at that stage did take that decision to not support that Act, and very interestingly, it was because the National Government had decided to exempt small businesses. I stand here very proud of a very consistent line from this party to say that every worker in New Zealand\u2014small business, big business\u2014should be entitled to be safe and healthy at work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThank you to the Minister for allowing me that opportunity to clarify that. We\u2019ve decided we\u2019re going to talk about new Schedule 1A, inserted by Schedule 2, now, and there\u2019s a lot in here, and I do have some very specific questions for the Minister around Schedule 1A. I know that, behind Schedule 1A, there are a number of different regulations that I have had a brief look at and have tried to kind of answer any pre-emptive questions that I might have by looking at some of these regulations, but I do have some additional questions that I haven\u2019t been able to clarify.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI wanted to start with the adventure activities and the definitions. Here, we\u2019ve got a definition of amusement devices, which I\u2019ve looked up in the regulations and I see are, generally, kind of like your Easter show type of situation is what I\u2019ve managed to ascertain from reading that. But I wanted to understand from the Minister, when we\u2019re talking about the critical risk hazards, and this is really important, because if what you\u2019re doing as part of your small business does not fall within this Schedule, then it\u2019s likely to be excluded from the definition of \u201Ccritical risk\u201D, so it is important that we have clarity over what\u2019s included and what\u2019s not. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn this first bit around adventure activities, from my reading, a lot of it is based around mechanical hazards, big machinery, that kind of thing. I wanted to know: does this cover more of the activities that New Zealand is famous for in terms of, you know, our white water rafting activities, our outdoor pursuits\u2014obviously, those would be considered hazardous. I don\u2019t know if they come within this particular section or not. I\u2019m certain that they will be covered, but I just wanted some clarification as to which section they would fall within and whether it was within that initial definition of the regulations for adventure activities. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI know that my colleague, Jan Tinetti, has some questions around asbestos, but I had had a look, briefly, at the regulations in relation to asbestos because I had a question around\u2014obviously, asbestos is an extremely concerning workplace hazard and, I think, something New Zealand needs to take even more seriously than we do. When I worked in the United Kingdom, I worked with colleagues who worked extensively with victims of people who had been exposed to asbestos, and they worked with lawyers who had claims, and it was the saddest department to work in because every single one of their clients died, and they died in a horrible, horrific, terrible death that is associated with when you have mesothelioma from asbestos exposure. So I want to acknowledge that asbestos exposure can be extremely serious and life-threatening. But as everyone will know\u2014and Madam Chair, you will also know\u2014it\u2019s not the only airborne particle that can cause injury or occupational illness. When I looked at the definition of what was covered by the Health and Safety at Work (Asbestos) Regulations 2016, it seemed to cover a number of different types of asbestos, but it didn\u2019t seem to cover other airborne particles and other, perhaps, things that could be inhaled at work, and therefore cause issues with people\u2019s lungs and breathing and those more serious conditions. So I did want to know if that did go further or if, in fact, there\u2019s another part. Because I assume that we wouldn\u2019t have left out on those other serious parts. I\u2019m just aware time of the time, Madam Chair\u2014I\u2019ll leave those questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u00228757b8710b8335740c96f102188942e4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228757b8710b8335740c96f102188942e4\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (10:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, look, I\u2019ll answer that relatively briefly. Yes, the member queried whether or not things like adventure activities covers a lot of tourism activities that happen in New Zealand, like white water rafting, etc. The answer to that is yes. In fact, there shouldn\u2019t be any company out there that\u2019s doing our tourism extreme sports that\u2019s not clear about which regulations they should be under, otherwise that\u2019s seriously concerning. This is not actually any change, and that\u2019s the second part to the statement about asbestos and other airborne diseases and things. New Schedule 1A, which is what we\u2019re talking about, lists the hazards already regulated as critical risks under our regulations. This is avoiding duplication and reinterpretation of our existing rules. There is nothing necessarily new in this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022 data-id=\u0022f6cecfd4832f05b2d8159afd79edfa4a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f6cecfd4832f05b2d8159afd79edfa4a\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (10:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to go back to new section 22A, inserted by clause 9, and then come back to the Schedule, which is brought in through this too. But the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety said before, and sort of made light of the fact that people are concerned, and have been concerned, about the \u201Clikely to result in\u201D and that terminology. I just want to say that 22A comes after section 22 of the Health and Safety at Work Act, and section 22 says that the definition of \u201Creasonably practical\u201D includes \u201Clikelihood of the hazard or risk \u2026 occurring.\u201D Well, that\u2019s quite different to what\u2019s in the new section 22A, which is, \u201Clikely to result\u201D. I want to know why that difference is there and what that difference actually means, because we\u2019ve gone over and over this but we\u2019ve still got people that are confused, and it\u2019s not OK to say, oh, well, it\u2019s a concern that these people are in the sector and don\u2019t get that, when the terminology is different to what\u2019s in the preceding section. I think that\u2019s a reasonable question to ask.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI want to go back. My colleague said that I had a question, and I\u2019m going to make this quick, around the asbestos, and her question was around other airborne particles. One of the big areas that we have been hearing a lot about over the last wee while is engineered stone\u2014and, of course, that\u2019s silicosis\u2014and I can\u2019t see where that is in new Schedule 1A apart from, is it covered either in the asbestos or the mining and quarrying, which sounds that it would be a bit strange to be in there. It is something that we\u2019ve had lots of people that have asked questions about that. I\u2019m wondering whether this is where the answer for those questions are and where we can see the health and safety regs that sit around silicosis with the engineered stone sitting there. I\u2019ll leave it at that because I know we\u2019ve got lots of other questions, so I\u2019d like an answer to those two.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227afc1dd6f1ec6e02f26d52753f476142\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m going to take a call from Mike Davidson. I\u2019m just waiting on another sheet here, but I will note that, so far, the debate has been run by three members, and so I don\u2019t want\u2014I\u2019m not saying that the member\u2019s going to do this, but I don\u2019t want new members participating and asking questions that have been asked before. If it\u2019s something absolutely new, then I\u2019m very happy with that from any member in the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022 data-id=\u0022c60daa4cabab1d39934ec6f7bddb929b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c60daa4cabab1d39934ec6f7bddb929b\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (10:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019ve got a couple of questions, and one, actually, is around clarification. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety earlier spoke around\u2014and this is around the psychosocial and the inclusion of mental health, and I just want to get clarification around this to ensure that this is treated, I guess, on more of an ongoing effect of mental health on someone, not just a one-off event. It talks about, in the Education and Workforce Committee\u2019s report around an incident such as a vehicle crash, equipment misuse, which may cause mental health from that one-off event. But we know there are a lot of, I guess, workplaces where some of these incidents may not be as significant as a vehicle crash, but, actually, are still, over a period of time, if they happen continually, quite significant and can cause significant mental health issues, potentially if you look at workplace culture and bullying.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe know in the construction industry they have a significantly high rate of suicide, and, potentially, we\u2019re going to see vehicle crashes on a construction site. I just want to ensure and get clarification that through this inclusion and the words spoken in this report, ongoing issues, even if they\u2019re slightly less significant as something like a vehicle crash, would actually contribute to mental health and would, therefore, be deemed a critical risk. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy other question is in relation to Schedule 1A. It obviously goes through a number of different hazards associated with critical risk, and I\u2019ve got an amendment to this. I\u2019m speaking to my amendment dated 1 July 2026, at 08.00.32. It has listed in here a number of things like \u201CMining and quarrying\u201D and \u201CPetroleum exploration and extraction\u201D. One of the things that I\u2019ve noticed that is missing from this list is firefighting. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe know that firefighters, obviously, put their lives at risk when they are saving people\u2014New Zealanders\u2014and that comes at an extreme risk to them through exposure to carcinogens, and also extreme temperatures and environmental pollutions. What we\u2019re finding in that industry is that it\u2019s actually getting a lot worse because they\u2019re not just fighting fires that are caused through natural products that are causing fires\u2014obviously, that has been made worse by plastics, etc.\u2014therefore they\u2019re dealing pretty much every day with significant hazards that will, potentially, cause the risks and issues that will actually give them things like cancer, etc. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe know that firefighters have a much higher rate of cancer. So I\u2019ve got my amendment there, and I really appreciate that being included because I think it\u2019s a significant gap within Schedule 1A not to acknowledge the hazards associated with firefighting. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAlso, I would really appreciate getting clarification around the ability for ongoing psychosocial impacts being a critical, risk rather than just one-off incidents. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e13c0cfff1694ee6966ced2df467878f\u0022 data-id=\u0022720eec76ad23d2721235ac5138723bb1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e13c0cfff1694ee6966ced2df467878f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022720eec76ad23d2721235ac5138723bb1\u0022\u003EHon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (10:22)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. There\u2019s been a lot of questions around Schedule 1A and what the scope of Schedule 1A is, and so I\u2019ll just speak to this a little bit. Schedule 1A does not limit the risks already managed by regulations. It simply sets out what these risks are to make it easier for businesses to assess whether they may have critical risks. If a risk is not included in Schedule 1A, it may still be a critical risk if, under the catch-all test, the risk is likely to cause serious physical harm as listed in the text.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s been a few specific examples raised by Camilla Belich, Jan Tinetti, and Mike Davidson. I\u2019d just like to say that with regard to the asbestos and other hazardous dust that had been raised, this specific example is covered by the hazardous substances regulations, and as far as engineered stone goes, it is not currently regulated. There is ongoing work being done on this so it can\u2019t be in the schedule. The catch-all test will clearly cover silica exposure, given the harms it can cause, and, around firefighting and the hazards and risk, the schedule lists hazards and risks currently covered by regulations. Firefighting isn\u2019t regulated in this way, but the catch-all tests will clearly cover firefighting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002237daf286b338bedc1b7e379e095959ca\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m going to take a call from Camilla Belich. I\u2019m getting very close to closure on this, and so I just want the key questions now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u0022a91abb42d99f06e45ffe7f75c8932c45\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a91abb42d99f06e45ffe7f75c8932c45\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (10:24)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, Madam Chair, that\u2019s interesting, because the majority of this bill is in Part 1 and we are working through the schedule, which we haven\u2019t finished. Then, once we\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002247caa2473f7b2d41b044a2cf8c5b4dcc\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s why I\u2019m asking for your key questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229cf5b59f4c346e4cb34d39a807fd43a7\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, OK. I just would note that Part 1 is the majority of this bill, and Part 2 and Part 3 are very small.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022137e2bb07da74689c9e672c5e1e2bb62\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, and I accept that, but I\u2019m asking for Camilla Belich\u2019s key questions that haven\u2019t been answered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d4ff62021cdfb4b8ebf06eb58d569c03\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I do have some key questions that haven\u2019t been covered at all in relation to Schedule 1A, and the questions that I have are in relation to\u2014I\u2019ve covered amusement devices and asbestos in Schedule 1A in my last contributions, and Jan Tinetti has mentioned that, as well. But what I want to move on to now is the general risk of workplace management.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, the Minister before, when I asked her around the issues around someone who was under 15 and under 16 being covered by this, said, \u201CThe member has misunderstood. This is about prohibiting those under that age level from doing this particular work.\u201D, and I thought that was interesting. So I checked that with the regulations, and I found that in the general risk and workplace management regulations, there isn\u2019t a prohibition on people doing that work if they\u2019re under that level. In fact, the only restriction is that they shouldn\u2019t do that work \u201Cso far as reasonably practicable.\u201D, and that\u2019s in section 44 of the regulations. That language is also echoed in relation to the other duties: in relation to harmful substances, they must not do it so far as reasonably practicable; they are not to work with heavy machinery, so far as reasonably practicable; and, if they\u2019re under 15 years, they are not to ride upon certain vehicles so far as is reasonably practicable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow the Minister, I am assuming, will say that this is the law as it stands, but the question I have for her is this. If this is the law as set out in the regulations, as it currently stands, and when we are adding in this new schedule to the primary piece of legislation\u2014so this is the primary piece of legislation that sits above the regulations which helped to enact that piece of legislation. We\u2019re also mentioning that it is in the wording that is specifically written down in Schedule 2, which is what I\u2019m asking about. The general risk workplace management envisages a situation where these young people might be undertaking these highly risky behaviours and it specifically sets out that when they do undertake those behaviours, that would be considered to be a critical risk. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo the question I have for the Minister is: has she taken any advice about whether her inclusion in Schedule 1A of those people under 15 years old and under 16 years old doing these highly risky activities in primary legislation would, therefore, undermine or slightly lessen the restrictions in the Health and Safety at Work (General Risk and Workplace Management) Regulations? On my reading of this, it isn\u2019t clear that there is a prohibition in the primary legislation, and when I read the regulations, I see that there isn\u2019t a clear prevention from those young people doing that work, and so I do think it is an important question for the Minister to answer. Does this Government still stand by those restrictions on young people doing their work, and, if so, how does this legislation further the aim of making sure that our children are not participating in this extremely hazardous work which is envisaged by this legislation? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022e87a5707fb2218e4734f8b8c45b5d975\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e87a5707fb2218e4734f8b8c45b5d975\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (10:28)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, sometimes I find some of these contributions interesting but also tiresome. Look, there is there is no change. I honestly don\u2019t know how we could be any clearer: Schedule 1A is not changing regulations. It\u2019s simply a list of the regulations that already exist, and if the Labour Party was in power for six years and cared so much about this issue, you wonder why they did nothing about it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere is no change here to how children interact at work. This is the exact law that exists, with the same regulations, in a list. There is no change to those regulations, and so the short and long of that is just no. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJan Tinetti asked: why does new section 22A use different terminology from existing section 22 with regard to \u201Clikely\u201D? Look, the answer to this is that existing section 22 explains the meaning of \u201Creasonably practicable\u201D, which is the standard to which risks must be managed; new section 22A defines \u201Ccritical risk\u201D, which is quite different from section 22. It is a forward-looking assessment of what is likely to happen if a risk materialises, and this is not the same as deciding how a risk should be managed. Differences are to be expected in how likelihood would be used in these two contexts. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMike Davidson, I understand, had a contribution about psychosocial harm over time, and the Education and Workforce Committee recommended an amendment to clarify that where a hazard in the workplace risks harm to workers\u2019 mental health and if the harm to mental health occurs and it\u2019s likely to cause serious physical harm, then the harm to mental health will be a critical risk that must be managed. But I do acknowledge that that had already been raised before. But, look, I just take the point that there has been a number of contributions here made which are also talking about so-called experts, as well as people in the Labour Party who so-called care about health and safety law, who have serious misunderstandings of the current law, which I find quite concerning.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229b7916a9f116b37c6cf597c5b9e3f2d1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2014I\u2019m just going to make the point that I\u2019m just waiting on some Amendment Paper grouping.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022bbeae4e1c563448f09a74045263376bf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bbeae4e1c563448f09a74045263376bf\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:30)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Apologies before for taking up the full amount. I\u2019ll keep my questions concise. In terms of New Schedule 1A, I do appreciate what the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is saying, but I want to just check. There are a list of things that would be captured by the definition of a \u201Ccritical risk\u201D, so we can also add to that particular list. I do want to address some of the amendments we have on this, and I want to particularly, let\u2019s say, focus on my amendment, which is 8:00:31. I agree with what the Minister is saying, that psychosocial is already included. We see a new point under new section 22A, but, if anything, it doesn\u2019t stop us from expanding on such definitions within New Schedule 1A. Within that, I just want to check if the Minister would consider including additional, I guess, hazards for the education sector, which involves such expansion of the psychosocial injury as workplace stress, including burnout, fatigue, anxiety, harassment, and bullying.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also acknowledge what the Minister said in terms of musculoskeletal being a part of what could be another viable injury, but what it doesn\u2019t capture is musculoskeletal strain and repeated strain, so I want to check with the Minister if that\u2019s something that should be notifiable and genuinely does affect people\u2019s ability to work but is not currently, in my understanding, captured under the definition.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOther people may have additional questions for New Schedule 1A, but I want to check with the Minister around clause 11, new sections 25A to 25C. In both new section 25A and 25B, it says that a small person conducting a business or undertaking\u2019s, or a PCBU\u2019s, \u201Cfailure to prioritise critical risk in accordance with [a previous subsection] is not an offence.\u201D I want to check with the Minister. If they are non-compliant and there is a critical risk, why is that not an offence?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e5f91c9f13137fa2489672dfb700e40a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Jan Tinetti\u2014again, I\u2019m just looking for some honing in on\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022 data-id=\u002252b35e178ff78fc569a7f31328ae1122\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002252b35e178ff78fc569a7f31328ae1122\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (10:33)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, certainly, Madam Chair. I\u2019m looking at new section 22B, \u201CAmendment of Schedule 1A\u201D, but it\u2019s not about New Schedule 1A. My colleague Camilla Belich has an amendment around making certain that when changes are made, as it currently stands there, \u201CThe Governor-General may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister\u201D make those amendments to the schedule. This has come through a lot, and this is an amendment that, I think, is a very, very good one, ensuring that we\u2019ve got the voices\u2014because it doesn\u2019t say that in the bill as it stands at the moment\u2014and that experts would be in there. There is a concern that the voice of people that work in the sector or the voice of health and safety - affected stakeholders would not be taken into account or might not be taken into account. This amendment changes that. I really want to know why that happened in the first place, but also whether the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety would be favourable to this amendment. It\u2019s just ensuring that we do have the voice of affected stakeholders when we\u2019re looking at that change in the schedule. To me, this is a good amendment that would send a sign of good faith to those people who are stakeholders, whether they be owners or workers. I\u2019m just asking that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022b42c679b7893ee994a955f9ca9d079ef\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b42c679b7893ee994a955f9ca9d079ef\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (10:34)\u003C/span\u003E: Look, I\u2019ll tie that one away quite quickly. I don\u2019t agree with that amendment, which was the tabled amendment proposing to require consultation before the changes can be made to New Schedule 1A for hazards associated with critical risk. That is because I think there is, once again, a serious misunderstanding of what the law here is intending to do. I, once again, note my serious reservation and concern that this is simply a list of regulations that will exist under law. Adding to New Schedule 1A with a new regulation is not creating a new regulation. The regulation itself has been created, and then this power is adding it to the list of the list of regulations. It\u2019s not as though the Minister, through this, has the power to just create a new regulation and put it into the list. The regulation will exist, and then we want to update the list to ensure that the new regulation is also captured. It\u2019s hardly a scary provision at all. It just allows for any new regulations over time to be added to a list of regulations. There is no need for consultation on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u00227932e086b3aff745a4203935101a5572\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227932e086b3aff745a4203935101a5572\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (10:36)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety\u2019s response on New Schedule 1A. New Schedule 1A is extensive, and there are more questions we could have asked, but I\u2019m taking the direction from the Chair that we will move past that and we\u2019ll move on to some other parts of the bill. On my reading now, we\u2019re up to around clause 10 or 11. The Minister has said, in response to my previous question, not to be alarmed, as this isn\u2019t a major change of the law; it\u2019s just actually listing what\u2019s already an existing regulation. The question was, Minister: when you change primary legislation, which you are doing and you are making a list of what is included as a critical risk, how does that impact on the existing regulations? There have been a few condescending comments about lack of understanding, but I don\u2019t, in fact, believe that that question, which is a thing around the precedence of primary legislation and its interaction with regulations, has, in fact, been answered, but I will move on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Minister seems very keen to answer questions around what is new in this legislation, so moving on from that schedule, the amendments to section 23 of the primary Act, which is outlined in clause 10 of the bill before us today, does make changes to the definition within the primary piece of legislation. I\u2019m looking to the Minister to see that we\u2019re on the same page with this. It\u2019s changing the definition of \u201Cnotifiable injury or illness\u201D, and it\u2019s making specific new novel changes to the law as it currently stands, which the Minister has put before the House. I do think that there are some questions that the Minister needs to answer on that, and I would expect that she\u2019s able to give some insight into her thinking on this, as opposed to stating that it\u2019s the restatement of the existing law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn this bill, Minister, you have added in the examples of \u201Cfractured skull, a blood clot or bleeding in the brain\u201D in the definition of \u201Cinjury\u201D, and there are a number of examples here, in subclause (2), in relation to eyes and, in (3) and (4), in relation to spinal injuries. All of these examples will have a bearing on how the definition of \u201Cinjury\u201D or \u201Cillness\u201D is interpreted, and I want to ask the Minister: what advice has she taken, and if it is, in fact, further expanding the definition or limiting the definition, why has she chosen to do that in this amendment bill, and what evidence is she relying on that adding these examples to the Act will provide further clarity for those businesses wanting to understand what the meaning of \u201Cnotifiable injury or illness is\u201D? That is important because when it is notifiable, there are different processes that need to be put in place that businesses will have to go through, compared with an injury that isn\u2019t declared to be notifiable. Also additionally, what guidance, seeing as this is a change to the existing law, will be provided to organisations so that they are up to date with the new definitions of what is considered to be an injury or an illness?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022fe988104b914272911b24a2c0baa1bd2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fe988104b914272911b24a2c0baa1bd2\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (10:40)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I note that we\u2019re moving on to a new clause, but I just wanted to tidy up some of the things from the previous clause before we move.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELawrence Xu-Nan had a query about why it\u2019s not an offence not to prioritise the critical risks. Look, the requirement to prioritise critical risks relates to a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) performing their duties under the Act. The relevant offences remain offences about failure to comply with those duties, and they\u2019re already in the Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELawrence Xu-Nan also had a query about whether or not I\u2019d add \u201Cmusculoskeletal repeated strain\u201D to Schedule 1A. No. Musculoskeletal harm was not a notifiable injury. The definition of critical risk is based on pre-existing definitions of notifiable injuries, illnesses, and events, and focuses on the most serious harms.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich\u2019s queries, then, relating to clause 10 about notifiable incidents: look, these are clarifications and examples based on existing regulator practice, and these will help PCBUs know what to notify. Currently, PCBUs are unclear about what is or is not out, and that was feedback from businesses, but this is based on regulator practice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222d54e5eb7a7363614b68fa635db248d1\u0022\u003EHon Members: \u003C/span\u003EMadam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cd779c58258271138a79b4bb9fdad223\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m going to take a couple of clarifying\u2014just clarifying\u2014questions now. I\u2019ve noted that we\u2019ve covered pretty much most of the clauses and the Schedule.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022b7827a48f045cd39681406513c96dee0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b7827a48f045cd39681406513c96dee0\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:41)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just in terms of clarifying, I think what I\u2019m on to is now clause 12. One of the things I want to check with the Minister\u2014and I\u2019ll move through a couple of clauses, Madam Chair\u2014is around clause 12 and a clarification around what happens when there is no ability in the current structure of clause 12 for there to be the notification of other powers or other enactments that potentially would touch on this. My colleague Teanau Tuiono has a tabled amendment, 8.00.17, which just inserts a clause that allows for the Governor-General, by Order in Council, to make recommendations to also be able to identify other enactments which this pertains to, if that is something that is either covered in the existing legislation or would be something that potentially additional regulatory-making powers are required for as a part of that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI do want to move on to one further bit, because I think that\u2019s important\u2014and I know that my colleagues may have other questions regarding clause 21, section 44 amended, around the duty of officers and due diligence. I want to just check, in terms of clause 28, around the approved codes of practice (ACOP), and this is something I signalled to the Minister and the chair previously that I would have questions around. One of the things around the ACOP is the fact that there is no real ability to review such regulations, and we\u2019ve noted that this is not necessarily, from what I can see, a secondary legislation, but any sort of sunset clause or review clause may be important. Can the Minister tell me if there is already existing consideration for a review? If not, I want to check with the Minister if the Minister would be interested in my tabled amendment 8.00.20, which just says that\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022784f4e929aed4ea6a05d1a10add6eccb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022892ae70d82db8f7b6fc18080b03fb92a\u0022\u003ERyan Hamilton\u003C/span\u003E: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022319bda86485784cb80d1ba0610ba7353\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, I love when someone else on the opposite side throws their voice around like they\u2019re the Minister. I would like to see if the Minister would be interested in my amendment, which just simply allows for the Minister to review an approved code of practice, but limiting that the approved code of practice must be reviewed at least once every five years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022784f4e929aed4ea6a05d1a10add6eccb\u0022 data-id=\u0022e9dc62ad300ebf078f44c3c1b576073e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022784f4e929aed4ea6a05d1a10add6eccb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e9dc62ad300ebf078f44c3c1b576073e\u0022\u003ERYAN HAMILTON (National\u2014Hamilton East) (10:44)\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001113\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001116\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022094bcb08501cf1f2a21da7ed89b505ce\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we have received a large number of amendments on various clauses in this part from different members. Standing Order 315(3) and (4) provides discretion to the Chairperson to both group amendments and select amendments. Amendments may be grouped where they stand in the name of a single member, they lend themselves to being grouped, or the grouping is necessary to enable the committee\u2019s effective consideration of the bill. In assessing what represents effective consideration, I am guided by Speaker Brownlee\u2019s earlier ruling that the committee\u2019s time is best spent on debating legislation rather than voting on it and that the committee should be focusing on serious amendments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy approach therefore will be to group or select amendments to the extent that is reasonable and appropriate. The judgment will take into account the number of amendments that have been placed before the committee and the extent to which those amendments provide a genuine alternative policy proposal. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat said, if any party has a different position on a specific amendment\u2014for example, it intends to vote against an amendment from a member but is otherwise supportive of that member\u2019s amendments\u2014then please indicate that to the Chairperson. A separate question can be put on that particular amendment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendments to Part 1 deleting provisions relating to critical risks be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001123\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001124\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c74383f7b3bac829d8490332d0899edb\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is the Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendments to Part 1 deleting provisions relating to small PCBUs be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001130\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001131\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a9df047b32f8f62890e81afc2841d812\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Jan Tinetti\u2019s seven tabled amendments to clause 4 are ruled out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMembers, there are four amendments to clause 4, new section 3, in the name of Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan. To test the will of the committee, I will put the question on one of those amendments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 4 replacing new section 3 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001139\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001140\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002298074cdedd338f7b641e3f0b8b0fa41a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the will of the committee having been tested, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s remaining three tabled amendments to clause 4 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Teanau Tuiono\u2019s tabled amendment deleting the interpretations for \u201Clarge PCBU\u201D in clause 7 and deleting clause 8 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001147\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001148\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224a32f640703ca0676015aacd3a1ffed7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Jan Tinetti\u2019s three tabled amendments to clause 8(4) are ruled out of order as not being serious amendments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMembers, there are three amendments to clause 8 in the name of Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan. To test the will of the committee, I will put the question on one of those amendments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8, replacing \u201C20 workers\u201D in section 17 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001156\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001157\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224f2428fddd50dc21829ec37797cb4e79\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the will of the committee having been tested, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s remaining two tabled amendments to clause 8 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMembers, there are four amendments to clause 9, new section 22A, in the name of Teanau Tuiono. To test the will of the committee, I will put the question on one of those amendments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Teanau Tuiono\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 9, replacing \u201Cif likely to result\u201D in new section 22A(1)(b) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001165\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001166\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220dc672a95b194a0744b2793bdb988e79\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the will of the committee having been tested, Teanau Tuiono\u2019s remaining three tabled amendments to clause 9 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EMembers, Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendments to clauses 9, 11, and 12 lend themselves to being grouped. I will put a single question on them unless members indicate that they wish to vote separately on a specific amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f43ef28e9ffd020fdd069a41a814517e\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, vote separately please.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c37a6700cc40905ea47ca18a4f379423\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: No, I\u2019ve asked if you indicate that you wish to vote differently on one of those amendments to the other amendments. That is\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226bf0782ce492e1dedf48438d83324b55\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, could you clarify?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002259e2d31991240db47f9d12ff57cb6962\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m not asking to vote separately. I\u2019m saying I will group them unless members indicate that they wish to vote separately\u2014which means differently than you would have otherwise voted. If you intended to vote on all of those amendments in the same way, then I will group them. If there\u2019s one specifically you were going to do differently, then you would indicate that to me now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224684934576b4592770dafe8c1408dbd6\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: OK. Good to know. Thank you for the clarification.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d6b9b3db956ac20d1c250d6e322ccf03\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. The question is that Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendments to clauses 9, 11, and 12 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001179\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001180\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022de7dedcb2bb229d5af470d13dcab1768\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Jan Tinetti\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 9, new section 22B(1) is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMembers, Jan Tinetti\u2019s tabled amendments to clauses 9, 11, 21, and 28 lend themselves to being grouped. I will put a single question on them, again, unless a member indicates they wish to vote separately on a specific amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti\u2019s tabled amendments to clauses 9, 11, 21, and 28 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001188\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001189\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226439a304da97cd8b5d326e1df437e237\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s tabled amendments to delete provisions in clauses 10, 11, and 21 lend themselves to being grouped. I will put a single question on them unless members indicate that they wish to vote separately on a specific amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s tabled amendments deleting provisions in clauses 10, 11, and 21 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001196\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001197\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022380ab364161b26cd94348318fb6a6235\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Teanau Tuiono\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 12, inserting new subsections (4) and (5) into section 35 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001203\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001204\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f92f5fb2c4ad1aabcc32f13f4ad9849e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Teanau Tuiono\u2019s tabled amendment deleting clause 21 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001210\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001211\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e96c3a29e2dcde97ccf597cc76de21fb\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Teanau Tuiono\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 28, inserting subsection (6) into new section 222A, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001217\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001218\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022065cfeb407862d89ca7e1f12d158d5fd\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Francisco Hernandez\u2019s tabled amendment deleting clause 3 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001224\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001225\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229b7d052e0d013426efd7f743bba3784d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, there are 11 tabled amendments to clause 3 in the name of Francisco Hernandez. To test the will of the committee, I will put the question on one of those amendments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Francisco Hernandez\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 3, replacing new section 3(2)(a) with words commencing \u201Cto provide partial protection to workers\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001232\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001233\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225e12ca27af5043c9c827f00f894e9350\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the will of the committee having been tested, Francisco Hernandez\u2019s remaining 10 tabled amendments to clause 3 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Francisco Hernandez\u2019s tabled amendments to clause 9, new section 22A(1)(a) and (b), be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001240\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001241\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002288d47195745cb0d333836a7b7d001c68\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Francisco Hernandez\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 9, replacing words in new section 22A(1), be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001247\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001248\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221c01bb858bd6501d5ec4000af6a2c645\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Francisco Hernandez\u2019s tabled amendments to clause 10, replacing subclauses (1) to (4), be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001254\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001255\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001260\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001263\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00224e05ed34d35d2f095d8a4428662d9556\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022303c9af1414dff71f4c7f4b62ce0d9c6\u0022\u003EPart 2 Amendments to WorkSafe New Zealand Act 2013\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223b1f40da2b8ee5fd807f8750b62403f2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to Part 2, which is the debate on clauses 32 to 34, \u201CAmendments to WorkSafe New Zealand Act 2013\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=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u00226c1cd662c0b6a603e4ec0ebfa6335763\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226c1cd662c0b6a603e4ec0ebfa6335763\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (11:03)\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Chairperson. Thank you, Mr Chair. I raise a point of order under Standing Order 315(3) and (4). The Chair of the committee previously to you offered some guidance to the committee. Firstly, I\u2019m asking you whether that was guidance or a ruling. Mr Chair, I\u2019d like to submit to you that on Tuesday, 12 May 2009, the House began to vote on the Auckland super-city bill. The member in charge of the bill was Rodney Hide, also an ACT Minister. The House ended its voting on that bill at 9.42 p.m. on Saturday, 16 May 2009. The reason why Standing Order 315 has been developed in the way it was was through careful negotiation between Labour and National Ministers, not only during that committee stage, where three Speaker\u2019s rulings were given, but also in the Standing Orders review that concluded at the end of that Parliament.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is a deeply meaningful rule which is intended to change the way that select committees and the committee of the whole House are intended to operate. In that debate, there were 8,000 amendments which were proposed by Labour and Green members. This is not the same as that case. It was important at the time because the Leader of the House, Gerry Brownlee, also made comments to media around what was appropriate to debate and what was appropriate in terms of amendments. There was much debate between the shadow Leader of the House and Minister Grant Robertson at the time as well, which played out and was useful to the development of that rule.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMr Chair, I\u2019m asking you to clarify whether the Chair previously to you has made a ruling which changes that carefully developed piece of ruling, which was informed by not only public scrutiny but public debate around the kinds of debate that we have in the committee stage. Is it the case that we have made a change which has not been made through a determination of the Business Committee or a Standing Orders Committee consideration of this rule, but has been made unilaterally by the Chair before you?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022 data-id=\u002210c354ef1d35815c0009aa998f92ea41\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002210c354ef1d35815c0009aa998f92ea41\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor) (11:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, you\u2019ll be aware of what the Speaker commented yesterday in the House. It\u2019s always up to the presiding officers to interpret the Standing Orders. In relation to your question, what the previous presiding officer has said is an interpretation. It\u2019s not a new ruling; it is an interpretation under the existing Standing Order, and as far as the broader negotiations around that go, can I suggest perhaps some discussions between the party whip and the Speaker, if there is to be a looking for, I suppose, a reinterpretation\u2014that those discussions take place. In the meantime, the rulings that you heard from the previous presiding officer are from the Chair interpreting within Standing Order 315.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u00229b72d79de18001bae89e015450489027\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229b72d79de18001bae89e015450489027\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (11:07)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I will do that and I will take that away. I\u2019m just wanting to clarify: does the interpretation apply equally to every presiding officer, or is it that presiding officer\u2019s view of how amendments will be dealt with?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022 data-id=\u0022d6c20d74fbeac607caefb961892b87cc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d6c20d74fbeac607caefb961892b87cc\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor) (11:07)\u003C/span\u003E: No, it will be a continuation. Presiding officers do, obviously, discuss. We don\u2019t operate in isolation, and the indications made by the previous presiding officer will continue in the absence of any reinterpretation of Standing Order 315. Camilla Belich.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u0022d04a4fb212a35f30852c0de7aa79ef49\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d04a4fb212a35f30852c0de7aa79ef49\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (11:08)\u003C/span\u003E: So, Part 2?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022759e4ed168572e27f2b4e6fe73c62ad2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Part 2\u2014yes, thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002209f9e473de67652b1e348c72badfe64c\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Part 2 is in relation to amendments to the WorkSafe New Zealand Act 2013. This is an extremely significant part of this bill. Although it appears short, it actually makes some very significant changes to the way that WorkSafe works. I just want to draw the committee\u2019s attention to this because previously during the term of this Government, WorkSafe have said that they see their role very much more as an influencing role, not as New Zealand\u2019s only regulator in relation to health and safety\u2014and, yes, they did use the term \u201Cinfluencer\u201D. This was hugely concerning at the time that this was raised, and a question to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is this. It appears that this change to the WorkSafe New Zealand Act is implementing a weakening of WorkSafe, and I\u2019ll draw the committee\u2019s attention to the various parts of this bill that do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFirst of all, at clause 34, it inserts a new section 10(1), which sets out the purpose of WorkSafe\u2014so this is all new law. At new section 10(1), it outlines what WorkSafe\u2019s function is. Now, if you read that, you\u2019ll see that it does appear to be mainly providing guidance and advice and recommending codes of practice and instruments, and monitoring. There is only one mention of enforcement of compliance with relevant health and safety regulation, and that is not on its own limb.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAdditionally, in subclause (3), there is a repeal to the original Act, and that is in relation to section 10(c), (e), (ea), and (f). For the committee\u2019s benefit, I\u2019ve brought those particular parts up. The bits that are being deleted are: \u201C(c) monitor and enforce compliance with relevant health and safety legislation:\u201D; \u201C(e) develop codes of practice:\u201D\u2014although there is some mention of codes of practice in the new section; then \u201C(ea) develop safe work instruments\u201D\u2014I\u2019m just checking to see if that is covered under the new definition, and it appears that that one is; and then (f), if we look at (f), it\u2019s to \u201Cprovide guidance, advice, and information on work health and safety to\u2014(i) persons who have duties \u2026 and (ii) the public:\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy question to the Minister is: is she choosing to reorganise the purpose of WorkSafe or is she weakening the powers of WorkSafe? On a provisional read of that provision, it does appear that the focus of WorkSafe is not to be a strong health and safety regulator that can hold those with duties to account; it is instead to weaken the purpose of WorkSafe to providing guidance, to influencing workplaces, and to not being the strong health and safety regulator we need.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, the Minister will need no reminding, and I hope the committee doesn\u2019t either, that New Zealand has terrible statistics internationally in relation to workplace health and safety. We are behind the UK, we are behind Australia\u2014and it is not a small amount; it is either double or treble the number of workplace accidents that we hear. There\u2019s something not working with our workplace health and safety laws when we have those numbers of people being injured compared to jurisdictions that we compare ourselves to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill does not strengthen workplace health and safety in the way that it would need to in order to bring those statistics down, and my concern around the amendments to the WorkSafe Act is that this is further weakening their jurisdiction. They\u2019ve told us that that\u2019s their intention\u2014to weaken it. What I\u2019m asking the Minister is: is it her intention, through the passage of this legislation, through passing these clauses in Part 2, to actually make WorkSafe more of a guidance model and less of a regulator?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022885364a0386d8ab089bc2ab12921b87f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022885364a0386d8ab089bc2ab12921b87f\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (11:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. To the main query that was within that contribution about does this weaken WorkSafe, the answer to this is no. I believe we are strengthening WorkSafe with these changes. We are strengthening WorkSafe by prioritising this new list of main functions and other functions. It makes WorkSafe more focused and effective. The functions listed are all existing functions. I note the member went through a number under an assumption that they\u2019d been deleted, but, in fact, they\u2019re actually there as main functions, but they are now prioritised so WorkSafe knows what to focus on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe four main functions are: \u201Cto provide guidance, advice, and information on compliance with relevant health and safety legislation\u201D\u2014seems quite legitimate; \u201Cto develop, review, and recommend codes of practice\u201D\u2014once again, very legitimate; \u201Cto develop safe work instruments\u201D\u2014core business; \u201Cto monitor and enforce compliance with relevant health and safety legislation\u201D. They\u2019re all very core and what you would expect the regulator to be doing\u2014to be providing guidance while at the same time also monitoring and enforcing compliance. No functions have been removed in these changes; they have been prioritised. There is only one new function, which is supporting businesses to comply.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022 data-id=\u00226824333c4ff1cfe58e256dfb890d337b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226824333c4ff1cfe58e256dfb890d337b\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (11:14)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019ve got a couple of questions about this, and clause 34 of Part 2 is where my questions are based. The first one is: why is WorkSafe\u2019s main function\u2014why is number one\u2014not helping reduce workplace injuries and the rate of that and fatalities over time? Surely that has to be the number one role of WorkSafe. I know the Minister has talked about what my colleague brought up, but it just seems unbelievable that we would not put that as number one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut number two of my questions actually has come up during and after select committee, and it is something that I would like to look at a little bit more closely from the Minister. It seems to be, from people that have been through the Pike River tragedy, that there was a conflict of interest at the time\u2014and that has been borne out in the royal commission report that came through\u2014seen from the Department of Labour in the handling of Pike River. Where it was inspecting and advising Pike River management, that was seen as a conflict. Now, the new functions as they\u2019re being outlined here by WorkSafe seem to be the same. We\u2019ve got the role as consultant and giving advice and the role of the regulator, so like the policeman, and that seems to be the same conflict.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want assurance from the Minister of how that perceived or real conflict is being managed or will be managed, but also how that can be a barrier to businesses who are seeking advice on health and safety issues and how smaller businesses, when they see the regulator and the adviser being one and the same, would be unlikely or may be unlikely to get the advice from the regulator because of what the Minister has called the \u201Cfear\u201D of the regulator. How will they be able to do that when they\u2019ve already got that conflict, whether it\u2019s perceived or real, that sits there between both the regulator and the adviser?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETwo questions, one regarding are we going back to a pre - Pike River, and was that the intent, and the second one is around the businesses seeing that perceived or real conflict between that, and how would they be able to access that knowing that conflict exists.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022de1fa480e8b8f6a3cd930ad4c736666a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022de1fa480e8b8f6a3cd930ad4c736666a\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:17)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I do want to start by touching on clause 33 or discussing clause 33 in terms of the changes to WorkSafe. I do want to acknowledge both Camilla Belich and the Hon Jan Tinetti\u2019s earlier questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI guess, before I talk about the main objective and objectives and the prioritisation that we see here in clause 33, I want to check with the Minister whether there was any advice or any sort of discussions by the Minister or by the officials around comparing what we have here and Australia\u2019s system, noting that Australia has, in some ways, better stats or better outcomes for their workers, proportionately. But Australia has two separate systems: they\u2019ve got Safe Work Australia and WorkSafe Australia. One does the policy and one is the regulator. I want to check with the Minister that we don\u2019t have that system, yet what I\u2019m seeing here, like the previous speaker said, is shifting some of that more towards the policy side and potentially less emphasis on the regulatory side. I could be wrong\u2014I would be keen to hear from the Minister. But my question is: what sort of conversations or has any work been done on how things are being done in Australia\u2014whether that is being used to map what are some of the changes here?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of clause 33, one of the concerns that we have is around the idea that they\u2019re prioritising just critical risk. Now, I would assume that when it comes to WorkSafe, they are about injury prevention in general. That\u2019s from what we heard in scrutiny week, and that\u2019s one of their core mandates\u2014if we are doing any review of Estimates week. But then by shifting it to critical risk only, are they now deprioritising other workplace injuries? That is going to be a concern because of the fact that\u2014we discussed this is a concern that ACC has, that what you\u2019re going to be seeing is more workplace injuries that may not be critical risk that still would put a burden on our ACC system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe two questions for clause 33 are: how would WorkSafe prioritise critical risks while not deprioritising injuries in general, and what is now WorkSafe\u2019s mandate when it comes to workplace injury prevention?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u00224bcf1dc0ed877d356203549036e78048\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224bcf1dc0ed877d356203549036e78048\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (11:20)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I\u2019m happy to take a couple of these contributions. Look, Jan Tinetti had a query about why reducing harm isn\u2019t one of WorkSafe\u2019s functions. The answer to this is that harm reduction is already covered in the purposes and objectives of the Act and WorkSafe. It\u2019s not a function at the moment. WorkSafe\u2019s guidance will help persons conducting a business or undertaking needing advice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI see this as WorkSafe going back to how it performed when it was first established. However, when we were doing the roadshows, what became really apparent was people saying that there had been a shift in WorkSafe that was not a helpful shift, and that they had moved more to being policemen. There were a lot of people who were quite fearful of asking WorkSafe for help. However, that was not the case when it was first established. This change will help elevate those four main functions to be of equal importance. I believe this will also be very helpful to people, but it\u2019s not the case that developing guidance has never been a function of WorkSafe, while at the same time needing to monitor and enforce compliance. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think that also then goes to the query from Lawrence Xu-Nan. Our health and safety law is based on the Australian model of the law, so our regulator\u2019s objective, functions, and powers are equivalent to the Australian jurisdiction\u2019s. It\u2019s been the case since day dot of WorkSafe that they are providing guidance while at the same time monitoring enforcement. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022831df48134d63e900906486a047d0b39\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022831df48134d63e900906486a047d0b39\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:22)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you for that, Minister. That\u2019s very interesting. What the Minister has then just clarified is that, in fact, we are shifting\u2014because, like the Minister said, people might be fearful of WorkSafe from a regulatory perspective\u2014more towards a policy perspective. But if we look at the Australian model I mentioned, Australia has two separate agencies\u2014one for policy and one for regulations. If we had such a system, that makes sense. But if we are having one system where we\u2019re only going to be mainly prioritising policy but not the regulations part, then what we are seeing is a complete reduction or weakening of the regulatory function in Aotearoa New Zealand, which is not the case in Australia.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn fact, Safe Work Australia as a regulatory body is incredibly stringent and powerful, particularly in certain states. In Western Australia for example, they are very strict, as well as in Victoria. I understand that we don\u2019t have a state/federal divide here in Aotearoa New Zealand, but those two separate bodies function very separately. If we had a bill here where WorkSafe was, essentially, split into two different agencies, that would potentially make sense, but that\u2019s not the case. I want to check with the Minister, then, if that\u2019s an accurate representation of what is happening here\u2014in which case, having one agency and deprioritising regulations is a bit of a concern.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do want to move on to clause 34 though. I take the point of the Hon Jan Tinetti around this, where, now, you\u2019re looking at the main functions, and I do acknowledge what the Minister has said. One of the things that did jump out at me is what is currently listed in section 10 of the WorkSafe New Zealand Act. In section 10 currently is a whole list. Basically, the Minister pulled out four of them and said, \u201CThese are now your four main functions; the rest are all secondary\u201D. That\u2019s what we see in clause 34(1), (2), and (3). \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the things that I found was quite interesting and that I want to check with the Minister\u2014I have a tabled amendment on this, lodged at 8.00.24 a.m.\u2014is that, in section 10(g) of the WorkSafe New Zealand Act, it says that WorkSafe is only promoting and supporting the likes of research, education, and all of those. For me, promoting and supporting does not mean they themselves do it. Is WorkSafe themselves actively also doing research and also conducting education? It doesn\u2019t seem to be clear within the current WorkSafe New Zealand Act 2013. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBecause we are amending section 10 anyway, I think it\u2019s also important for us to look at the functions as a whole from that Act, which is open to amendment. My amendment for section 10(g) is to replace \u201Cpromote and support\u201D with \u201Cpromote, support, and conduct\u201D, just to say that WorkSafe might be doing all three. I want to check with the Minister if the Minister would be interested in that amendment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022296db50223c4e4d321d33f3e6166c0b2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022296db50223c4e4d321d33f3e6166c0b2\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (11:25)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m happy to take this contribution. Look, no, I won\u2019t be supporting that amendment, but I thank the member for asking. To some extent, there is a split already in New Zealand in that we have a policy shop, being the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), as opposed to having policy coming directly out of WorkSafe. We have policy, and then we have WorkSafe, that does the guidance and enforcement, but the guidance and enforcement has been there since the start.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of that contribution around whether we need them to be doing even more research: in some ways, that is even MBIE\u2019s role, but I\u2019d be surprised if they didn\u2019t do a little bit of it if they wanted to. However, I don\u2019t see that as a main function. This whole purpose here is about aligning it with the Health and Safety at Work Act. If we\u2019re focusing on critical risks and trying to simplify the law within the Health and Safety at Work Act, it does make sense then to have correlating changes to the WorkSafe New Zealand Act, where, of course, there\u2019ll be a need for guidance and enforcement. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThese are not big changes. The functions of WorkSafe are there in the law; we\u2019re simply, like we\u2019re doing with critical risks, prioritising what people need to focus on, and here, for WorkSafe, given that they have such a range of functions, we\u2019re making sure that they need to prioritise guidance, developing codes of practice, developing safe work instruments, and monitoring and enforcing compliance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224a6d50620e3cfd04dba68923e7b23ca7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Just a general reminder for members: when they\u2019re approaching the Table to pick up papers, could they be aware of what\u2019s happening in the Chamber and not get in the way\u2014particularly during this part where a Minister and a member may be having an interaction. It\u2019s just committee management.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002251d50e5bc4addde673391f20f67a085c\u0022\u003EHon Dr Deborah Russell\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chair, I very deliberately waited until the member had ceased speaking so that I could come. So when am I to get the papers?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228eec51374ddfd947d6d12282526bf952\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: This is a general observation, not directed at any particular member\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e77ad2631f86be282c31b20b5df7b180\u0022\u003EHon Dr Deborah Russell\u003C/span\u003E: Should I crawl along the floor?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022909b9a2ab0969f92c262b269be10444e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014just the timing of it. The member might just like to sit and calm down.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022f6d00474b7ad58b2f7e1950613e28d6d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f6d00474b7ad58b2f7e1950613e28d6d\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:28)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I do want to just have a quick follow-up with the Minister. Thank you, Minister, for your response. Just one quick one. What we\u2019re seeing is that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is in charge of the policy, and, now, WorkSafe is also doing some of the research and policy and very little in terms of the regulatory function. I think, in that case, other than the four main functions that the Minister has identified, can I interpret it that clause 34(d), amending section 10, \u201Cto monitor and enforce compliance\u201D, specifically only that one is fulfilling the regulatory function of WorkSafe now, under the main functions?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022 data-id=\u0022d02d5eb1f3afee6463cf65231f667b87\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d02d5eb1f3afee6463cf65231f667b87\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (11:28)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Very quickly, when I\u2019ve gone through this with people in recent times, this particular clause\u2014clause 34, I\u2019m talking about, of Part 2\u2014there\u2019s been a question about what that means for the structural changes in WorkSafe itself. Certainly, I have had some information this week that says there\u2019s been some disestablishment of some teams in WorkSafe which are critical teams to working with some pretty gnarly issues that we have. I\u2019m talking about\u2014and I hope I don\u2019t offend anybody by saying this\u2014things like suicide that have been caused from workplace harm.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIt seems to me that if that information is correct and those teams are being disestablished, we\u2019ve got some issues, because we\u2019ve still got huge issues and terrible statistics in that area and other areas. I want to know what this particular change\u2014because I think that\u2019s only fair for people who are asking this question, too\u2014will mean for what the structural change of WorkSafe will look like now and the changes that have been now and in the last few months, but also going forward, and what future changes we would expect to see.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022874b8d217e5beac75ae05ab1cb059c61\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022874b8d217e5beac75ae05ab1cb059c61\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (11:30)\u003C/span\u003E: Happy to take both of these contributions. Look, in terms of Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s question about, does this mean that there is only one regulatory function for WorkSafe, being the compliance part? No, I think that\u2019s just a misunderstanding of being a regulator. Regulators have multiple roles, and so it\u2019s not the fact that regulatory response is only the stick. Sometimes, regulators actually have multiple functions, and you can look across regulators all across Government. I think David Seymour pointed out there was nearly over 260 of them. Most of them have multiple roles. It\u2019s not just to enforce compliance. There are other elements to it as well. For WorkSafe, this simply clarifies which functions are central to the regulator\u2019s core role, but it\u2019s not saying that there\u2019s only one role within WorkSafe. In fact, it\u2019s talking about that there\u2019s multiple regulatory functions within that regulator.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ETo the second contribution of Jan Tinetti. Look, suicide is a very, very important issue in this country, and one that we shouldn\u2019t make light of at all. However, the difficulty with the member raising it here is to try and figure out what the specific interaction of that with this law is, because she\u2019s really talking about having heard of some potential operational change within WorkSafe. Now, I would suggest that that is better suited as a question to the chief executive of WorkSafe, potentially at the next hearing where the chief executive would be present, as I don\u2019t actually have an effect on the operational side of WorkSafe as opposed to the law and the legal effect of the legislation, which is what we are actually talking about today, so I don\u2019t want to get into that more operational side.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022 data-id=\u00222c46f2f86964a7da90324335e155ca26\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222c46f2f86964a7da90324335e155ca26\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (11:32)\u003C/span\u003E: Very quickly then, and I am talking about the legislation, and surely that has been thought about by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. What potential\u2014and the Minister must have had those conversations as you\u2019re developing this legislation\u2014changes would you see in the structure and the work of WorkSafe as a result of this legislation? This legislation deliberately makes a change to the functions of WorkSafe, so I\u2019m trying to get an understanding of what that would look like, and it is a question that is being asked. I totally agree that there is an operational component to that, but at the same time, as Ministers, and as a Minister, there must have been a discussion about what that would look like or could look like.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00220d467c7484d059b5c64f2ddaf1963797\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220d467c7484d059b5c64f2ddaf1963797\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:33)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Just a very quick question from me. Thank you, Minister. I was mainly referring to the new main functions. I understand there are also additional functions that WorkSafe will have in terms of the regulatory aspects. Can I just check, from me, with these new main functions from WorkSafe, how would that then interact with the existing action plans and the prioritisation within WorkSafe as an organisation? Would you expect WorkSafe to also be, I guess, restructuring or reprioritising, to a certain extent, based on this? Is that something WorkSafe has already done and this just happens to line up with what they\u2019re doing? Or does the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety expect some new changes within WorkSafe?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u00225e9e3c0f572ec5d8d25f74c094fd67e0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225e9e3c0f572ec5d8d25f74c094fd67e0\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (11:34)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Just in relation to Part 2, what is the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety\u2019s view around the responsibility that she has, as the Minister responsible for WorkSafe, for providing direction to WorkSafe in terms of the way that they implement their operational directions? Obviously, there are changes here to the primary piece of legislation that directs WorkSafe and everything that they do, and I\u2019ve heard the Minister say that how they implement that is operational. How is she going to be holding them to account given these changes which seek to change their priorities? What is the Minister\u2019s role in implementing this piece of legislation and how will she hold WorkSafe to account?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022b5df97ac5d5e052fc86c63944d15dae5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b5df97ac5d5e052fc86c63944d15dae5\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (11:35)\u003C/span\u003E: Happy to take this. Look, I think there\u2019s a potential difference of opinion in how legislation and the debate around this is supposed to take place as opposed to the Minister\u2019s day-to-day interactions with the chief executive of a regulatory agency. What I\u2019m doing here today is changing the law, and to Camilla Belich, Jan Tinetti, and Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s query about how this affects operations: that is set out in things like the statements of performance expectations and the Minister\u2019s letters of expectations, which we revise yearly and we do our ongoing analysis of, and I have monthly meetings with the chair of the board as well as the chief executive of WorkSafe. But the operational side itself I see as sitting somewhat at length of what the specific debate is today, which is about simply, in these clauses 32 to 34, reprioritising some of the current functions of WorkSafe so that we are prioritising the providing guidance, developing approved codes of practice, developing safe work instruments, and monitoring and enforcing compliance. We\u2019re not going into the day-to-day operations of WorkSafe as an agency, and those things are mainly dealt with through the select committee processes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022eaa765e6fb390633e48be85bc4e97d31\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022eaa765e6fb390633e48be85bc4e97d31\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:36)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. With due respect to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, I understand that the Minister is not in charge of the day-to-day operations of WorkSafe, but the policy intent that the Minister would have would affect the operations of WorkSafe. I\u2019m not asking whether the Minister understands the nuance of the operations of WorkSafe, but more like\u2014this is something that has been signalled for a while. We have a regulatory impact statement dated to 2015. In the conversations that the Minister had with WorkSafe, has the Minister given indication, through the changes in this bill, that there are some ministerial expectations of changes within WorkSafe that now need to align with the new prioritisation and the main functions that is now detailed, as opposed to one long list, now you\u2019ve got four main ones? Has that come up?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u00229ff3a4b3b60db7e6270d3c58e1d6f855\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229ff3a4b3b60db7e6270d3c58e1d6f855\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (11:37)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll tidy this off, but I might start repeating myself ad nauseam. That is changed through the appropriations structure that has also taken place in Budget 2026 with changes to the appropriations and the fact that we have, now, buckets of funds as opposed to just one appropriation in general which splits out money being given to guidance as well as money given to compliance, and there are different funds structures there, and that will be how I monitor that going forward.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EBut also, yes, I have had ongoing conversations with the chief executive and senior leadership at WorkSafe in terms of, how do we gear up for legislative change? That is already under way with guidance being produced, ready to go out the door as soon as the legislation takes effect, if not earlier. But there have also been an ongoing conversations since my 2024 roadshow about how we ensure that WorkSafe is currently meeting the Minister\u2019s expectations external to what the legislation itself says, that they should be more proactive in providing guidance. WorkSafe has done, over the last year, quite a long process of stripping old guidance documents that are no longer relevant from the website, changing how people can actually go and talk to WorkSafe about their queries. We have far too many different ways of getting in touch with WorkSafe and we\u2019re streamlining that. There\u2019s a lot of operational stuff that sits outside of the legislation that happens in terms of the operations. But this law that we are debating today does not touch, I don\u2019t believe, a lot on that. I believe that is mainly through the letters of expectations and the statements of performance expectations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u002273c02a422e32a2fe5bd6eab5a4297cb2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002273c02a422e32a2fe5bd6eab5a4297cb2\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (11:39)\u003C/span\u003E: Minister, when the first reading of this bill passed, you made a public comment to state that the bill will require WorkSafe to move from an approach of accepting everyone to address every possible risk towards one which WorkSafe provides guidance on critical risks. How does that statement work with the general objectives of the primary piece of legislation to create healthier and safer workplaces? Is this change to require workplaces to only focus on critical risks, which I appreciate is stated in her public statements on the bill? How is that consistent with the purpose of the Health and Safety at Work Act? Because it appears, on the face of it, to be the opposite.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022899776e2eab0dff2dd7b81620ceb7619\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022899776e2eab0dff2dd7b81620ceb7619\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (11:40)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m happy to take that. It also, in part, talks, I think, to the difficulty\u2014that came from Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s contribution\u2014where the regulator can actually have multiple functions. Camilla Belich\u2019s question there was: is this requiring WorkSafe to only focus on critical risks? No, because the four main functions it talks about are things like developing, reviewing, and recommending codes of practice, developing safe work instruments\u2014safe work instruments are not necessarily a function of the critical risks under here; they\u2019re a separate thing in and of themselves\u2014and monitoring and enforcing compliance with the relevant health and safety legislation. Now, we acknowledge that there is a prioritisation of critical risks, but to the members original point of wanting everybody to focus on all risks all the time, WorkSafe still has to manage the non-critical risks for the large organisations as well, so, no, it\u2019s not the case that WorkSafe is only focusing on critical risks, because if they focused only on critical risks, it wouldn\u2019t focus on the risks that the large businesses have to monitor as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002219c2858d0a403b4fabdb2e817d5c45ed\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendments to Part 2 deleting provisions relating to critical risk are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 34(1), new section 10(1), be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001325\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001326\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022664b5cd59345c23584b7e10905e42fd6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Thanks for your patience, members. We\u2019re just accommodating some later amendments here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Francisco Hernandez\u2019s tabled amendment to delete clause 33(2) be agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001333\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001334\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022206bfc2d6df655b33a20c356a189e84c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Francisco Hernandez\u2019s tabled amendment replacing clause 33(b) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Teanau Tuiono\u2019s tabled amendments deleting provisions in clauses 33 and 34 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001341\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001342\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eb242f711c539d5f23ac318672e62d56\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s tabled amendments to clause 34 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001348\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001349\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ffb4a97470b3176210d55e1b4d719c5e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, there are four amendments in the name of Francisco Hernandez proposing to replace clause 34(3). To test the will of the committee, I will put the question on one of those amendments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Francisco Hernandez\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 34(3) repealing section 10(e), (ea), and (f) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001356\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001357\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e085da235378518bd997b33acd7b22c5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The will of the committee having been tested, Francisco Hernandez\u2019s remaining three tabled amendments to clause 34(3) are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001363\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001366\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022962c4fad92ce4c50387b4bee73be1adf\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, before I come to Part 3, you will note the discussion around the decisions to group amendments. The quid pro quo of that will be, as you\u2019ll note that the Speaker said yesterday, that time is better spent on debate than on voting, and that will be a consideration of the Chair when considering a closure motion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c0558d728dd64a07edb554564584a8ca\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u002209b4fda5c5bbb54e8eaae34ce12de208\u0022\u003EPart 3 Amendments to Health and Safety at Work (General Risk and Workplace Management) Regulations 2016\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222fa2eb47f92ba4affea57e0ce596659c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to Part 3. Part 3 is the debate on clauses 35 to 38, \u201CAmendments to Health and Safety at Work (General Risk and Workplace Management) Regulations 2016\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=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u0022d97df070d5b775a25c6d0dd6e9d60062\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d97df070d5b775a25c6d0dd6e9d60062\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (11:48)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. When we look at Part 3, we see the impact of the changes that the Government is making to the health and safety system in New Zealand, and I have some specific questions around the general risk and the workplace management regulations and the impact that the Minister intends that these have on New Zealand workplaces. I\u2019ll start first with clause 36. Clause 36 affects the regulation. That\u2019s a general regulation to provide information, supervision, training, and instruction. At the moment, this is a general regulation that applies to all workplaces, and it talks about making sure that a worker who carries out any work of any kind and uses plant or equipment of any kind or deals with a substance of any kind is trained to ensure that they don\u2019t cause risk in the workplace.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe effect of clause 36 is to state that that is only in relation to critical risk. So my question to the Minister is: what is her intention and what is her purpose of removing the duty to provide information, supervision, and training, and limiting it to critical risk? What is the likely impact on a persons conducting a business or undertaking of 20 and under due to this change that she\u2019s put in place in regulation 9? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do have a number of questions; I don\u2019t know if the Minister is ready to answer that now, but I do have some questions in relation to the other clauses, which are similar. I\u2019ll take it that\u2014I\u2019ll move those questions now unless the Minister is ready to respond. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u00226c9ca1d72e15d0a4efdf54b5e4a69863\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226c9ca1d72e15d0a4efdf54b5e4a69863\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (11:50)\u003C/span\u003E: Look, I think this should knock off quite a few of the contributions that will come from here. But in essence, these amendments in clauses 36 to 38 give effect to the small person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) critical risk limitation that is set out in clause 11, new section 25A(1)(a)(ii). It is clarifying that the duties apply to small PCBUs only in relation to critical risks.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u002298d71208ac9d3fab4fe6a2d7852c19ce\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002298d71208ac9d3fab4fe6a2d7852c19ce\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (11:51)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you to the Minister for answering that question so quickly. However, I\u2019m not sure if it was sufficiently addressed in terms of the information I was wanting to obtain from the answer. I do understand and I think the committee understands that on the clear reading of this, there is a carve out\u2014and I use that language because it\u2019s the language that the Minister has used publicly in relation to small businesses\u2014in relation to small businesses that only now have to deal with critical risk. That\u2019s understood. The question that I have in relation to training is: what is the impact that there is likely to be on workplaces in New Zealand for those small workplaces?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnother question that I have, which is similar and which might help illuminate the type of response that I\u2019m looking to get, is that if we look at clause 37 and we look at the general duty of a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) to provide personal protective equipment, and we see that\u2014I\u2019ve got that in front of me now\u2014in regulation 15 of the general risk and workplace management regulations. Now, that clause states that personal protective equipment must be given to workers unless it\u2019s already been provided by another PCBU, and it has fines in there. So this is a very specific question too. The fines that a PCBU would attract if they do not provide personal protective equipment would be $10,000 and $50,000 for an individual or another person, presumably a company. My question to the Minister again is: what is her expectation, in terms of change of behaviour, that implementing this specific regulation that, as the Minister stated herself, carves out small businesses from this regulation? What can New Zealand workers expect? It appears to me that the Minister is removing, literally, personal protective equipment or the requirement to provide such apart from in the most risky situations. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThese are very practical questions. I don\u2019t feel the question in relation to clause 36 has been answered yet. On clause 37\u2014I understand the critical risk; we\u2019ve been over that\u2014I want to know what the practical implication for New Zealand workers of these changes is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022b35b076e3fff686c0b732e2084b93aae\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b35b076e3fff686c0b732e2084b93aae\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (11:53)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Yes, look, I\u2019m happy to give this one a go here. Look, in terms of the question originally about the training aspect and how this relates, the use of machinery is an example, or if you\u2019re a company that uses hazardous substances, those would be classified as things that need management as critical risks. Training for those types of critical risks would still remain. It is simply the lower-level training for minor risks that would not be a requirement under the law. Things like how to use a standard kitchen tap would not be a requirement for someone to need to know how to use, but for serious critical risks like hazardous machinery and substances, those would require training.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESimilarly, I think the main point here when it relates to personal protective equipment (PPE), as it relates also to the training, are the stories that I heard when I was doing the roadshow, approximately two years ago now, where people believed that workers on work sites as well as business managers were not taking training or PPE seriously, because they have so much of it. If there is so much training and it\u2019s not apparent what is actually important training as opposed to just training for the sake of it, or compliance for the sake of it, it starts to have less effect. It starts to mean less to people. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s the same for PPE. If you see PPE everywhere, all the time, on everything that you\u2019re working on, there also is the potential impact that people no longer feel like they need to actually acknowledge the risks, and they are not able to discern as well between a low and a high risk. You see this in all sorts of environments and all sorts of different workplaces. However, the changes here mean that providing PPE and ensuring workers use it are required when they actually need it, whereas there are real harms from substances or equipment that the PPE is being provided for, for critical risks. It does mean that businesses don\u2019t need to be worried about providing it for lower risks, but I think the ultimate impact will be that both businesses and workers, when they\u2019re dealing with training and PPE, will take it far more seriously than they currently do, because it will actually identify and mean you\u2019re dealing with a significant harm.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022056da92935691665e379f4d2f9263afb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022056da92935691665e379f4d2f9263afb\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:56)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for that response, Minister, but I think it is important, following on from the Minister\u2019s response and my colleague Camilla Belich is that what the Minister\u2019s said is correct. It is human nature, it is within our human nature that if we constantly have something repetitive over and over again, whether it\u2019s small risk or even critical risk, where there\u2019s been no injury as a result of that, our brain is trained to deprioritise the risk. To give an example to the committee, we often when we\u2019re driving don\u2019t think about the potential impact of driving until we have an accident or something happens, in which case for a little while we\u2019re going to be really cautious about how we drive, until our brain is trained to desensitise ourselves so we no longer consider that to be important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBecause what the Minister is saying is actually not simply about prioritising critical risk or non-critical risk but about describing a general human nature. I don\u2019t think that, within this particular part, the changes are going to be making per what Camilla Belich mentioned before, we are going to be seeing that shift in behaviour just because, now, small persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs) are only going to be focusing on critical risk and not non-critical risk. We still are going to be seeing the same sort of human behaviour manifesting. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think that this is important because to be honest, for the Minister, that is one of the key considerations and barriers for health and safety managers or anyone who works in health and safety is around that human nature. I think pandering to this idea that people can be, \u201COh, well, we can\u2019t, then, prioritise.\u201D or etc. doesn\u2019t actually address the baseline issues that we\u2019re seeing manifesting in this part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to check a couple of other things when it comes to personal protective equipment (PPE), and I want to test a couple of things with the Minister. The first thing is I want to test the scenario that, for example, in the event of the pandemic, PPE was huge. We were expected to wear masks etc. as a way of reducing transmission. Under this new requirement, would PCBUs no longer need to provide PPE in the context of this as a critical risk? In the event of a pandemic, for example, or let\u2019s say the peak of flu season, would the Minister still consider the provision of PPE to still be considered a critical risk, and if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere are other things, I guess, in terms of clause 37 and clause 38 in terms of providing PPE and also ensuring that PPE is worn and used. Again, what we\u2019re not hearing from the Minister is that actual practicality of someone who works in health and safety in terms of what the workers\u2019 behaviours are. I guess from the Minister\u2019s perspective, what, then, is the tangible experience the Minister has had when she\u2019s looking at how to ensure workers\u2019\u2014whether it\u2019s critical risk or non-critical risk\u2014PPE is being worn? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to draw the Minister\u2019s attention to an earlier discussion that we had\u2014which I also think is important\u2014pertaining to this section, which is that when we\u2019re looking at the hierarchy of intervention, PPE is a way of engineering, I guess, that intervention. If we\u2019re cutting that out, what are the other considerations for small PCBUs when it comes to non-critical risk regarding elimination, mitigation, signage, and also, at the bottom, to do nothing. Those are my three questions to the Minister so far.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022ba55d6d0ea260419911b5479d2620e89\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ba55d6d0ea260419911b5479d2620e89\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (12:00)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for his contribution. I think he speaks to a real problem here, which is how you effect culture change. This is, essentially, what the aim of the bill is designed to do, which is to allow companies and workers to take critical risks far more seriously and to identify risks and focus on real risks, rather than on having compliance for the sake of it and having compliance and policies that are not necessarily followed. That was something that we heard a lot of when we went to talk to people on the ground, outside of Wellington, in 2024. There is a sense of desensitisation to risks because people are being asked to manage all risks all the time, and, therefore, with companies and businesses and workers who have limited time and resource to figure out what it is that they need to try and manage, it is in some ways overwhelming.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHow do we ensure that when they are doing training, when they\u2019re using personal protective equipment (PPE), and when they are doing their day-to-day operations, they are identifying and managing the things that will truly cause harm, and are not focusing on the wrong things\u2014and that\u2019s what this entire bill has been about. Yes, there is a sense of desensitisation to the risks. I think the impact of this law will mean that people focus on the right things and that we have more interest in stamping out the critical risks and managing them, but that is the focus behind this law. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen the member was discussing the use of PPE and whether or not another COVID or a pandemic could come through and asking what would be the requirements there, that was actually addressed under the public health law during COVID, not through the health and safety law. That was managed under a different form of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022 data-id=\u00225855eb5a00575f6bfdde4fb511689977\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225855eb5a00575f6bfdde4fb511689977\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (12:02)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. It\u2019s a little bit of a follow-up to that answer in that the Minister is talking about desensitisation to risks. Isn\u2019t there a fear, then, that we\u2019re not identifying all of the risks in those smaller persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs) under this particular bill\u2014trying to solve a problem or a perceived problem by saying that that they\u2019re only focusing on critical risks.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELike my colleague from the Greens, I want to use a little bit of a scenario around clause 36, which talks about information, supervision, training, and instruction. If a business or PCBU was identifying only critical risks and they were a business that required their workers to lift some boxes, but not all of the time, and put them on to shelves\u2014which maybe happens in quite a number of businesses. They didn\u2019t see that there were any critical risks that came from that and so they didn\u2019t identify and they didn\u2019t provide any training or instruction around the right ways to do that, and over time they started to see that their workers were getting back injuries or musculoskeletal injuries that were forcing them to take time off work. But because they didn\u2019t identify that because it wasn\u2019t a critical risk, then isn\u2019t that an issue that this bill is creating? In trying to save that desensitising, this is actually creating another issue, and isn\u2019t that maybe an unintended consequence of what this bill is trying to solve? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI ask this quite sincerely. By taking away that focus on all risks from those PCBUs, we\u2019re actually going to create more of an issue, and that is what people did bring up a lot in the select committee and since then. So it\u2019s a genuine question that I\u2019m asking of the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022d87875a23456ed1e190d1d5e7802c214\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d87875a23456ed1e190d1d5e7802c214\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (12:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, I\u2019m happy to respond\u2014thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I disagree. I think, in part, what we have here is we\u2019re looking at identifying the risks, and under the current law, the small persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs) have to identify all their risks now and they will continue to have to identify the risks, but they only have to manage their critical risks, and in identifying their risks, the PCBU needs to look at, among other things, their activities and the incidents and injuries that they do have. But, in part, what I think the member is not referring to is the fact that we are also asking WorkSafe to develop and produce guidance on risks, as well as having more approved codes of practice, which would be set by industries, and which would say, \u201CIf you would like to try and comply with the law, here is what you need to do.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThose are industry standards that, over time, will be developed to actually help produce that on-the-ground guidance on what are the critical risks in certain activities across industries. I think that this, in part, points to the fact that we\u2019ve actually well-designed the system so that you are focusing not on everything under the sun, but prioritising the critical areas that will create harm. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EYou\u2019re also allowing industry to be leaders on what are the critical risks within their own workspaces, and I think that is actually a much better way of getting culture change across this country, rather than having WorkSafe as the one saying, \u201CWe\u2019re setting all the standards for everything that you need to do, and we\u2019re here as the bad guys.\u201D We are actually allowing industry, with unions and workers, to set those standards for themselves, with WorkSafe\u2019s help and guidance to do the technical elements of those approved codes of practice, but that will, in essence, be far stronger for cultural change across New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELawrence Xu-Nan also then had a query about personal protective equipment (PPE): how it was then fitting into the hierarchy of controls. PPE is one of the hierarchy of control measures that a PCBU uses to minimise risks that cannot be eliminated. It is to be applied only after all other higher controls have been found to be ineffective or not reasonably practicable. So higher controls could be isolating the hazard or substituting the hazard with something less risky.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u00226ff269632a45d4eba2bd9cc2b11e2686\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226ff269632a45d4eba2bd9cc2b11e2686\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (12:07)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think we\u2019re getting really to the heart of this bill now. We are looking at the removal from regulation of fines for small businesses who don\u2019t comply with health and safety laws, and I think that if you want to look for some actual change, then those are certainly two areas, in terms of the levels of the fine, that are being changed by this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI still feel that in terms of the motivation and the actual impact on work science, we haven\u2019t had a clear answer on what change will be. I wanted to ask the Minister: can she provide the committee with some examples of personal protective equipment that would be worn to protect from risk, but would not be useful for critical risk? The reason I ask this question is because it appears to me that most protective equipment would protect against both critical risk and also risk that wouldn\u2019t meet the standard of critical risk, and so what I would like to hear from the Minister is: is it by specifically removing the requirements for small businesses from these clauses\u2014and I\u2019ve touched on my last contribution on clauses 36 and 37, but clause 38 is also important. The reason that clause 38 is important is that this is the duty that extends to making sure that other people that you might be responsible for in a PCBU\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ca56a7045a7ed61bcd125884b14a564d\u0022\u003EHon Simon Watts\u003C/span\u003E: This has been covered in the select committee. You covered this question in the select committee\u2014same question. You\u2019re just repeating questions from the select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225e1a4d34272d3f03f14b324bae212b85\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, were you in the select committee, Minister Watts? Well, this is very interesting. This is very interesting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e12c7d3efb65fa6b294f766079e8e6ef\u0022\u003EHon Simon Watts\u003C/span\u003E: Wasting time\u2014wasting time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228fd1051fdeec66543a755602e6006efa\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH\u003C/span\u003E: Take a call\u2014this is very interesting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a2c86d0f4cb7c8092314acca318e8f5e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Actually, this is wasting time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223663279edb2b4d1d231dde5c89dcb6f1\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH\u003C/span\u003E: This is very interesting to hear Minister Watts heckle across the Chamber against the requirement for people in small businesses to have personal protective equipment. I\u2019m certain there are a lot of people on the North Shore who may be hurt and maimed by the fact that these are being removed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWhether it\u2019s been covered in select committee or not, we don\u2019t have the Minister in the chair in select committee and this is our chance as the Opposition to actually put\u2014 \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f7a4f376be7f77501929b03d72ec8dbd\u0022\u003EHon Simon Watts\u003C/span\u003E: Wasting time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bbbd82ea2f6da1fb231832652a023ebf\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014key questions. If this is a waste of time, this was started by the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022679a47ea4e91407c6a00ed862ffd808d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: OK, that\u2019s enough. We don\u2019t have the debate across the House. The member needs to address the member in the chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e3e645faf210a48caedbc4bddd50eab3\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I would actually like an answer to that question. I don\u2019t believe has been covered. I don\u2019t think that we have heard from the Minister about the exact reason that suddenly these small businesses who might be providing personal protective equipment will not be providing personal protective equipment and the logic for that, in that most personal protective equipment will provide protection from risk from harm and also critical risk\u2014a specific example. We\u2019ve heard some scenarios raised by members, as well, but this is important because this is how the bill will actually be interpreted. We haven\u2019t covered clause 38 before, so specifically that duty in relation to personal protective equipment used by other persons. I\u2019d appreciate an answer from the Minister on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u002278553adbe8340b2992c6d530768964a9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002278553adbe8340b2992c6d530768964a9\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (12:11)\u003C/span\u003E: Look, happy to take Camilla Belich\u2019s contributions. The original query was about fines and the belief that somehow this is all about just removing fines. I just wanted to clarify that the key enforcement mechanisms and penalties that WorkSafe uses remain unchanged in this law. Second to that, I was asked questions about being very specific about particular types of personal protective equipment (PPE) that could be used in certain companies for critical risks and not for other risks and for non-critical activities and other critical activities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELook, I\u2019m just not going to get into the ins and outs; there are so many different businesses and companies and individual arrangements, but I\u2019ll give a very clear example of one area where you\u2019d have some PPE for a critical risk where you wouldn\u2019t then use it around the rest of the work site. You know, you might be a welder; you think of a welder and you\u2019ve got an actual, very physical mask that you\u2019re needing to wear for a very high-hazard environment. You don\u2019t need to use that for every single thing a welder is doing every single day. You need to do it for the act of welding, but you don\u2019t need to wear that around the entire work site at all times. That\u2019s one clear example of something that fits into critical risk that you wouldn\u2019t need to wear in the lunch room, for example, or you wouldn\u2019t need to wear it doing some other activity, as a welder. I\u2019m sure all welders out there listening to that would say, \u201CWell, of course you don\u2019t, that\u2019s just silly.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s just a clear example of something that\u2019s PPE for critical risk, but not for non-critical risk, but I\u2019m not going to go into the ins and outs because there\u2019s just so many different industry types and we\u2019ll just waste time here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u002299f7233c8bc6e651ad296f41e9dc3346\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002299f7233c8bc6e651ad296f41e9dc3346\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (12:12)\u003C/span\u003E: I just want to check a couple of the responses from the Minister. Thank you for responding to my questions, but just to the last example that the Minister gave: surely, the thing is the rules are very clear, currently, that some of those are already in existing legislation and we don\u2019t need to have an additional carve-out, surely. The two things the Minister responded to: the comment around the fact that she\u2019s heard people who said that they\u2019re overwhelmed by the volume of the different kind of risks that they have to manage, which then causes the desensitisation. I do want to check: is that anecdotal or is that empirical? Is there empirical evidence that the Minister has that suggests volume affects desensitisation, because what I mentioned before in terms of emotional habituation and normalisation of deviance, those have genuine psychological bases, and they are well researched in terms of how that does affect desensitisation, whether it\u2019s critical risk or not. I want to check with the evidential basis for the idea that volume will lead to that; this is clause 38 for that question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EFor clause 37, just in terms of the hierarchy of controls\u2014thank you, Minister, for responding to that question as well\u2014I guess that then does raise a new question. The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) sits around the mid to lower range of hierarchy of controls, but then by splitting that out and saying that the hierarchy of controls with PPE will only be for critical risk for small persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs), does that mean that small PCBUs will still need to fulfil their requirement for non-critical risk for the higher tiered hierarchy of control in terms of health and safety management, such as elimination, mitigations, or limitation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022d60040bd41d7e6276dd8bb3c26ad2c4b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d60040bd41d7e6276dd8bb3c26ad2c4b\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (12:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m interested\u2014and this is my first call on this bill, but I have been listening to the Minister\u2019s responses and am interested in this carve-out with the small businesses, as we\u2019ve been calling them, but of course it\u2019s for all of the persons conducting a business or undertaking. I note, in an answer to another question in another part, the Minister referred to the fact that whilst most businesses are small businesses in number, the fact that the employed members are 27 percent of the workforce, are employed by these greater number but smaller workforce entities\u2014she then also said that the groups that are exempted in the definitions of \u201Csmall\u201D include the nine-month exemptions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019m wondering if the Minister can comment on how many there are that are not just the 27 percent of the normal definition of \u201Csmall business\u201D, given the Minister has said that the 20 employees comes from this normal, convenient definition of small businesses being the 27 percent of the workforce. How many, then, is added to that, being this additional exemption of the nine months? That is relevant to Part 3, of course, because this is where we see the carve-out coming. So the question is: does the Minister know how many people this carve-out will apply to? It\u2019s clearly more than 27 percent of the workforce. How much more and how can she be comfortable with that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022e1ca6b5a3566382b70b33fa6f23cf8f5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e1ca6b5a3566382b70b33fa6f23cf8f5\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (12:17)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Actually, just a very quick clarification from you: the Minister has been very good in terms of seeking advice and also answering our questions diligently. If we do get to a situation where we finish this part, just seeking your guidance that we\u2019re able to allow the Minister to continue some of those responses, unless she has them now, when we move to the next section.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022bf982983b7bb237ed516ed32426f22e6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bf982983b7bb237ed516ed32426f22e6\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (12:17)\u003C/span\u003E: I can answer. To Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s question about the small persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs) and do they need to apply other controls to non-critical risks, small PCBUs do not have to manage non-critical risks, so they do not need to supply the personal protective equipment (PPE) for the non-critical risks.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHe also queried about the empirical evidence and, look, there was a lot of anecdotal evidence, but I would also note that in Labour\u2019s objection, I think, to the 2015 Act, when I was reading the select committee report and the minority view from Labour, it was also a concern that maybe there was too much influence by anecdotal evidence. I would say, in something like this, when you\u2019re actually going out and talking to people on the ground\u2014the Kiwis out there every day doing the hard work\u2014that is important information. We don\u2019t just need to have statistics and surveys; we can actually go and talk to people who don\u2019t usually get captured by Government consultation. Many of the people that I was talking to out there around New Zealand said it\u2019s the first time they\u2019ve ever met a Government Minister, let alone interacted with a Government department. I think it is important for us to take their concerns quite strongly. We don\u2019t need to just listen to people who are so-called experts; we can actually listen to the people doing the hard yakka. Our officials are aware of the international evidence about the disproportionate effect of health and safety compliance requirements on small PCBUs, as opposed to large businesses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI would also say that, no, there have been some surveys that I\u2019ve seen; there was a Site Safe survey as well that talked about the vast majority of people who replied to that survey believing that they needed to simplify the law for small businesses, as well as focusing on critical risks. So this was very popular as a policy platform, but also shows that this is not the Government acting alone; there were actually quite a lot of people out there in the real economy who also believe that there\u2019s too much regulation on small business. I think that the MYOB business insight survey talked about the fact that one of the top three things they wanted the Government to do was to simplify health and safety for small businesses. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ERachel Brooking had a query about the small business PCBUs, and, once again, the seasonal fluctuation. I would really suggest that that\u2019s mainly being ticked off in the previous parts, but it is true: the majority of New Zealand businesses have fewer than 10 employees. That\u2019s 94 percent have fewer than 10 employees, and my officials advise that they expect few businesses to actually fluctuate around that 20-worker threshold.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022440a125e85954bae9f5d470b7551e4f3\u0022 data-id=\u002267b430150fd4580a3343f5bbfa5cd5e2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001424\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022440a125e85954bae9f5d470b7551e4f3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002267b430150fd4580a3343f5bbfa5cd5e2\u0022\u003ECAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (12:20)\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001425\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001428\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ec6c933ea21a3e7d373c6600b2b012d2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendments to Part 3 deleting provisions relating to critical risk and small PCBUs are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Hon Jan Tinetti\u2019s tabled amendments to clauses 36 to 38 are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s tabled amendments deleting clauses 36 to 38 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001434\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001435\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001440\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001443\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 3 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f2603a5ffc291d911f18eb759472494\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s tabled amendment to Schedule 1 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001447\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001449\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001450\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001452\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022271d03df5517d4ebd089d17664f6bd8b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s tabled amendment to Schedule 1 to replace \u201Cmay be\u201D in clause 29(2) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001454\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001455\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Schedule 1 as amended be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001463\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 1 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223647380fe17d1f7e4f5fc674bcae9406\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendment to delete Schedule 2 is ruled out of order as being a direct negation of the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMembers, there are six amendments to Schedule 2 making insertions into new Schedule 1A in the names of Green Party members. To test the will of the committee, I will put the question on one of those amendments. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Mike Davidson\u2019s tabled amendment to Schedule 2 inserting an item relating to firefighting into new Schedule 1A be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat amendment be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001470\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e845063d2c4761848df9aaba976c52b7\u0022\u003EHon Dr Duncan Webb\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. I hope I\u2019m not pre-empting it, but I heard you say that you were going to take amendments together that were from Green Party members. Now, I just want some clarification here because I had heard that an earlier Chair had indicated that amendments from a particular member might be grouped together if they were on the same subject matter, but it would be very unusual to do it across party lines, because every member has an individual right to have an amendment tabled and considered. I\u2019m just wondering on what basis, on what Speaker\u2019s ruling or Standing Order, amendments are being grouped on party lines rather than coming from a particular member.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d3fe170501a58572200fb84022fc9e46\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, we have, as was explained earlier, some advice from Mr Speaker on the grouping of the votes, the questions that were being put. In order to expedite the bills and focus on the debate rather than the voting, this is how we are grouping them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222fdd8b7ce9151200e3e519a900b446ea\u0022\u003EHon Dr Duncan Webb\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. I see you might have some advice coming, but my point is I understand that\u2014and we certainly fully endorse focusing on the debate in committee stages. We heard that from the Speaker in the House. The grouping of identical or highly similar amendments is well recognised in Speakers\u2019 rulings and Standing Orders, but the grouping on the premise that they come from the same party is certainly not. That does not seem consistent with the statement of the Speaker from the Chair, but I see you\u2019ve got advice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226557974a3bc63caa0f2400078b5e5cad\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I understand your question. The advice I have is that you\u2019re referring to the first vote that we had to test the will of the committee, which was based on the Green Party. That was a selection of questions or amendments, not a grouping. So they weren\u2019t grouped by party, but they did come from the same party. There is a difference between selection and grouping. I hope that\u2019s helpful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002239908e2f3aea8a47e605fd5d2a29a227\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to that point of order\u2014thank you so much, Madam Chair. I appreciate what the Chair has just said. I want to double-check in terms of our interpretation of Standing Order 315(3)(a). In this case, you are testing the will, and my understanding is if you are selecting from a sample\u2014it would be good for us to know under what Standing Order that pertains to. My understanding, under Standing Order 315(3), is that when we\u2019re looking even in terms of the sampling of that, it must fulfil all three requirements of Standing Orders 315(3)(a) to (c). But if we\u2019re starting to select it based on either one of those, then it would be good for the House to understand that that is now going to be a new interpretation of that particular Standing Order. In Standing Order 315(3)(a), it specifies the amendments stand in the name of the same member, as opposed to different members or from a political party. That clarification between grouping and sampling is helpful, and which Standing Order is that sampling now coming from, because I\u2019m unaware of that particular Standing Order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022 data-id=\u0022912e27eef568f5d6dd156bff7650b882\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022912e27eef568f5d6dd156bff7650b882\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh) (12:31)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, Mr Speaker did make it clear when he addressed the House yesterday that he wants to ensure that the House runs smoothly and that debate on particular bills is done thoroughly and the House is not distracted by hours and hours of voting. That is not helpful in the running of the House, and it\u2019s certainly not good use of House time. If nothing else, the cost of that to the taxpayers does not add any value to the passage of legislation. I\u2019m just taking some more advice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe member has asked about the relevance of the difference\u2014so 315(3) and 315(4). Standing Order 315(3) applies to the grouping of the amendments, and 315(4) is the presiding officer testing the will of the committee and allowing for those amendments to be voted on together. We use the assistance of the Clerks to do that in the House Office in preparation for the votes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMembers, the will of the committee having been tested, the remaining five tabled amendments to Schedule 2 in the names of Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, Teanau Tuiono, H\u016Bhana Lyndon, and Francisco Hernandez are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Schedule 2 be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001484\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001486\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022fc22019b3a1086e32d27cc71bb24e58c\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u00221fa796e81b1b6d449ffb51f485377820\u0022\u003EClauses 1 and 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022633aae32bd9b4111c60116ce3b6a009b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: We now come to our final debate. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2, \u201CTitle\u201D and \u201CCommencement\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022d010c40678ed3e2b9c6cde48ff955f6d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d010c40678ed3e2b9c6cde48ff955f6d\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (12:34)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. As discussed in Part 1, I have tabled an amendment to change the commencement date so that all provisions of the bill come into force on 1 April 2027.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022d55dd3c2cd59dfa0c5594870f9bdec19\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d55dd3c2cd59dfa0c5594870f9bdec19\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (12:35)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Since you have raised it in terms of what the Speaker mentioned yesterday\u2014and I do endorse what the Speaker mentioned in terms of the amendments, but I think one part of what the Speaker mentioned yesterday is also a reminder to Ministers not to put in last-minute amendments. But we\u2019re in this peculiar situation where this is probably the first time where we have seen a tabled amendment by a Minister that is not even released ahead of time. I do want to check with the Minister on where this\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290a05c0f561045159bf3351d524a65ac\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022af89c22601ff7cf4d863eb61377eab99\u0022\u003ETim van de Molen\u003C/span\u003E: We saw it a lot under the last Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fd2e5db4e9f65f5358dd71ab28988986\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve seen a lot of yapping over on the other side, and I recommend that that member actually get up and take a call. I see so little that that Government is doing, or that party is doing, at all when it comes to the discussion of this\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001496\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227f52d1bf9f6bb3905a9369e1aed5b684\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I recommend the member comes back to the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001497\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d8fadbd9010b1e65ee195321374ecff7\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: I do want to know from the Minister about why this particular amendment with the date came about, because I feel like what we\u2019ve seen in terms of the public announcement from the Minister is in some ways inadequate, but also noting that this tabled amendment has no explanatory note attached to it, so there\u2019s no way for the committee to know where this amendment even came about. I think it would be really useful as a starting point for the Minister to explain how this amendment came about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022 data-id=\u0022ebdedc5d0196fcc3bcd1e87b1f58e2d2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001498\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ebdedc5d0196fcc3bcd1e87b1f58e2d2\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (12:36)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I too would like to acknowledge the amendment that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety has put forward and how late that came into being, but I also would like to acknowledge the tabled amendment of my colleague Camilla Belich, who put almost an identical amendment in prior to the Minister\u2019s amendment, also talking about making the commencement date 1 April 2027. I will point out to my colleague that there\u2019s a really good explanatory note there, so perhaps that might help the Minister as well in her answer to that question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat I will say is the very first thing that I said in this debate, which is that this gives us an opportunity to talk about why this extension of the commencement date has come into play. We know that there have been some discussions that have been going on between the coalition partners in this particular area. We have a number of tabled amendments about alternative dates that go out even further, and I dare say that the Minister probably won\u2019t take those into account.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001500\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut my first statement in this debate was about the fact that\u2014why are we even having this debate at the moment? This, effectively, kills this bill. This amendment kills this bill. This is exactly what it does. It will kill the bill, because we know that there are parties in the coalition team on that side of the House that have stated that they would get rid of this bill if they were elected back in. We know that this side of the House will get rid of this bill if we get elected in. Therefore, the bill is dead in the water. That is why this debate has been an absolute waste of time. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001501\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI really invite members on the other side to take a call. They haven\u2019t taken calls other than trying to close the debate the whole time, but I invite those members to take this call. I love the fact that we\u2019ve got some of them who think that they know a lot about what\u2019s going on who haven\u2019t been anywhere near this select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001502\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen we come to this amendment, it is likely that we will actually support this, but I too would like to ask the Minister why this amendment came into being, because there isn\u2019t an explanatory note that goes there. I think that\u2019s really important, because it was very late in the piece that this got tabled.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve seen some of the commentary that\u2019s been through the media, but it would be nice to know whether that was accurate or not, and nice to know what the discussions have been between the coalition partners in this particular case, because we can only speculate on what has come through the media. So those are my questions for the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u002207e9b9da5d684c80ca637f16462585c6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002207e9b9da5d684c80ca637f16462585c6\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (12:40)\u003C/span\u003E: Look, I\u2019m very happy to take a contribution. Look, the member originally started talking about how she thought the bill was a waste of time. I would counter that by saying a number of the contributions by the Opposition have been a waste of time. The bill itself is good work, and we very much look forward to it being passed today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001505\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EHowever, when it comes to the need for a commencement date shift, look, the change will provide more time for businesses, workers, and sector groups to understand the law and to develop advice and guidance. Now, if the member wishes to be privy to coalition discussions, she may wish to attempt to get into a coalition. But I can tell you we\u2019ve got three parties in the coalition that are working very well together. All three parties will pass this bill together, and I look forward to having the coalition come back in the 2026 election. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002288978fb9592a4911a8e47eae04d164f3\u0022 data-id=\u0022c9d8dd35a5e44aa3afb0df9045e7c35e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002288978fb9592a4911a8e47eae04d164f3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c9d8dd35a5e44aa3afb0df9045e7c35e\u0022\u003EDr VANESSA WEENINK (National\u2014Banks Peninsula) (12:41)\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001507\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001508\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001509\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001510\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001511\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001512\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001513\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223322b419960c2621eaf31bb5710b9624\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Julie Anne Genter\u2019s nine tabled amendments to clause 1 are ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001514\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETeanau Tuiono\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001515\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFrancisco Hernandez\u2019s tabled amendment to clause\u00A01 is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001516\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 1 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001517\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001518\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001519\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001520\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001521\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001522\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001523\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001524\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001525\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001526\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001527\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001528\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001529\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e2e7f13aa30aa9da08c982b1eeafa5a8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s tabled amendment to the Minister\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing \u201C1 April 2027\u201D with \u201C1 April 2028\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001530\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001531\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001535\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001536\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226747c35410f4f66d88ecb41a9b304275\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s tabled amendment to the Minister\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing \u201C1 April 2027\u201D with \u201Ca date set by Order in Council\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001537\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001538\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001539\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001542\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225336529c81db2cbb1b2ac2f537ae531a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAmendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001545\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db631edb0b45995606a393d31eb8a864\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Camilla Belich\u2019s tabled amendments to clause 2 are ruled out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001546\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Hon Jan Tinetti\u2019s five tabled amendments to clause 2 are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001547\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001548\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001549\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001550\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 2 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001553\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill to be reported with amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001554\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHouse resumed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001555\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ccd84b9349a795d28cc9c3c741752e11\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the report be adopted\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the report be adopted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001557\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001559\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EReport adopted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00224899fa67aed76d0727acc15b197b5e72\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001563\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224899fa67aed76d0727acc15b197b5e72\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (12:49)\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do want to seek your guidance. We have had the Speaker\u2019s guidance yesterday regarding amendments, and we\u2019re trying to figure out what the new guidance would mean, but I want to check with you because one part that was quite clear with what the Speaker said yesterday was also a warning. It was a recommendation, I guess, to Ministers to submit Amendment Papers on time so that there is sufficient time for the House to discuss them, particularly when there tabled amendments from the Minister. But what we have found is that there were very few opportunities.  In fact, we were only able to take one call each, as the Opposition, on the tabled amendments, and this is the first time I\u2019ve seen a tabled amendment by a Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001564\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ae7b6d83d126e6b73311df48f3392143\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Can I just ask the member to clarify: is the member referring to the commencement clause debate?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223250c524899cca3b5570d7fb1a2393c1\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I am referring to the commencement clause.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002203a5513a60792e047df6538ef410181f\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: OK. I have seen part of that debate, and I understand there were questions being asked. There\u2019s only a small amount of answers people can give to a commencement clause, but I will say that the recommendation that the Speaker gave yesterday relates to\u2014there\u2019s been a number of Ministers\u2019 Amendment Papers on different pieces of legislation. From what I\u2019ve seen on that particular one, where it was a commencement clause, I believe the debate may have been efficient. I haven\u2019t seen it all, but I\u2019m pretty happy with what I saw.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001567\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228fc921468eaeab6a828cedc77691cc5a\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Speaker, just speaking further to that point of order, I guess the other element of that is that what we have seen is not only a Minister\u2019s amendment, but we were also looking at the title and commencement as a whole, where we were supposed to, under the Speaker\u2019s ruling, be able to also summarise some of the content of the committee stage as a part of the title debate. But I note that, in that debate we had earlier, understanding that we were still trying to figure out our way into what the new system would be, I do want to address the fact\u2014and this is one of the reasons why we opposed the reporting\u2014that there were no calls being taken that allowed us to summarise the title or to use the title at all to summarise the debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001568\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002241ab6039e5ab074037d10de0489a43a7\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you for the point of order. What I will say is that the Speaker, yesterday, gave an observation and said this is how we would like to go forward. We\u2019re all having a learning opportunity here in the interests of the New Zealand public to give them better debate on legislation. We\u2019ve got quite a few hours ahead of us this week where we can actually try and perfect any concerns people have. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022b8079df09ef9270be65f53c9c0f8e3fe\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001569\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b8079df09ef9270be65f53c9c0f8e3fe\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (12:52)\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order\u2014thank you, Madam Speaker. This is just a small clarification point, which is that the Minister had made an amendment to those title and commencement sections, and there were only two calls that were able to be taken on that clause 1. It was relevant to what the Speaker said yesterday, when he advised Ministers not to do late amendments, and if they were doing that, then it was important that the Opposition members got a chance to fully scrutinise that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002292e67a684df4c1896264ae9afac64697\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: He did, and so thank you for that feedback. As I say, we\u2019ve got a few hours this week\u2014I don\u2019t know if we\u2019ll ever perfect it, but we\u2019ll have a few hours this week\u2014to work on it. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001571\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001572\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022be844b5bf7e329eb95961e6b13cc0da6\u0022\u003EThird Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022a46fe489b2b62b14016aa2ab91035035\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001573\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a46fe489b2b62b14016aa2ab91035035\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (12:52)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill be now read a third time\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001574\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c9c4b39c8404531e1ff44f1ab7855a04\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, and do you have\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001575\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fe58065e230389e20786388273b45f53\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN\u003C/span\u003E: I don\u2019t have a legislative statement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b33d05e7af5d89db2c11b3cae27e5020\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: OK. I didn\u2019t believe you did, but you can carry on with your speech. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001577\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022958b5a710b6a00b83ab3f25460befa24\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. This bill is about restoring clarity, common sense, and focus to New Zealand\u2019s work health and safety system. At its core, this Government has taken a straightforward approach. Laws should work in practice, not just in theory. They should support safer workplaces without creating unnecessary confusion, duplication, or cost. This bill reflects that approach. It maintains the core purpose of the Health and Safety at Work Act, which is preventing harm, but it improves how the system works on the ground. It sharpens the focus on what matters most: reducing deaths, serious injury, and illness.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001578\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EImportantly, this is a Government that has listened. We have heard consistent feedback from across New Zealand from workers, from small business owners, and from large employers that the system has become harder to navigate than it needs to be. Too much effort can go into compliance for its own sake, rather than improving actual safety outcomes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe have taken that feedback seriously. Through consultation, engagement, and roadshows, we have spoken directly with people who live and breathe health and safety every day\u2014not just those who advise on it, but those who rely on it to keep their workplaces running and their people safe\u2014and what we heard was clear: New Zealanders want a system that is practical, proportionate, and focused on managing real risk; they want clarity about what is expected of them; and they want to be able to focus their time and resources on keeping people safe, not on navigating unnecessary complexity. This is exactly what this bill delivers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFirst, it strengthens the system\u2019s focus on critical risk. It makes clear that attention should be directed towards the hazards that can kill or seriously injure people or that could cause serious illnesses\u2014the risks that seriously change lives. By sharpening this focus, businesses can concentrate their efforts where it has the greatest impact, and regulators can target their activity more effectively. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESecond, it improves clarity and certainty about what is required. Having clear expectations make it easier for both businesses and workers to understand their responsibilities and apply them in day-to-day settings. This supports better decision-making on the ground and greater confidence about what good practice looks like. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThird, it supports a more proportionate approach across the system. What is appropriate for a large, complex operation will not always be appropriate for a small business. This bill recognises that, while maintaining the same underlying objective\u2014preventing harm. It ensures that expectations are practical and workable in different contexts. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001583\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFourth, it reduces unnecessary complexity and duplication. By improving how the frameworks fit together, businesses can focus on managing risks, rather than navigating overlapping or unclear requirements. This makes the system easier to use and more effective in practice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001584\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETaken together, these changes make the work health and safety system easier to understand, easier to apply, and better focused on what matters most. This bill also reflects the priorities of this coalition Government. It delivers on a clear commitment in the ACT-National coalition agreement to reform health and safety law and regulations, and I\u2019m pleased to have delivered on that commitment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe are committed to restoring confidence in New Zealand\u2019s regulatory systems, including the work health and safety framework. That means ensuring protections remain strong while also ensuring obligations are clear, proportionate, and focused on managing the risks that cause the most harm. When systems become overly complex or unclear, that doesn\u2019t help workers, and it doesn\u2019t help businesses. It can undermine confidence, create unnecessary cost, and distract from what actually keeps people safe.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001586\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis Government is taking a different approach. We are focused on outcomes. We are focused on enabling businesses to operate with confidence, to invest, and to create jobs. We are focused on ensuring workers have clear, effective protections that are understood and applied in practice. This bill strikes that balance. It supports businesses and workers to do the right thing, it provides greater certainty about what is expected, and it strengthens a system that is fundamental to the wellbeing of New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001587\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, I want to acknowledge the many New Zealanders who have engaged constructively with this process. Your feedback has directly informed these changes, and that is what good lawmaking looks like. It\u2019s listening, responding, and delivering practical improvements that work in the real world. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is a forward-looking reform. It is about making our work health and safety system clearer, more effective, and better aligned with the needs of modern workplaces, and, ultimately, it is about keeping New Zealanders safe. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001589\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bd57dcd04f2ae8098f8608dac55cd129\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: This debate is interrupted. The House will resume at 2 p.m. this afternoon.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EDebate interrupted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterItalicsCentred\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 12.58 p.m. to 2 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001592\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022477dfb6283ab5d293db398a23df63b43\u0022\u003ERetirements\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001593\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e985e87029adaad78c38e54bbff3b531\u0022\u003ERoland Todd, KSM\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022cbde95a7c8c5f574a5b1c84382b3836f\u0022\u003ESpeaker\u0027s Assistant\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022 data-id=\u00229bac232c15b203558daae5cb37d69bd9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229bac232c15b203558daae5cb37d69bd9\u0022\u003ESPEAKER (14:00)\u003C/span\u003E: The House is resumed. Members, before I call the first question of the day, I\u2019d like to notify the House that today marks the last day that Roland Todd, KSM will be seated to the right of the Speaker when the House is in session. The invaluable service that Roland has provided for eight Speakers over the last 30 years is testified by many of the very positive comments that all of those Speakers have made about Roland. They\u2019ve spoken in glowing and complimentary terms, and I certainly affirm those views. The job is much more than just sitting in the House and keeping track of question time, and then in other stages, keeping an eye on where bills are at; it\u2019s about the smooth operation of the Speaker\u2019s office, and it\u2019s no surprise to me that consideration is now being given to replacing you with not one but two people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThere will be an opportunity at 6 p.m. this evening in the Grand Hall for all in the House, and the many friends that you have made across the complex, to celebrate your contribution, Roland. But for now, I invite members to join with me on behalf of the 375 members who have served in this House during your career to acknowledge the fairness and the integrity with which you have approached your job in the House. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EApplause\u003C/span\u003E] Well, that\u2019s better than any valedictory, I can tell you. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001597\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002213c6cf0a45726d5c9f3d051a5391a5be\u0022\u003EPresentation\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022dd3e8a45555900631ecffe0ed8fa1a15\u0022\u003EPapers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022 data-id=\u00224c0c56db94c3d29f2c3648afc9951ea7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001599\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224c0c56db94c3d29f2c3648afc9951ea7\u0022\u003ESPEAKER (14:02)\u003C/span\u003E: I present the strategic intentions of the Parliament sector for 2026/27 - 2029/30. That paper is published under the authority of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001600\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022df272b7cff6fb6a14480987d4f866370\u0022\u003EOral Questions to Ministers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001601\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002236e0490bf0113f77abd73c3329e27b77\u0022\u003EFinance\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e7583bcd6395e8f9d7c105bcded59227\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 1\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b52eff5aa2a94fcc88903b73d0443de3\u0022 data-id=\u002258a2a13761df4cc7090ab510534c91ed\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b52eff5aa2a94fcc88903b73d0443de3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002258a2a13761df4cc7090ab510534c91ed\u0022\u003ENANCY LU (National) (14:02)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Finance\u003C/span\u003E: What recent reports has she seen on business confidence and the New Zealand economy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022248f2f5dc45ec85f5abb9012f27e76c9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022248f2f5dc45ec85f5abb9012f27e76c9\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Associate Minister of Finance) (14:02)\u003C/span\u003E on behalf of the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Finance\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve seen the latest ANZ Business Outlook survey showing business confidence jumped 27 points in June to positive 37, while expected own activity for firms also rose strongly to positive 37. ANZ noted most of that lift occurred before the sharp fall in oil prices later in the month, suggesting businesses were already beginning to regain confidence in the underlying economy. The survey also showed stronger investment intentions, improving employment expectations, and easing inflation pressures, with pricing intentions now lower than before the Middle East disruption. Recent GDP figures show the economy grew by 0.8 percent in the March quarter, more than twice Treasury\u2019s budget forecast. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001605\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b52eff5aa2a94fcc88903b73d0443de3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022976f6d6958dadca991a1ea92a596e7d6\u0022\u003ENancy Lu\u003C/span\u003E: What were some of the most encouraging signs in the latest business confidence survey?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022714272f63cd0d1e16f8917ba60c310ed\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, the encouraging aspect was how broad-based the improvement was. Investment intentions rose sharply, employment intentions improved across almost every sector, commercial construction confidence reached its strongest level since March, and manufacturing remained particularly strong with expected own activity reaching positive 56. Overall, the report shows businesses are becoming more willing to invest, hire, and plan for growth. It\u2019s good news for all New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001607\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b52eff5aa2a94fcc88903b73d0443de3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022742ac0d4b099a2daf39e40b1c1df13d9\u0022\u003ENancy Lu\u003C/span\u003E: What impact have global oil prices had on the outlook?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001608\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eb8b718647d8d11fe3a069145d05f297\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: On behalf of the Minister, recent falls in international oil prices have helped ease some of the pressure created by the earlier Middle East disruption. Brent crude prices have now fallen back to around US$73 per barrel; West Texas Intermediate to around US$70, significantly below the peak seen during the height of the instability. ANZ has noted that inflation indicators softened as oil prices fell and margin pressures reduced. At the same time, our fuel supply chain continues to operate smoothly with fuel stocks remaining well above minimum requirements, 14 fuel ships currently on the water, and importers reporting strong forward supply confidence through to September. I might also note at this point, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) specifically praises New Zealand as one of the few handful of countries worldwide that have followed international best practice in responding to the oil crisis.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b52eff5aa2a94fcc88903b73d0443de3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ef3d2a7d0d0aea27625f7ee83a4f9133\u0022\u003ENancy Lu\u003C/span\u003E: What has recent global volatility highlighted about New Zealand\u2019s long-term energy resilience?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fc2a9d20b948ee06ff3662799dc02992\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: On behalf of the Minister, I think all members in the House will agree that recent events have reinforced the importance of a more resilient and diversified energy system. We\u2019ve taken significant steps to strengthen energy security by accelerating renewable projects, reforming our planning laws, supporting transmission upgrades, and improving security of supply during dry years. We now have a record pipeline of renewables under way, including major solar, wind, and geothermal developments; several projects already consented through fast track\u2014around 400\u00A0megawatts; 5\u00A0percent of overall supply. Over time, greater electrification, more renewables, and more distributed energy supply can help reduce exposure to international fuel shocks and improve our resilience during disruptions. This is important not just for energy security but for productivity, business confidence, and long-term growth.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002284c6fa604e6ee4918e34062667e5793c\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001612\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022804ed4712be4701aee7a8c591e1b4f94\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022 data-id=\u002241e6dc5986fd89cfee0ffae5f389e925\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001613\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002241e6dc5986fd89cfee0ffae5f389e925\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (14:06)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I also, on behalf of the Opposition, extend our thanks to Roland Todd for his years of service to the House and suggest that, as it\u2019s his last day, he stops counting and we\u2019ll just see what happens. My question is to the Prime Minister: does he stand by all his Government\u2019s statements and actions?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022 data-id=\u002201517da9c2bd4f360ba2988b325f36ed\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001614\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002201517da9c2bd4f360ba2988b325f36ed\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I do, and, particularly, I\u2019m very proud of the recent hospitality winners who have achieved Michelin star status overnight, which is fantastic. I also join with the Leader of the Opposition and thank Roland for all his contribution over many years and look forward to finding out in his book as to who was the best Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001615\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a5d2ee49c84437acae9b9b3e8b94c68a\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Why, after almost three years of his leadership, is the average New Zealander now worse off with GDP per capita lower today than it was when he became Prime Minister?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221d10a59ec546fe9ac469cbf9362d471f\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it\u2019s great to see in the last quarter that GDP per capita is up about half a percent. What\u2019s been encouraging is to see the growth that we saw in the first quarter\u2014up 0.8 percent. What\u2019s been encouraging is seeing a record trade surplus month being achieved in April and, also, a very positive forecast as we go forward from here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001617\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002242e5a140cde49f36ab45a6715d3c1dc0\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Is the average family\u2019s grocery shop cheaper or more expensive than when he first became Prime Minister?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001618\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002292705b43aff32e3b327280aca1b33692\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, as you know, we\u2019ve had a situation where we inherited a position of a 32-year high on inflation, and, of course, that made life incredibly difficult for lower-middle income working New Zealanders. It was very disappointing to see that the Labour Party wouldn\u2019t even support tax relief for lower-middle income workers, which would help people with the cost of living and the cost that they experience thanks to the high inflation and high interest rates the last Government created.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001619\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f2578589ea9354aae34718911392f2b5\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Does he accept that his Government\u2019s made homelessness worse, driving it to the highest level ever recorded in New Zealand?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001620\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ce5ab41b4800c02fae6b0463090bf42b\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: I reject the characterisation of that question. What I\u2019d say to the member is that, when he was in power, homelessness went up 37\u00A0percent, despite spending a billion dollars. We all saw a tremendously tragic situation of families living in squalid motel conditions, riven by crime, and I would put our record of housing up against his. Housing is more affordable, rents are down, the people on the social housing wait-list are down, we have got 2,400 families out of motels, and we are lowering homelessness\u2014as evidenced by the Auckland City Council count from September to this month.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001621\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228abb3b5f0b668ccf6ffdf04873255830\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Why have only one-in-five of the families who have left immediate access transitional housing gone into a long-term home, and where did the other 79\u00A0percent end up, if not on the streets?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001622\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228921928515c7d33489c84a434dbfdc82\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, let\u2019s go through some of the numbers because I want the member to be really clear about this. Just because someone is declined for an emergency housing application, that means that they may be better to determine not to go to a motel but to actually get into a house through transitional housing, social housing, rent arrears, and those sorts of things.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001623\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002237df8464bd24eab4a63e7c4a453ef991\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about the one-in-five families who have left immediate access transitional housing that have gone on to a long-term home, leaving 79\u00A0percent who don\u2019t. My question to the Prime Minister is: where have they ended up?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001624\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022da9e0b7a293b7db868813be9b2441b67\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, and he started out by saying that that\u2019s not always an automatic transfer from one to the other and there are a number of circumstances involved, but there was so much noise being barracked across the House that I\u2019m not surprised that the answer didn\u2019t continue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b9a8fe073cad20a94f7c60b160e36996\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: If the 100,000 houses had been built, and not 99,000 short, would there be any homeless today?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221c7ee8cc171f548d074b09429d51404d\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister raises a very good point, which is that if you actually want to deal with homelessness and you actually want to get people into housing, the parties opposite should support fast track and they should support our Resource Management Act reforms. It\u2019s a housing supply issue, and that\u2019s what this Government\u2019s working its way through and delivering on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001627\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002207003eb4cb3454aadecbb33652474a4a\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Let me just be clear: it is OK for Ministers to refer to situations that are relevant to the policy being questioned when there are matters that they are dealing with that are part of a transition from one regime to another.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001628\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db85641160bd41ae0aa0fadcc4e1a182\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Does he accept that there is a link between record homelessness and public servants now being performance managed into turning people\u2014homeless people\u2014away from emergency accommodation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001629\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cda6cd30c983ea99233daf514e40fd39\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: No. What I think is really good is that the Public Service is actually measuring its performance on its execution of the Government\u2019s agenda, and the Government\u2019s agenda here is very simple: we don\u2019t think it\u2019s acceptable just to park people up in motels like the last Government and not care about them. Our agenda is to move people out of motels into proper houses, and that\u2019s what we\u2019re doing. Housing\u2019s more affordable; rents are down; the social housing wait-list is down; 2,400 kids are out of squalid, crime-ridden motels; and we are putting a lot of focus on homelessness and rough sleeping.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002202ec0d6ef976f829da76aa34e9705154\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: So if a homeless person with nowhere to go ends up at a Ministry of Social Development office, why should the case manager who provides them with accommodation be performance managed so the Government can create the impression that it\u2019s dealt with emergency housing?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001631\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e6a7b5591b5f669e1a49de4697e83cfb\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Because when people are in genuine need, there are genuine options available for people, and it may well be the assessment that we can use a social house, a transitional house, rent arrears, or a private rental as well. But we are not going to do what the last Government did, whose record on housing was abysmal and an absolute utter public policy failure, and you should be ashamed about it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001632\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229d5b13d601794bb282d99453116ad395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220bf437404807df99b3c88a56cfd29272\u0022\u003EHon Tama Potaka\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Prime Minister please confirm that when we arrived in Government around November 2023, there were approximately 3,300 households in emergency housing\u2014and that number has come down to below 500\u2014and we were spending in excess of $1 million a day on people in emergency housing?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001633\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c5d7ec85d6b72ec693f278fb8a3d067b\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: I can, and what I\u2019m proud about is that that $1 million a day had a taxpayer cost, but the biggest tragedy was the social costs of actually putting kids into motels. I just encourage the members opposite: go back and look at some of John Campbell\u2019s stories about the squalid conditions of those\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001634\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022556485c86d49cb03bcdcdf522466b500\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. Sir, this was the concern that was raised earlier from the question from their own side: 205/4 makes it really clear that Ministers should not bring parties into their responses that are not involved in the question. Now, whilst we accept your point earlier that they can refer to situations, in broad terms, that they\u2019ve inherited, for the Prime Minister for the second time this question time to use it as an opportunity to challenge the Opposition to do whatever he feels like at the time is a breach of Speakers\u2019 rulings.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001635\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229d5b13d601794bb282d99453116ad395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002234f71a74c907b34d1351100cdf1a9ea5\u0022\u003EHon Tama Potaka\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order, the member suggested that it was imputed in my question that I referred to the Opposition party. It was not imputed; in fact, I referred to a date\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001636\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e216cd64b0c866cac97f526778ee45f3\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, no, don\u2019t go any further\u2014don\u2019t go any further. The line between a question to a Government Minister that is designed to facilitate attack on the Opposition is clearly in breach of Standing Orders and Speakers\u2019 rulings. I think where a question, as the question you posed, asks for a confirmation, then that is perfectly reasonable. To go beyond that, I\u2019d just caution that Ministers need to be much more respectful of the Standing Orders of this House than might have been demonstrated so far.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001637\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eafa2dcbd14e151ef8432783c5a0b0e2\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Why are Ministers in his Government apparently the only people that cannot see the link between booting people out of emergency accommodation and record numbers of homeless people living rough on the streets, and why does his Government think that it is something to celebrate that there are fewer people living in emergency accommodation and more people living in cars, on the streets, in garages, and with nowhere to call home?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001638\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a4628a5d91ad7fe7f61f9ce39d1cb62b\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019d correct the member by saying just go back and watch John Campbell\u2019s documentaries on the motel accommodation, where he had 3,400 kids living in motel accommodation. We have taken 2,400 kids, and they\u2019re now in proper, dry homes. Go look at the homeless data in Auckland from September last year\u2014let\u2019s go through them: 940 people homeless in Auckland in September last year. We\u2019ve put $10 million in, another $14.5 million in, opened up 300 Housing First places. It went to 706 in January, and where are we in March: 586. Unlike the last Government, which made houses unaffordable for thousands of people; thousands of renters had to pay $180 more a week; 19,000 more people went on the social housing wait-list under your Government. You put 3,400 kids in motels and you didn\u2019t care, and now you want to talk to me about homelessness. We do something on this, because we care about those people. We don\u2019t do petty stuff and petty politics like that side.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001639\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226fe3ecd7a0c43c95f912117849706df9\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: Supplementary. \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EHe p\u0101tai t\u0101piri\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001640\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022823533b767e6483546a5c5eb1c20315c\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Question\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E] Just a minute. Hang on. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E] Look this way. Are we done with this question, or have you got a supplementary?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001641\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002265f16a6e2f6f67d6cbe208817f271056\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: Supplementary. Is the Prime Minister confident that he understands the process to access emergency housing; if so, why is it that he didn\u2019t know until this week that there was no night shelter available in Auckland?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001642\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223765988f073d39b1fdfff40bb6e2ef94\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Because we don\u2019t have night shelters in New Zealand. We don\u2019t think the evidence works, where someone shows up for one day and moves on. What we have is we have a 35-bed service that actually is available and where people can get plugged into proper social support services. But I think it\u2019s pretty rich from that side, when you had a Greens Minister for homelessness and it went\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001643\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a0283246b8bc85d548a5d5b5c245969a\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s enough\u2014that\u2019s enough! Sit down. Question No. 3.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001644\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e5e0ac715ac906660ff60803badad108\u0022\u003EHon Dr Megan Woods\u003C/span\u003E: You might need to correct that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001645\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a934bd74fb68a62805d7bf37b42c74fc\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: How out of touch are you? I\u2019ll take you to visit some of them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001646\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223ab091ee6b1d0c4fea07bf5af103715c\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s good. Excellent. Do you want to go now? Question No. 3.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022bd097cea2a6f990de481856a85a78c13\u0022\u003ETransport\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001648\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f1170ea71bc0a4b22126a7fd9a11c6f7\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 3\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022 data-id=\u00224f18e253f99349b7c9b0f2006f561181\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001649\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224f18e253f99349b7c9b0f2006f561181\u0022\u003EDr CARLOS CHEUNG (National\u2014Mt Roskill) (14:17)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Transport\u003C/span\u003E: What announcements has he made on the Government\u2019s crackdown on antisocial road users?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022dc22c783c9ad47845b5c983d30b27732\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001650\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dc22c783c9ad47845b5c983d30b27732\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (14:17)\u003C/span\u003E: It was great to see the House pass the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill last night. We\u2019re delivering on our commitment to crack down on boy racers, fleeing drivers, and hooligans on our roads. Our roads are not for racing. They aren\u2019t a playground for antisocial drivers who terrorise neighbourhoods and put lives at risk. If you choose \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EGrand Theft Auto\u003C/span\u003E - style behaviour, do not be surprised when you get real-world consequences. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001651\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b3d0b06bd6f6ff0cbbd9f3c011205f7c\u0022\u003EDr Carlos Cheung\u003C/span\u003E: Why is this new bill needed?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001652\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002271d2be52c7f5996bac2b83b193499ecc\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Right now, the consequences for antisocial behaviour on our roads are not strong enough to act as an effective deterrent. Kiwis across the country are being forced to put up with illegal street racing, burnouts, intimidating convoys, disorderly dirt-bike gatherings, and\u2014I\u2019m told, in West Auckland\u2014siren battles for far too long. New Zealanders have had enough. They put participants, bystanders, and police at risk, disrupt neighbourhoods, and create fear and frustration. For law-abiding Kiwis, the law now sends a very clear message: if you use our roads to intimidate or endanger communities, there will be serious consequences.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f63ad48b7ac15f71c3aacc8ff0a2d246\u0022\u003EDr Carlos Cheung\u003C/span\u003E: What do these serious consequences look like?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001654\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fa93b1d21e768d9ec3170368dcc840b7\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: The bill creates a number of new offences and penalties to combat this problem. It includes the establishment of a presumptive sentence of vehicle destruction or forfeiture for those that flee police, street racers, intimidating convoys, and owners who fail to identify offending drivers. The bill gives police more powers to manage antisocial vehicle gatherings by closing roads and public areas. We\u2019re also increasing the infringement fee by making excessive noise from or within a vehicle by 500 percent. What these changes mean in practice is that those who are convicted\u2014fleeing drivers, street racers, and people participating in intimidating convoys\u2014can expect to lose their vehicles through destruction or forfeiture, unless limited exceptions apply.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001655\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002232a6db4e7b9948c345b2bda28aaf93ca\u0022\u003EDr Carlos Cheung\u003C/span\u003E: What do these changes mean for law-abiding New Zealanders?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001656\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ac98ac51a72a12d595973d4f1d0507e9\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Across the country, Kiwis have had enough of this obnoxious, dangerous behaviour. Excessive noise, siren battles, illegal street racing, and fleeing police is not harmless fun; it\u2019s intimidating and disruptive and places people at risk. I refer the House to an incident in Levin last year.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001657\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ab32b09663ea48b199aa59e4d88f77e4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b0d5f5566783a749160d7fb9956231be\u0022\u003ETim Costley\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001658\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a60c2d4004bf76ed59b65b4cf9a10ed1\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, not in relation to this bit\u2014a crowd of 1,000 people and 200 cars filled Levin, carrying out exactly this kind of antisocial behaviour. The organisers of what was titled the \u201CLevin Invasion\u201D say that boy racers just need somewhere to go. Well, my message to them is clear: go home, otherwise you\u2019ll be going to court and your vehicle will be going through the proverbial crusher. New Zealanders have had enough, and I\u2019m proud that this Government is taking action.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001659\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002295a152eddcd9c44c062fe30261a75f7f\u0022\u003EEducation\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001660\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002288aba49edcb38d14fa3e4a27ba9cb213\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 4\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022 data-id=\u00229ffd68cc17fcafe41c887ed8555fbd20\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001661\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229ffd68cc17fcafe41c887ed8555fbd20\u0022\u003EHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (14:20)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Education\u003C/span\u003E: Does she stand by her statement regarding the Ministry\u2019s contracting of Australian company Learning First that \u201CWhether or not the Ministry of Education go out and contract them is not a matter for me\u201D; if so, why?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002237b40d11275f4dba8e36c41507f8a1c5\u0022 data-id=\u00220046fa9d5900aa0bab9825e9025adfe3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237b40d11275f4dba8e36c41507f8a1c5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220046fa9d5900aa0bab9825e9025adfe3\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (14:20)\u003C/span\u003E: I stand by my statement in the full context it was given. Any good Minister, along with their staff, meets with education experts all of the time, and it\u2019s standard practice. Separately, the Ministry of Education contracts providers for services. I\u2019m advised by the Secretary for Education that the ministry followed relevant Government procurement rules. All decisions made went through the appropriate internal processes and approvals, and I\u2019m advised by my officials that this happens regularly. The ministry has advised that using the exemption process is not unusual and has been used as necessary under all administrations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001663\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002287d974eb696f16b3b7fa317e7f120ad8\u0022\u003EHon Ginny Andersen\u003C/span\u003E: When was she or her office first advised that three Ministry of Education officials had, in fact, travelled to Melbourne in July and August of 2025 to work with Learning First?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001664\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237b40d11275f4dba8e36c41507f8a1c5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b0578afe9158ecd849517192a6b15a06\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: I was first advised of that when a written parliamentary question was asked.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001665\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224dc1a46d0e4e3bd1fd2eca66d65929de\u0022\u003EHon Ginny Andersen\u003C/span\u003E: Why did it take her more than six months and public scrutiny to reveal that her officials had travelled to Melbourne to work with Learning First?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001666\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237b40d11275f4dba8e36c41507f8a1c5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f2ff1bdb010965400f726dea4751d641\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: Because that information is contained by the Ministry of Education. They incorrectly advised me in the written question. They subsequently found out that the information was incorrect. They told my office, and we corrected the answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001667\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225f53b6e349baa22e207479a51b934a39\u0022\u003EHon Ginny Andersen\u003C/span\u003E: How can she justify spending millions on the services of an Australian company, including jetting officials back and forth across the Tasman, when there are providers here in New Zealand who have the expertise to do the work and never even got the chance to tender?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001668\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237b40d11275f4dba8e36c41507f8a1c5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ba8b5cf3a27ecb79bf927d643feeb2e0\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the Secretary for Education has advised me that they were well aware of the expertise that was available in New Zealand, and they did not feel that they could get the help they needed in New Zealand around a knowledge-rich curriculum and international benchmarking. They felt that the provider that they contracted had the expertise needed around knowledge-rich curriculum and international benchmarking.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001669\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a457540e2c81cbb7ed10bd89e0609cbe\u0022\u003EHon David Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: Supplementary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001670\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d4fa873f7278f7dda0c7c819db6bcc97\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, one more.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001671\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002246fe03459a3523c18b9a3c7dd1067e3f\u0022\u003EHon Ginny Andersen\u003C/span\u003E: When was Ben Jensen, the chief executive of Learning First, appointed to her curriculum coherence group, and what was his purpose on that group?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001672\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237b40d11275f4dba8e36c41507f8a1c5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002286625f1208a224deac14aa918829941d\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: I don\u2019t have the exact details and dates available to me, but it sounds like that would be a good written question, and I\u2019ll be able to provide the exact details.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001673\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e0b13011a963753721fe693a42a50788\u0022\u003EHon David Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: How could the Minister of Education not know that her own ministry has been travelling around the world learning things and doing business with our friends overseas, and what other outrageous, crazy things could they possibly be doing that she also doesn\u2019t know about?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001674\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237b40d11275f4dba8e36c41507f8a1c5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002271d3ca4ad9470f4081a4b86b69b508d0\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m incredibly proud of the Ministry of Education, who have pivoted to our six priority areas and who are actually raising their eyes up and looking to overseas about what other high-performing countries are doing so that we can make sure that our kids have the same opportunities to succeed as every other child in the world. That work has proved very fruitful, given that the results recently have shown improvement in student achievement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001675\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022319f3a72e085c7c7f254da7bcb34d12e\u0022\u003EHon Ginny Andersen\u003C/span\u003E: Why doesn\u2019t she just come clean and tell Kiwi parents that she contracted in the Aussies to write our school curriculum?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237b40d11275f4dba8e36c41507f8a1c5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ef5ec6f335dd74b1d0b0e805b4c2d822\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD\u003C/span\u003E: I reject the premise of that question. There were many, many, many, many New Zealanders and people here in this country who were involved in writing the curriculum. It\u2019s in our schools; the English and maths is already being used. It\u2019s enormously successful, evidenced by the fact we are raising achievement and closing the equity gap, and parents and teachers and principals know it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001677\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00220dfc725e3572cf3de795c81e43ef21f5\u0022\u003EEducation\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002285805e2fe7d4df29dc9597000e88f3cb\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 5\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002290f442a79aea4ce0aeae083763135935\u0022 data-id=\u0022fddb4c6343eb880f6c3dc92386db985b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001679\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290f442a79aea4ce0aeae083763135935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fddb4c6343eb880f6c3dc92386db985b\u0022\u003ECARL BATES (National\u2014Whanganui) (14:23)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Education\u003C/span\u003E: What update can the Minister provide on the modification of open-plan classroom initiatives?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002237b40d11275f4dba8e36c41507f8a1c5\u0022 data-id=\u002241e05db165961804424b26d50e7f2af8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001680\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237b40d11275f4dba8e36c41507f8a1c5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002241e05db165961804424b26d50e7f2af8\u0022\u003EHon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (14:24)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, Mr Speaker, last\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002264271940f3b59f2fa128902783d6a8fb\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, no, no\u2014sorry. We\u2019ll move on if you can\u2019t ask the right question. It\u2019s on the sheet. We\u2019ll go to question No. 6\u2014Chl\u00F6e Swarbrick.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001682\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b7badb77b33fba8f46549f569d6e74e9\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001683\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002288a3f2ef8c7a17364f7fcdef11a08b9f\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 6\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001684\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002262d3a85051a68369ee05dd0646238401\u0022\u003ECHL\u00D6E SWARBRICK\u003C/span\u003E: to the Prime Minister: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EE tautoko ana ia i ng\u0101 k\u014Drero me ng\u0101 mahi katoa\u2014\u003C/span\u003E[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001685\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221971cea68f92ee02c674ff2eb8c0e081\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No one speaks\u2014no one speaks, other than the person called to ask the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022 data-id=\u002297e4047b07d6dfbe0af8175f5e8e0683\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001686\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002297e4047b07d6dfbe0af8175f5e8e0683\u0022\u003ECHL\u00D6E SWARBRICK (Co-Leader\u2014Green) (14:24)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003ET\u0113n\u0101 koe e te P\u012Bka. E 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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001687\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=\u00224a1249c3e9d6489b2bf25cc2f356d18d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001688\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224a1249c3e9d6489b2bf25cc2f356d18d\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:24)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001689\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225a3bdd41a8a95f2d08ea9f9304f4917e\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: Why has he not accepted the Green Party\u2019s 15 votes, offered two months ago, to just get on with establishing the Ratepayer Assistance Scheme to support solarising households and lowering power bills?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001690\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221ea884906c5dd92409fda8d80d489bfd\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, we welcome their support\u2014it\u2019s fantastic that they\u2019re getting behind a National Party policy\u2014but it\u2019s just a timing issue, because we won\u2019t be able to get it through the House before we break for the election on 24 September.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001691\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c5e7bd2ce679defb8c46f385f6a7f2b0\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: Why can his Government put the House into urgency to prioritise watering down workers\u2019 health and safety but cannot find House time to prioritise passing the ratepayer assistance scheme to lower household bills before the election?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001692\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c814118b5dacce32f7ff37412b621602\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: I just reject the assumption in the first part of that question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001693\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ef39e1d6f17979c82e5b544e1c687097\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: Why has his Government decided to spend $7 million on consultants for energy policy this term but not the $7 million necessary to establish the ratepayer assistance scheme?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001694\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002204bc53816741f2ee506d6624a10bb96d\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I\u2019m actually proud of the fact that we spend less on consultants with this Government. We said we would reduce it, and we have.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001695\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002255ce063279e475d252f4c9f97e215534\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: What is the Prime Minister\u2019s explanation to New Zealanders who are confused about his Government preventing progress on passing the ratepayer assistance scheme this term of Parliament when, right now, we have the party votes that are able to pass it to make it happen before the election?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001696\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022140164c9f8c24484a3e159c2320e0995\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Look, I\u2019m really excited about the fact that the Green Party is supporting our policy; that\u2019s fantastic. It\u2019s just a traffic management problem, as we work up the legislation we need to get done before Parliament breaks. I\u2019d also encourage the party to support fast track, to support the Resource Management Act, and to support tax relief and mining.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001697\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b2b4ea54ea6e5dfb3b372db42c623cae\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Prime Minister advise the House whether or not the Government would welcome the Green Party\u2019s support for the advancement of urgency in order to clear up more House time so other pressing priorities could be advanced?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001698\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022be247b98bfc11ae2516b3942614f4d32\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: We would definitely welcome that. I think less use of ChatGPT in questioning would be helpful so that we can free up time in Parliament and get more bills passed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001699\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b5c6b8c5425a658ae5820a1b2b9ed474\u0022\u003EScience, Innovation and Technology\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001700\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002274aa7239039d41f836f637a906351f5e\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 7\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e641dc4bf8aa41b0bd8a29676c8ba9a6\u0022 data-id=\u002278730e47f56099293a0262d1a8efc506\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001701\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e641dc4bf8aa41b0bd8a29676c8ba9a6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002278730e47f56099293a0262d1a8efc506\u0022\u003EREUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour\u2014Christchurch East) (14:26)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister for Science, Innovation and Technology\u003C/span\u003E: Does she agree with the Prime Minister\u2019s goal to \u201Cbrutally commercialise our science system\u201D, and what does that mean for public-good research?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001702\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002214bc4c4758bbf3c4cedec1de595bede4\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I have been advised that this answer may be a little longer, which would mean that the supplementary answers will be shorter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224680dcac294f4cd5bdd3a5a7ed5a3bb9\u0022 data-id=\u0022551af3057c710d495a6d680c12fe8722\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001703\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224680dcac294f4cd5bdd3a5a7ed5a3bb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022551af3057c710d495a6d680c12fe8722\u0022\u003EHon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Science, Innovation and Technology) (14:27)\u003C/span\u003E: Certainly, Mr Speaker. In answer to the first part of the question, I agree with the Prime Minister that we need greater commercialisation of our science system. In answer to the second part of the question, this Government wants to maximise the value of public investment in science, to address societal issues, improve environmental outcomes, improve the health of our people, and drive economic growth to help support higher-value jobs across the economy. It would be remiss of me, in answering a science question, not to acknowledge the Prime Minister\u2019s Science Award winners, announced last night: Jesse Rumball-Smith, a future scientist; Associate Professor Nic Rawlence, Science Communications; Nan Walden-Moeung, science teacher; Dr Luke Harrington, emerging scientist; and the overall science prize, which went to the late Professor Alistair Gunn and his team: Professor Laura Bennet and Associate Professor Joanne Davidson. Once again, I congratulate them all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001704\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e641dc4bf8aa41b0bd8a29676c8ba9a6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220b308088f0ff2866f17b46250f788436\u0022\u003EReuben Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: What does \u201Cbrutally commercialise\u201D actually mean in practice for our scientists, universities, and public funding?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001705\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224680dcac294f4cd5bdd3a5a7ed5a3bb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022456500cbcfc0551a5b8eddc59d24fd00\u0022\u003EHon PENNY SIMMONDS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it means that we are absolutely focused on ensuring that there is a pathway to commercialisation, that our researchers are better connected with their communities and the industries, and that they are able to use the public investment in a way that benefits New Zealand the most.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001706\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e641dc4bf8aa41b0bd8a29676c8ba9a6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dcee074a6a00e7e774a1e0d002dbe212\u0022\u003EReuben Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Is disestablishing Callaghan Innovation, leaving in limbo the jobs of more than 150 scientists, an example of \u201Cmaximising the value of public investment\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001707\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224680dcac294f4cd5bdd3a5a7ed5a3bb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226b9fae18537cf9fc30d3f8335090d739\u0022\u003EHon PENNY SIMMONDS\u003C/span\u003E: Disestablishing Callaghan, who did have a role in commercialisation, enables us to ensure that that focus on commercialisation and getting maximum impact and maximum benefit goes right across the whole science sector, not just focused in one part of it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e641dc4bf8aa41b0bd8a29676c8ba9a6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002254ae11919e61780548f3edda16577d22\u0022\u003EReuben Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Why, when she could not name a single blue sky science project at scrutiny week, should New Zealanders have confidence that she is absolutely focused on the science sector?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001709\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224680dcac294f4cd5bdd3a5a7ed5a3bb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223187b6abdd0cc62b3366b1a594d10c1f\u0022\u003EHon PENNY SIMMONDS\u003C/span\u003E: I recall that I was asked if I could name five blue sky research projects which I endorsed or supported, and it would be entirely inappropriate for me to do that, given that research funding occurs independent of politicians.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001710\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e641dc4bf8aa41b0bd8a29676c8ba9a6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228477eb9abbe864755350937cd4423499\u0022\u003EReuben Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: How, when media reporting tells us there have been over 700 science job cuts, can the Minister claim she is focused on higher-value jobs in the science sector?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001711\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224680dcac294f4cd5bdd3a5a7ed5a3bb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002258467181af70a092bbc61a3814482e8b\u0022\u003EHon PENNY SIMMONDS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, of course, two-thirds of our research occurs in industry, and we know that industry funding or industry expenses occurred almost double from 2018\u2014I think, from around $2.1 billion up to $4.1 billion, from 2018 to 2025\u2014so we are very focused on ensuring not only that the public sector is focused on commercialisation but also that, through the R \u0026amp; D tax incentive, the industry and private sector are able to grow their research and development also.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001712\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00229ed232e5917a4f4f09459ff13e833a19\u0022\u003ETourism and Hospitality\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001713\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00222e9c00132b6cf009be2fc3577c8033b7\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 8\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227ef423fda7b143b890e93f8018529ebe\u0022 data-id=\u0022c3e73506f9e1e6830648450a3f089545\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001714\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227ef423fda7b143b890e93f8018529ebe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c3e73506f9e1e6830648450a3f089545\u0022\u003EGREG FLEMING (National\u2014Maungakiekie) (14:31)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister for Tourism and Hospitality\u003C/span\u003E: What recent announcements have been made about celebrating the excellence of New Zealand hospitality and reinforcing the Government\u2019s commitment to this sector?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u002212cd165465025a67e878f9b8bd83729f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001715\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002212cd165465025a67e878f9b8bd83729f\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Tourism and Hospitality) (14:32)\u003C/span\u003E: Last night, I was delighted to attend the announcement from the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EMichelin Guide\u003C/span\u003E in Auckland, recognising a total of 110 outstanding New Zealand establishments and their dedicated staff. New Zealand now has its very first two-star restaurant in Essence, and 14 who have received one-star recognition. Our Government congratulates the recipients in all categories, and every single member of their teams for these achievements. New Zealand is the furthest that the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EMichelin Guide\u003C/span\u003E has travelled, and this is the guide\u2019s first presence in Oceania. This truly was a milestone moment for the hospitality sector, and one we\u2019ve been very pleased to support through Tourism New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001716\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227ef423fda7b143b890e93f8018529ebe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c64b32d5076e02324cb60fbd5f285fef\u0022\u003EGreg Fleming\u003C/span\u003E: How will this support New Zealand hospitality, tourism, and the wider economy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001717\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228981bd3cf8c102d194d75f4f3ea3f0da\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: The \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EMichelin Guide\u003C/span\u003E\u2019s presence in New Zealand will help reinforce the opportunities for hospitality both at home and abroad. It\u2019s not just about fine dining. The guide highlights everything from neighbourhood favourites that Kiwis enjoy visiting regularly to world-class dining experiences with a global reach. The guide gives overseas tourists considering New Zealand 110 more reasons to put a visit to our shores on their booking list, keeping restaurants humming and the reservations coming. Hospitality is vital to New Zealand, and the sector is a major part of our economy, contributing about $9 billion to GDP every year. The most recent figures show 155,201 people employed in the hospitality sector; each one of those people works incredibly hard, and our Government is delighted that they now have a chance to shine and share in the pride of this sector. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001718\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227ef423fda7b143b890e93f8018529ebe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dae6a1db7e274d6103f2308ae5afefc8\u0022\u003EGreg Fleming\u003C/span\u003E: Why has the Government made this investment in Michelin?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001719\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220d537ea7d5c352606eaae9e335209100\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: We already know the quality of New Zealand\u2019s culinary offerings. We feed 40 million people across the globe through world-class exports such as our dairy, red meat, horticulture, and wine. For our farmers and growers supplying produce for hospitality, the guide represents a very real boost in increasing demand. International visitors attracted here by the guide will only increase demand when they return home and demand New Zealand products on their shelves. The global reach of the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EMichelin Guide\u003C/span\u003E will help take that culinary story even further to the world and raise the profile of what New Zealand is selling. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001720\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227ef423fda7b143b890e93f8018529ebe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226e76e968856a3ef5edf274c8a59276f0\u0022\u003EGreg Fleming\u003C/span\u003E: What commentary and reaction has she seen in support of the arrival of the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EMichelin Guide\u003C/span\u003E in New Zealand?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f38958b234a1d87a2bd6bbbfac30d5c7\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: Unlike some in this House who yesterday questioned the value of the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EMichelin Guide\u003C/span\u003E, we\u2019ve made this investment because we value the skill and expertise of hospitality workers like those recognised in the inaugural New Zealand guide. Outside Chris Hipkins\u2019 disappointing negativity, overall commentary and reaction to these awards\u2014and the people who have earned them through hard graft\u2014has been overwhelmingly positive. Kristy Phillips, who\u2019s the chief executive of Hospitality New Zealand, says, \u201CWhile it\u2019s significant for those recognised, it\u2019s also a milestone for Aotearoa\u2019s hospitality industry, celebrating and building recognition for New Zealand as a hospitality destination.\u201D \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EDish Magazine\u003C/span\u003E says, \u201CAfter a tough few years for hospitality, this feels hopeful. A chance to shift the spotlight back to the creativity, resilience and extraordinary talent shaping dining in Aotearoa, and to the manaakitanga that sits at the heart of it all.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001722\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223969340c78dab81204d8d63bfa210341\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. Thank you, sir. I was in all honesty waiting for you to intervene then, but because you didn\u2019t I thought I\u2019d better raise a point of order. You have already warned the Government today not to use patsy questions to attack the Opposition. The answer there started with \u201CUnlike some in this House who\u2026\u201D and then named a member of the Opposition and called them negative. Now, that should not have been allowed to stand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f4d17b34bebe5eb4ecef34babcaeb08\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah. I was dealing with a small matter that\u2019s been brought to my attention and I missed that, but I\u2019ll look at the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard \u003C/span\u003Eand make a call on where to from there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001724\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d3da25d170a39075b19c2c430be3f89f\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to table a range of additional supportive comments and responses\u2014I won\u2019t mention anyone in this House\u2014who clearly value hospitality and the hard-working teams in the sector who deserve recognition.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001725\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224908c91046cfe83aab8a7c113629e003\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Was there any objection to that course of action? Right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001726\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001727\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022be5bb3de52aab17dedfc09406f005dbf\u0022\u003EHousing\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001728\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022da991e73e9dcb6cf92ae6ea008f348ec\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 9\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022 data-id=\u00226cf934df9d9254c11485b52945a6a253\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001729\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226cf934df9d9254c11485b52945a6a253\u0022\u003ETAMATHA PAUL (Green\u2014Wellington Central) (14:36)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Housing\u003C/span\u003E: Will the Government\u2019s decision to increase rents for public housing tenants by 20 percent worsen or alleviate the cost of living for low-income public housing tenants?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022dd1e8332406e850f6446510b9285f3cc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001730\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dd1e8332406e850f6446510b9285f3cc\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing) (14:37)\u003C/span\u003E: The Government\u2019s fixing the social housing system to make support fairer, go further, and be more targeted to those who need it most, for the time they need it. I acknowledge these changes are not easy and are not supported by everyone, but tough decisions are required. We are aiming to reduce the cliff between the cost of social and private housing. That\u2019s why we\u2019ve also increased the accommodation supplement weekly payment by $10 to $30 per week, which will support low- to moderate-income households. Many of those households pay a lot in weekly take-home pay, when it comes to rent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001731\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220cda21c5cdef70d209e481c8b5371104\u0022\u003ETamatha Paul\u003C/span\u003E: Does he understand that the fairness argument is based on equal assistance to those in equal need; and if so, does he understand that those in public housing have greater needs on various metrics compared to those living in private rental housing?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001732\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221ca55d9aed4808d3ec5f69fb8c2e17c1\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: That is true in some circumstances, and it is true that people in social housing have greater need. Part of the problem with the system at the moment is that those who are in greater need do not receive that support\u2014because they are on a wait-list waiting for public housing\u2014while people who do not necessarily need that support are in the social housing that could be taken up by the person in the greater need. The member has actually neatly highlighted precisely the Government\u2019s reform objective, which is that the system should be targeted at those in the greatest need: with people with disabilities, people with addiction support requirements, people with mental health challenges, people who are victims of family violence, for example, and people who have formally left prison who are currently languishing on the wait-list. Those are the people most in need, and we\u2019re going through a pretty robust exercise and working with the Social Investment Agency, and using the data we\u2019ve got, to make sure we focus support on those in need. But in relation to the member\u2019s point around equality, I\u2019ll just read this out to her\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001733\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226e72d9f0378e8a08e54e08914f94c536\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it\u2019s a very long answer so far.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001734\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221c1d3043d3c25a900e4ab0e957881d8c\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it\u2019s a very important issue, sir, because\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001735\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227023d3cc01e2ba3dbfa8c8bd6a6b3bdd\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well it is, but so\u2019s question time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001736\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f9450b487fa7283719c1e216e13841ad\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: While a sole parent beneficiary with one child in Rotorua in social housing pays $163 per week, the same person not in social housing\u2014the same person in private housing relying on their accommodation supplement\u2014pays $345 a week in rent. They\u2019re in the same circumstance. That doesn\u2019t seem fair to me.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001737\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222db2a204f182a4a98134a49db21b9095\u0022\u003EHon Julie Anne Genter\u003C/span\u003E: So build more public housing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001738\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002216d0bcefd54c4be29dcbf780222907a9\u0022\u003ETamatha Paul\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, exactly. Does he accept that the length of time that people spend on the wait-list has been prolonged because he chose to cancel thousands of public homes?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001739\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002245faec6b1acb81a6915bcae842002c38\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, both points are wrong. Firstly, the number of people on the wait-list has actually decreased by 6,000 under this Government; and secondly, you can\u2019t cancel projects for which there is no funding available. The last Government might have promised, or at least pretended that there will be thousands of homes built, but they\u2019d attached no funding to them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001740\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022988f9f1b4fbd54a2628931521b2d1154\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s not your view on the roads, is it? You can build roads; not houses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001741\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e8a5d4f40cf0b87cc55299cc9f26da07\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Hey\u2014woah. Tamatha Paul only.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001742\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227a5bac6ade03c8e2f9a722a39c00ab39\u0022\u003ETamatha Paul\u003C/span\u003E: What work have his officials, who have advised him that about 29\u00A0percent of public housing tenants can afford lower-quartile market rents, done to ascertain whether there are lower-quartile rentals available in the areas where those people are?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001743\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227eae147ad1ba08b540dc3048028fec37\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the member is right to highlight that the 29 percent figure is a point-of-time analysis of what people in social housing pay in terms of rent and in comparison to the private rental market. It makes the point that often there are people in social housing who earn enough money, in an affordability context, leaving aside some other challenges they may have, which is a separate conversation, but they earn enough where they could access a lower-quartile rent. Clearly, whether or not those rentals are available in a particular area will depend on the time and it will depend on the particular area. So it\u2019s an average. But it is also true to say that the rental market, I\u2019m pleased to say, is enjoying a period where depending on where you are, rents are flat to falling after six years of quite sustained growth. And long may that continue because that is improving affordability for Kiwis.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001744\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229543b20672661164bc1f98bca046c44a\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: What does the Minister think of the idea of public housing tenants lowering their rents with the cost savings from defunding the police?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001745\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e6b7e8f3bee4ffe5d7442929e781a2a2\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, no, that\u2019s\u2014look, we\u2019ll let that fly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001746\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cd2b038a413b21fdb87f5b4ab7a4705d\u0022\u003ETamatha Paul\u003C/span\u003E: How, if at all, will he ensure that the $373 million that is being taken from public housing tenants\u2019 rents to increase the accommodation supplement won\u2019t be immediately captured by landlords increasing their rents?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001747\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022704fb64aeb9649739631d045542c2a96\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I\u2019m pleased the member asked that question, because in 2018 the previous Government increased the accommodation supplement as part of their Families Package, and then they commissioned a report by Motu Economic Research, which is a very comprehensive report, and in fact so comprehensive that the Minister of Social Development at the time lauded the report and noted its findings that the vast bulk of increases in the accommodation supplement flow to renters, not to landlords. That is what the economic evidence supports, because the accommodation supplement, by design, is essentially an income support mechanism that flows to renters. I note the Opposition seems to have changed its perspective and is now describing the accommodation supplement as a subsidy for landlords. Apparently it\u2019s a good thing when Labour puts up the accommodation supplement, but when the National Government, which is actually supporting low to middle income working New Zealanders, does it, it\u2019s apparently a terrible thing. I invite members of the House to reflect on that comparison.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001748\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022628d8399e7dd3b9d087b4b581d783c39\u0022\u003EJustice\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001749\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e81d18101ffaa0d6afa4c48c6adf4a59\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u0022b0bdbe0ce4f224de9983bb5f4af703bd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001750\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b0bdbe0ce4f224de9983bb5f4af703bd\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (14:43)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Justice\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by all his statements and actions about the Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022 data-id=\u0022b294c86cc0e9e9a4699ab23ebbd8db2c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001751\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b294c86cc0e9e9a4699ab23ebbd8db2c\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (14:43)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. I especially stand by my statement on 14 May that the \u201Cgovernment is committed to fixing the basics in law and order, and building a future where everyone feels safe to visit, [to] work and [to] live in our central cities.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001752\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225aba6a024945cbe185eb48a350952f96\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Minister concerned, then, that the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development warned that move-on orders may increase danger to rough sleepers, particularly women and children?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001753\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022870b4399466616f7999a9e020d994143\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I am concerned about the current dangers to rough sleepers. It\u2019s not a safe place to be, and that is why this Government invests very large sums in helping provide opportunities and places for those who are in need. Separately from that, we\u2019re still also determined to fix the basics in law and order and build a country where people feel safe in their communities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001754\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224c19055cf3bff6053cb1596ed61f1023\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich\u003C/span\u003E: What steps is he taking to address concerns raised by Auckland City Missioner, Helen Robinson, that there isn\u2019t genuine access to enough appropriate support for people subject to move-on orders?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001755\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d5d4140480c8ef8cb836a924c3312b4d\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I would point to the many, many ways in which the Government does provide support to people who are in need. As a country, we\u2019re always very focused on helping those New Zealanders who are in need. We have, as I\u2019ve said, one of the more generous welfare States in the world. We have huge investment in housing support. We have huge investment in mental health support. Of course, there is still further work to do, but we\u2019re also very much mindful of the needs of people who live and work and visit our CBDs and our town squares and their right to be able to feel safe in their environment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001756\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022182cc00f77ff305b2b2441f913a2ab8f\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich\u003C/span\u003E: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that there are no night shelters in New Zealand?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001757\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a5e3aaab2d3f4d81874de5bb27d8938b\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I always find it\u2019s useful to agree with the Prime Minister, and we\u2019re not getting into some nomenclature around these things. There is much support available to those who are in need. In particular, the Government funds a bed service in Auckland, the immediate access transitional housing programme, which provides 24/7 access to emergency accommodation for those who need it. We do have things available to help, but, of course, the move-on orders are about much more than homelessness; they are about antisocial and disorderly behaviour in our town centres, and if the Labour Party do not think\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001758\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002246eb0ed4d0304358dd91d216cd565f9e\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, no, you can\u2019t speak for anyone else. Talk about what the Government is doing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001759\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002251f14b95c84cf0e5cbd23c2b687e8575\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m just giving some context, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001760\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002245ed874ae7808abcc5224fbdaf3f75d2\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: It might be context as you see it, but not as I do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001761\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c6bd7f004958899a08dfb85677aa17f3\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. Thank you, sir. I seek leave to table a document that was produced for me and is not publicly available that lists the night shelters available in New Zealand, including Dunedin, Christchurch, Wellington, Masterton, Napier, Tauranga, Hamilton, and New Plymouth.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001762\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d80d556252f83e63c9d3aa5d4f30d8ba\u0022\u003EHon Member: \u003C/span\u003EEmbarrassing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001763\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222a7f3c489c3a7e863e7785aa967e0f3c\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, I wanted to respond to what you\u2019re suggesting, but I can\u2019t, because of the position I find myself in. Does anyone object to that course of action? There appears to be no objection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001764\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001765\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002224ccce762ab4db50f775d9f674fb7c75\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich\u003C/span\u003E: Where does he expect a person ordered to move on for rough sleeping in central Auckland to go at night, given that the Auckland City Mission closes at 5 p.m. and there is no night shelter in that city?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001766\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b375c1d60b9417e15d017c3a81132329\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019d expect that they\u2019d follow the instructions of a constable and move on to a further distance, as is obliged by the move-on order. I\u2019d also point to the many opportunities that there are, such as the immediate access transitional housing programme that operates in Auckland. I\u2019d also point to the extra $14 million that was spent to help with homelessness issues in this country, most recently by this Government, and I\u2019d just make the point to all New Zealanders that we have many tools available to help those who are in need, because that is what we do in the society in which we live. What we don\u2019t have is a useful tool to deal with antisocial and disorderly behaviour in our town squares. Others might not think that\u2019s an important priority; we do, and we do think that restoring law and order and making our country a place where people feel safe visiting, working, and living within our CBDs is important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001767\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226965eac384f0b5ad12a46611363fcc2d\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich\u003C/span\u003E: If move-on orders are really about addressing antisocial behaviour, as he has just stated, why is he insisting on including people who are peacefully begging and rough sleeping?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001768\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222e7915a94df0b9efe65508f8c9a7df60\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Because we have a broad approach to the move-on orders in order to create an environment where people feel safe, and my empathy lies with people who put their life savings into a small business, a little shop, in the town square and get up every morning at 7 o\u2019clock to try to make a living and find three or four people lined out in front of their shop yelling or abusing people as they try to enter. Those people, I think, deserve some help. The member might not think there\u2019s an issue here, but we do, and we\u2019re responding to it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001769\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221fd57b5932a3c6c291c33def24692275\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich\u003C/span\u003E: How can he justify continuing with move-on orders when concerns have been raised by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, the Ministry of Justice, the Auckland City Mission, the police, the Treasury, the Department of Corrections, Auckland Council, and even his own colleague the Attorney-General?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001770\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227c6c5d5b4a1cf0ea6617771c1ccdebb8\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Because I listen to a wide variety of sources, and there are also many, many concerns raised by people who live in our cities and who work in our cities and who visit our cities and find those are places where they are not safe. I listen to the little old lady who is too scared to go and watch a concert in the evening in downtown Auckland because she doesn\u2019t feel safe in the environment. I listen to the young worker who has to join a walking bus to get to her train station at 5 o\u2019clock at night because she doesn\u2019t feel safe in our downtown environment. I listen to all those concerns, and we have responded and we\u2019re sending a clear message that we\u2019re a Government that listens to those who have a perfectly reasonable request\u2014that is, to feel safe in their communities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001771\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00223503c402226f41161899b55841178181\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001772\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f0217ab7ff3bca13aa8abfd169ff4833\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022 data-id=\u0022be32f62b453276432cb0c25067ec9d30\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001773\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022be32f62b453276432cb0c25067ec9d30\u0022\u003EDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader\u2014Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori) (14:50)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by all his Government\u2019s statements and actions?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022 data-id=\u0022d3722d1233f2406d235321180be32763\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001774\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d3722d1233f2406d235321180be32763\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:50)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001775\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002233bdbcf4ad5c9a378d0b1a8319e17f84\u0022\u003EDebbie Ngarewa-Packer\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by his Government\u2019s decision to remove Te Tiriti references from legislation, despite widespread concern from M\u0101ori that doing so weakens Treaty protections?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001776\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225579e806e9e4de4522cace3d2054a4e2\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001777\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022257d45702a4cecccaaac4257ca15d217\u0022\u003EDebbie Ngarewa-Packer\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by his Government weakening statutory protections to achieve health equity for M\u0101ori?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001778\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a38ef572cba6365a5140711064c44678\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: I stand by this Government\u2019s efforts to improve health outcomes for all New Zealanders, M\u0101ori or non-M\u0101ori.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001779\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002259c9fa7e9665b2bd7f7fb3c7095fa448\u0022\u003EDebbie Ngarewa-Packer\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by claiming to have eased the cost of living while electricity prices continue to rise for all New Zealand households?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001780\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228b6e52feec376828ddcc27f8ef31205c\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I\u2019m proud of the efforts of this Government to control spending, to lower inflation, to lower interest rates, to get the economy growing, and, ultimately, to lower unemployment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001781\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002294421e862761afe10459949707a19eae\u0022\u003EDebbie Ngarewa-Packer\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by pursuing imported liquefied natural gas and expanding oil and gas exploration without a coherent national energy strategy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001782\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d310ce66b2285eb7be66baf5a1de676c\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: In answer to the first part of the question, yes, because we want to lower power bills for New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001783\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022faf8d16972ae77500d58a53fe4291a41\u0022\u003EDebbie Ngarewa-Packer\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by claiming regional development is a priority while regional communities continue to lose manufacturing and processing jobs?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001784\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bbb19a20476a51a6b9c0f89e4592c079\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I\u2019m actually proud of this Government because we do believe in regional economies, and strengthening regional economies, and that\u2019s what we\u2019re doing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001785\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226bf1ffd5a9422f6d5704e3fa943cf719\u0022\u003EDebbie Ngarewa-Packer\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by his record on improving outcomes for M\u0101ori in health, housing, employment, and income after nearly three years of his Government being in power?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001786\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bfcab95bb5ab98a2494c1904c177d9c5\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, and I\u2019d also point to education and the improvement in education results for young M\u0101ori students, too.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001787\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227d433bf4f63a91fb626639a2de5f8b17\u0022\u003EDebbie Ngarewa-Packer\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by his decision to make economic development a core aspect of the conservation system?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001788\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bf34c53798d4a56c49fe85770441df21\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019re wanting to make sure we balance environmental and economic outcomes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001789\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f8630d9bb82ca4b93ae27e35bd9224c6\u0022\u003EDebbie Ngarewa-Packer\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by reducing access to emergency housing while community organisations report increasing homelessness?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001790\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022219f206ed1b99abb479bee1ac6b348bc\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: I disagree that that\u2019s what we\u2019re doing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001791\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022fc41f97de01a7799918875160fb39ab2\u0022\u003EHealth\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001792\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e1b9613902a9971b0de65b9c20392f84\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 12\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225f6c5b1a97f24773a8aaeb3a8e3b0e7b\u0022 data-id=\u002278d461ede6519a1353313c64c0be4ca1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001793\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f6c5b1a97f24773a8aaeb3a8e3b0e7b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002278d461ede6519a1353313c64c0be4ca1\u0022\u003EJAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) (14:52)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EAssociate Minister of Health\u003C/span\u003E: What recent announcements has she made about aged residential care funding?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f36277cb754947fa93977a31a33abd49\u0022 data-id=\u0022eae74dc990347acb290efee4583b23bc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001794\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f36277cb754947fa93977a31a33abd49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022eae74dc990347acb290efee4583b23bc\u0022\u003EHon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health) (14:52)\u003C/span\u003E: Last month, the Hon Simeon Brown and I announced that aged residential care providers will receive a 4 percent funding uplift worth around $79 million in the 2026-27 financial year. This will bring the total estimated spend on aged residential care to just over $2 billion this financial year. Alongside a base increase, this additional funding represents targeted investment to improve service delivery, strength and responsiveness to demand, and enhanced access to care. Central to this additional investment is the timely admission into residential care, including over weekends when it is clinically appropriate to do so. New Zealand\u2019s aged-care sector is supported by dedicated providers and staff delivering quality care every day. This additional funding helps them to remain responsive to demand while we continue to work to deliver a sustainable system for the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001795\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f6c5b1a97f24773a8aaeb3a8e3b0e7b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bffd1a7201bef9c287690193a4ab4924\u0022\u003EJamie Arbuckle\u003C/span\u003E: What work is under way to deliver a sustainable aged-care system?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f36277cb754947fa93977a31a33abd49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022abf6b348bf55e6f7b52017d9a291fe1f\u0022\u003EHon CASEY COSTELLO\u003C/span\u003E: As I\u2019ve previously said in the House, we recognise that tweaking existing settings or simply providing more funding won\u2019t solve the challenges within the aged-care system. We need a whole-of-system response. That\u2019s why I established the Aged Care Ministerial Advisory Group, and I\u2019m expecting their final report to be delivered this month. Their independent advice will provide the whole-of-system perspective needed to transform New Zealand\u2019s approach to delivering aged-care services. To be clear, there won\u2019t be any easy fixes, and it will take time, but this Government recognises that a system response that balances keeping people well longer with delivering the right care in the right place at the right time is the practical, common-sense response we need.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001797\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f6c5b1a97f24773a8aaeb3a8e3b0e7b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221497e4903d70a8e32cad785533ad011e\u0022\u003EJamie Arbuckle\u003C/span\u003E: What are her priorities for the aged-care system?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001798\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f36277cb754947fa93977a31a33abd49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e9577474c8a47247d7c46d9265f94741\u0022\u003EHon CASEY COSTELLO\u003C/span\u003E: Caring for people where they are is going to be critical. I have heard many times that people want to be able to age in place, which means the communities and spaces they know. We also know that that is cost-effective. It is better for care and for our investment. I also want to see greater focus on transitions. We know that aged residential care doesn\u2019t always need to be an end point. I want to be able to see a system that supports transitions so that we can receive the right care in the right place at the right time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001799\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b5187d41c16321473acf8063347b4e97\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That concludes oral questions. We now resume with Government orders of the day. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E] We\u2019ll just take 30 seconds while those who need to leave the House, leave the House without conversations on the way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001800\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002273bcbaac7ef832efc75accc85ba3a8aa\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001801\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00226b7f86c6de6ecfbad62343132f1500d0\u0022\u003EHealth and Safety at Work Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001802\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022bbc60385df7c2c92120b103775992a9d\u0022\u003EThird Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001803\u0022\u003EDebate resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022 data-id=\u0022d4e2a79a664d84f0ec09ce14915ae6e0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001804\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d4e2a79a664d84f0ec09ce14915ae6e0\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (14:55)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill is an absolute horror of a bill. This bill weakens the protections that keep people safe on the job, it risks more injuries and deaths, and it does nothing\u2014absolutely nothing\u2014to reduce New Zealand\u2019s already unacceptable rate of workplace fatalities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001805\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill comes on the back of a tsunami of poor workplace relations legislation that this Government has put through this term that will only hurt workers across this country, and workers are fed up and have had enough. But in this particular bill, it is not only workers that are saying how bad this bill is: it is business, it is employers, it is academics, it is workers, it is people that have worked in the health and safety system for many, many years. There has been absolute, widespread condemnation of this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001806\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn fact, I got an email this morning from someone who has been working in this area for 48 years, who has worked in this area because he wants to make a difference, to make our bad statistics better. He said to me in that email, \u201CThere has never been a moment in the health and safety space in Aotearoa New Zealand where Kiwi workers stand to have their existing health and safety protections diminished by a piece of such poorly considered legislation.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001807\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat person is not alone in what they have said to me through that email. I have had so many people engage with me throughout the time that this bill had its first reading, right through to even today\u2014people that come from all walks of life. And what has the Minister done with these concerns? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001808\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c162eeeab4cc536c1a5471d79ea03699\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Nothing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001809\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002298f87b4cc7ad4ce2afc2aaf961b9331e\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI\u003C/span\u003E: One thing, the Hon Kieran McAnulty, is nothing; but one thing that happened during committee of the whole House was that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety met these concerns with sarcasm. She belittled them. She said that they didn\u2019t understand. She then went on to take political potshots at the members of the Opposition who were trying to ask genuine questions about this bill on the back of the consultation that we have had with those people who have been contacting us after select committee with their concerns. It was almost like they weren\u2019t being taken seriously by this Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001810\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhile I was pleased to see that New Zealand First were able to have negotiations to have the implementation of this bill delayed, I\u2019m also incredibly disappointed that we\u2019ve got to this point. I\u2019m disappointed that this bill is not being killed in the water here. It will be, because of that delay in the implementation, but that also brings another part of the disappointment. Why have we spent so much of the House\u2019s time and Parliament\u2019s time and Parliament\u2019s money on something when there have been widespread commitments across the House to repeal this bill after the November election?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001811\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is completely wasting taxpayers\u2019 money, but it is wasting the time of the people and the members in this Parliament. This is a complete waste of time and money, and there\u2019s a sense of frustration that not only I am feeling but people in the wider community and the wider health and safety sector are feeling right at this moment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001812\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill is a backward step\u2014it is a backwards step\u2014especially for small businesses and those who work within them. This came through loud and clear, not only at the Education and Workforce Committee, but by the number of people who have engaged with us\u2014and I say \u201Cus\u201D meaning people across the House\u2014from the time of this bill\u2019s first reading. This bill is creating a two-tier system. It is extending more health and safety rights to people who work in businesses that have 21-plus employees in them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001813\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESenior Lecturer in Occupational Health and Safety Dr Chris Peace told the select committee that 650,000 Kiwis would be disenfranchised of many of their health and safety rights through this bill. Now, Dr Peace is someone who, again, has worked in this sector for quite some time, and brings the academic lens to it, but he is also someone who is completely passionate about improving our health and safety record in this country. At the select committee, and in meetings that he has had with many people in this House, he has consistently said that this bill will only make things worse. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe have to look back at that committee of the whole House. That committee of the whole House phase showed just how bad this bill is. Many of the questions that we had went unanswered, many of them had a very light-touch answer to them, and it almost seemed like we\u2019re just creating this because we\u2019re going to simplify this\u2014people have misunderstood, and so we\u2019re simplifying it. But I go back to my second reading speech: making something simple doesn\u2019t make it better; in fact, in the case of health and safety, it\u2019s likely to make it worse. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001815\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe figure of 20 people is an arbitrary figure. We\u2019ve heard that it appears elsewhere in legislation, but what that answer doesn\u2019t give is that it doesn\u2019t answer, well, are those businesses that are under 20 less safe? The answer in many cases is no. In many cases, they are running some of the most high-risk industries that we see in this country\u2014such as contracting firms that might work in mining or construction; such as people that work in adventure tourism. That is something that is unbelievable\u2014that the Minister would still keep progressing this arbitrary figure of 20 and taking away many of the health and safety rights of the people that work within those companies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001816\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, something else that I want to touch on in this contribution is how ACC have claimed that this bill will increase their costings, and it will increase accidents that happen. We heard from officials, and we heard during the committee of the whole House process, that this couldn\u2019t be costed\u2014but submitters gave costings. We had submitters who gave those costings, and we wanted to verify them, but we were blocked from getting that verified. We couldn\u2019t ask ACC those questions, but ACC have said that 50 percent of claims by cost were from injuries that would not fall under the critical risk, and 75 percent of their claims came from small to medium sized enterprises. That tells me that they already have a really clear idea about the potential costs that this bill will afford to them. But we wouldn\u2019t check that, and I think that that is an absolute mistake that we got blocked from asking those questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001817\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m really concerned that this particular bill has the potential to cost people their lives at the worst and cost people their ability to keep working through serious accident\u2014that we\u2019ve had a Government here that doesn\u2019t listen and hasn\u2019t listened to the stakeholders. These concerns are being expressed every single day, and I urge Government members to take them seriously. I\u2019m not standing here saying this because I am on this side of the House; I am standing here because I have a huge concern about what I am hearing. People are not misunderstanding this. They know from experience the potential for risk that this bill will cause.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001818\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn the last 30 seconds, I want to send a message out to the people who have advocated against this bill the loudest and the most, and that is Stand With Pike. They are totally worried about this bill, and I say to them, we will get it right; we will repeal, and your men did not die in vain. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022 data-id=\u0022ea64f3f3d6d1a01e142139f6b0b26dc4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001819\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ea64f3f3d6d1a01e142139f6b0b26dc4\u0022\u003ETEANAU TUIONO (Green) (15:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak on this bill. The Greens utterly oppose this bill. The proposed changes weaken the systems designed to keep workers safe and healthy. New Zealand already has disastrous, bad workplace health and safety outcomes, and this bill is likely to make it worse. It is reasonable for people to expect that when their families go to work, they come back safe, that when they come back from work they come back unharmed, and that this place passes laws that strengthen workplace health and safety, not the opposite.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001820\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe range of submitters that we heard over the duration of this bill was wide. We heard from businesses, we heard from workers\u2019 organisations, we heard from workplace health and safety experts as well, and I was on the steps of Parliament when the Pike River wh\u0101nau showed up, and who said, in no uncertain terms, that this Parliament should vote this bill down. It is disappointing that it has progressed in the way that it has. It is disappointing that we have got to this point, and the only amendment that managed to get supported was the Government one, which was to kick out the commencement date\u2014particularly when we had the range of submissions and concerns coming across from our communities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001821\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is being debated under urgency. When things are debated under urgency, you\u2019d expect it to be urgent, but here we have a Government that has supported an amendment just on the commencement date, kicking it out to next year as opposed to pausing, reflecting, and thinking about what is best for the country. It was extraordinary last week during question time, when we saw that the actual coalition partners didn\u2019t know whether they met on this issue or not\u2014the differences of opinion that they had or not\u2014and it was alarming. It was alarming because we got to see and the country got to see that that side of the House is not organised on the important issues that really matter: work, health, safety.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001822\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI know that the wh\u0101nau of Pike River came, and they engaged across the House, as well. It looked like pressure was being felt on that side of the House, as well. But if pressure is being felt, then that is reason for us to pause\u2014that is reason for this House to reflect and to get good legislation. It\u2019s incredibly disappointing that the outcome of the committee of the whole House stage was just that one amendment. There were some good amendments\u2014some good amendments that would have strengthened this bill, made it less worse and less terrible, but, unfortunately, what we are seeing is a pattern of behaviour on that side of the House. It is a pattern of behaviour of anti-worker legislation that comes through to the select committee. We try to knock off some of the sharp ends but, by and large, it\u2019s anti-worker legislation, which is terrible for the people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001823\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI don\u2019t know who needs to hear this on that side of the House, but if we\u2019re going to put New Zealand first, we have to put workers first. I reflect on some of the tabled amendments that we put in at the committee of the whole House stage. Some of them were around the concerns that we had and, of course, that a range of people had around the carve-out of the persons conducting a business or undertaking\u2014this arbitrary number of 20.  We had a tabled amendment to strengthen that up, to make sure that clause 7, section 16, was actually more reflective of something that we heard from submitters, something that would address the removal and the development of a two-tier system, which we have heard through the development of this debate, creating that two-tier system, where you have one group who has 20 workers or less and another group that is larger, and apparently that\u2019s going to make things clearer. It won\u2019t. This amendment would have strengthened that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001824\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOther amendments included making sure that we have certainty, because, if you read the language of the bill\u2014and I was reflecting on one of my tabled amendments that went up, which was around clause 9, new sections 22A and 22B, where the suggestion was to replace \u201Cif likely to result\u201D with \u201Cwill result\u201D. What this would have done is actually provide clarity. It would have provided clarity, so that it\u2019s not just arbitrary and subjective whether something is likely to result; it is to sharpen it up, so that we know that, if something does happen, there will be accountability. What concerns me and, I think, a large number of people across the country is that that side of the House is trying to help businesses\u2014some businesses; because we had a number of businesses come to the select committee who also had very, very strong concerns about this bill. These things have not been addressed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001825\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe also had tabled amendments to put in around the codes of conduct, making sure, in our amendments, that there would be a five-year review clause. Whenever you\u2019ve got something in place, you want to be able to review it and make it stronger. This was another tabled amendment that that side of the House could have actually supported. It would have made this legislation a lot stronger and a lot clearer. It did not get the support of the House. Of a number of amendments that would have been supported right across the country, that side chose to pick a random one: to kick out the commencement date, under urgency, when actually, if there are concerns on that side of the House\u2014and I look forward to listening to the call from the New Zealand First Party to explain to New Zealand. If they were so concerned, where were the rest of the Amendment Papers? Where were the rest of the Amendment Papers to strengthen this legislation? Why is this being done under urgency when, actually, we could have done a better job\u2014we should have done a better job, because that\u2019s what New Zealand deserves\u2014to make sure that we went through this in a sensible way?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001826\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe concerns around ACC were also not addressed. We have had engagement with ACC, and my concern there continues to be, as I talked about in my second reading speech and also illustrated across the House as well, that because responsibility is not going to be picked up by anyone, by the looks of it, it will actually be passed off on to ACC, a system which is already overburdened, which already has concerns as well. What happens to musculoskeletal harm? What we heard from ACC was that they oppose the carve-out because they pay out more than $3.6 billion on musculoskeletal harm. That\u2019s a lot of money. That\u2019s a massive chunk of change. If, all of a sudden, these PCBUs get to kick that to touch, who\u2019s going to look after people? Are we going to push it on to ACC, a system that is already heavily burdened? It looks like that is the case. Mental health and workload management, as well, are also unlikely to be captured by this new focus on critical risk. I know, for many people, that is a growing concern, because often, when you\u2019re in the workplace, it\u2019s not a particular moment when you are feeling absolutely stressed that could lead to injuries, sometimes fatal; it can happen over a period of years. Where is the support? Where is the accountability and liability within this bill? It doesn\u2019t exist.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001827\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAll we\u2019ve got here is a rushed job by that side of the House, who have been pandering to who knows who, who have not been talking to each other to find solutions that are good for everybody\u2014to find solutions that make sure that everybody who goes to work comes back alive, that everybody who goes to work comes back unharmed, that this place does the best it can to look after workers as they go out to their worksites, that we find systems that are not confusing, like this one is\u2014it\u2019s confusing; even they don\u2019t agree on it\u2014and that we find ways to actually slow down the process so that we can have a better, proper, thorough look at it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001828\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill is terrible. It is bad for workers. It will lead to worse work safety outcomes. People have said it across a wide range of groups and organisations, from workers\u2019 organisations, businesses as well, and my concern continues to be that we have rushed this bill, that we have not done it due diligence, that there were concerns raised at the last minute between the coalition partners. Those concerns should have been enough for this bill to be paused, and it hasn\u2019t been. We do not commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c96149a439844ecfa86967f9caf5f50d\u0022 data-id=\u002261e8b70493b171001e88b06e895356f8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001829\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c96149a439844ecfa86967f9caf5f50d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002261e8b70493b171001e88b06e895356f8\u0022\u003EKATIE NIMON (National\u2014Napier) (15:16)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It\u2019s a pleasure to speak on this bill at its third reading. I can assure members and anyone listening that this bill has been through a fulsome and proper process, and I would like to make the point that businesses are incredibly favourable of the approved codes of practice, an aspect of this bill that is an incredible asset to our health and safety at work reform. I want to add that this Government is focused on fixing the basics and building with the future, and with that, I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002211e9e1f818754d97b60bba4b18e5dc03\u0022 data-id=\u0022e4d8fa6cd75f9128cbec7b78996ddc13\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001830\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002211e9e1f818754d97b60bba4b18e5dc03\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e4d8fa6cd75f9128cbec7b78996ddc13\u0022\u003EHon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities) (15:16)\u003C/span\u003E: I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill, which brings into effect a coalition agreement between the ACT Party and the National Party. It is no secret that New Zealand First has reservations about this bill. We do support the Minister absolutely in her intent to have less bureaucratic and burdensome, and ultimately more effective, workplace safety legislation. We must reduce harm and death in our workplaces. Our stats on this are absolutely appalling, and behind those, lies human misery, lost productivity, and eye-watering cost to the State.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand First are not represented on the Education and Workforce Committee, but we became increasingly concerned as we saw the overwhelming weight of evidence being presented to the select committee, and that was in opposition to these changes. Employment relations bills are inherently partisan. Submissions can be reliably split between two camps: there are the workers\u2019 representatives on one side and the employers\u2019 groups on the other. This bill was unique in the regard that the overwhelming breadth of consensus was submitting against these changes. Instead of making the regime simpler, it was said that they would add complexity, and were described as unworkable. New Zealand First has heard these voices.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001832\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAt its core, the issue is the arbitrary nature of the differentiation between small and large businesses. While admirable in its intent, in reality the size of a business is in no way a proxy for risk. In fact, the stats appear to show that the opposite applies. It also fails to fully recognise that small and large businesses often interact, and operating under different regimes adds complexity and confusion. It risks this Parliament sending a poor signal. Health and safety is as much a workplace culture issue as it is a rules-based issue. A culture of turning a blind eye to small risks can inadvertently lead to cavalier attitudes to high risks.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001833\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPolitics, Mr Speaker, as you well know, is the art of the possible. It has not been possible to convince our coalition colleagues to make substantial changes, and we are compelled to vote for this bill via the coalition agreement. We take our responsibilities extremely seriously. What we have done is bring the most precious of commodities in politics: time\u2014a delay in the implementation date\u2014and we do thank the Minister for her acquiescence. New Zealand First intends to use this time to campaign on sensible changes that come into effect before the implementation date of this bill. We know we have our colleagues in the National Party, some of whom share our concerns, and we look forward to working with them after the election to change these settings, settings that preserve the intent of this bill but in a way that won\u2019t unduly compromise our most precious resource: our people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001834\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002241ee0ca01690351c6a69f181a1428144\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The next call is a split call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022 data-id=\u0022d1c99700bd9bf3bdcb15363ca3664fcd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001835\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d1c99700bd9bf3bdcb15363ca3664fcd\u0022\u003EDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader\u2014Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori) (15:20)\u003C/span\u003E: T\u0113n\u0101 koe e te P\u012Bka. I rise on behalf of Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori to, obviously, speak in opposition to this bill. There are a few things I\u2019d like to share. There are times in the history of Aotearoa when we have had the unintended consequences of learning from other people\u2019s trauma of what determines the culture of how we look after our people\u2014our workers\u2014and there was a time in the history of Aotearoa when we woke up to the disaster of Pike River, and it came into everyone\u2019s lounges, into everyone\u2019s lives, when we watched intimately the trauma of wh\u0101nau who didn\u2019t know if their sons and their husbands and their dads were returning home from work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001836\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt was such a horrific time, and I remember watching at the beginning, when all those who belonged to the company were extremely concerned and were taking on all sorts of commitments. As the nation was waiting with anxiety on whether these workers were alive, we seemed to go through a stage where those that owned the company stepped aside, and we were then more intimately working and walking beside those wh\u0101nau who had the horrific grief of knowing, eventually, that their family members were never going to return. I remember going into different kaupapa, and I\u2019d hope, when I\u2019d got out, that there was news that they had been found and that there was news that they were going to be recovered. So, this year, when we had to meet and speak with some of those family members, they shared the intimacy of the trauma that only those who have lived through this experience could know. When you have the lessons of that as a nation, and they\u2019re actually opposing this bill, that is enough for me. Because I have had all my sons and daughters and husbands and fathers come home from work, I haven\u2019t had to have the lesson that they have. That is enough for our party to oppose this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001837\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe have had experiential, horrific lessons from wh\u0101nau. We\u2019ve had officials, we\u2019ve had experts, we\u2019ve had ACC, and we\u2019ve had stakeholders all tell us that this is a really bad bill. I\u2019m struggling to understand why we don\u2019t take their lessons as being enough for us to know that this is not only a bad bill; it\u2019s not a bill that suits this nation to be rushed through urgency. No matter what its intent, something that we should, as a nation, decide is what is the culture of us? In this House, what is the culture that we support for those who are working and for those who have had to live through the experiences that, again, none of us have been able to share?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001838\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think when we stop listening to experts and we stop taking heed of warnings and advice from those who have lived this and are still living this and are having to, every day, watch a House like this struggle to understand why is it that we have a Government that refuses to listen to experts when it comes to the culture and the wellbeing of people, when it comes to the culture of the safety of people, and when it comes to the working habits and the culture of working habits as a people? We have a Government that listens to oil and gas experts, horse racing experts, fuel crisis experts, property developer experts, and fast-track experts, but as a nation, we have had the experiential lesson of those families from Pike River. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001839\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is in that essence that I honour the memory of what they\u2019ve had to live through and the lessons that they\u2019ve had the generosity to share with us, and I absolutely oppose this bill. I hope, and give them hope, that one day we will repeal this bill and undo the damage that is happening to the culture of people and workers. Kia ora r\u0101.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022 data-id=\u002216236bd47bc295a43406498575859b79\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001840\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002216236bd47bc295a43406498575859b79\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (15:25)\u003C/span\u003E: T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of the Green Party in complete opposition to this bill. I just want to acknowledge, I guess, the catalyst for the Health and Safety at Work Act, which was the Pike River disaster back in 2010, and the hard work of the Pike River wh\u0101nau to actually ensure that stronger legislation was put in place, and the work that they continue to ensure that it remains in place, and the fact that they were in the forecourt last week in opposition to this bill. We all know that, still, too many people die at work. There are too many serious injuries, and there are too many injuries, but when you make systems designed to keep workers safe and healthy weaker, the consequence will be that more people will suffer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001841\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s extremely concerning that, as a country, we have a fatality rate that is 1.7 times higher than Australia and 6.5 times higher than the UK. We should be strengthening our legislation and regulation, not winding it back. It\u2019s been really interesting of late to see the fallout from what\u2019s been happening between New Zealand First and ACT, and I\u2019m extremely concerned when I hear the opposition to the bill from New Zealand First, but yet they continue to vote for it. They vote for a bill that\u2019s going to become legislation very shortly that will see more people harmed at work. To not vote for it today, right now, would actually be a sign of your commitment to workers. To vote in favour of this bill that will see more harm to workers is an absolute cop-out, and workers should realise that you do not actually stand for workers and the health and safety of workers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001842\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224628c46eb77d8298aac666b1c6f5a356\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry. The use of the term \u201Cyou\u201D has got to be\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001843\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022baa9a586e0aee0599a7a4f9099e4e005\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON\u003C/span\u003E: Apologies, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001844\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e9b12cd7b26ac2ae35385dcabe708595\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: When you\u2019re referring to yourself, then that\u2019s fine, but anything else, just\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001845\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022268761a7023c1f558cdee1aa22c835ab\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON\u003C/span\u003E: Apologies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001846\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e4c859cc2961562dc11818cfcc195401\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No worries. Carry on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001847\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022964bff4b9e379bf6cb5902893bddfbe5\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s been interesting how rushed this bill has gone through lately when we have gone from second reading and committee of the whole House and now into third reading, all within a very, very short period of time. This morning in the committee of the whole House, when we were asking some really important questions of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety and putting forward some really important amendments, I felt her comments were very, at times, condescending to MPs that were trying to at least improve a bill that is really, really bad. The fact that the Minister also talked down, I think, to experts in the field because they did not support her agenda and her narrative was also very, very concerning. I have seen, through this bill, that their ultimate aim is to reduce cost. Unfortunately, when you focus on reducing costs, that comes with a consequence, and we know the consequence of that is harm.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001848\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EHealth and safety in the workplace should not be seen as a cost; it should be seen as an investment. When we place an emphasis on health and safety, not only will people not get injured as much nor die; we will see an increase in productivity\u2014that is good for work. This bill is not actually about cutting costs; it\u2019s actually about shifting costs. We have not been able to get proper information from ACC around the actual cost this bill will actually create for that ministry. The bottom line is that this bill will see more workers harmed in the workplace. That is unacceptable, and the Green Party opposes this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002290f442a79aea4ce0aeae083763135935\u0022 data-id=\u00229b0d70b51b65d28d157b0e18c783e324\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001849\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290f442a79aea4ce0aeae083763135935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229b0d70b51b65d28d157b0e18c783e324\u0022\u003ECARL BATES (National\u2014Whanganui) (15:30)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We are all on the side of more effective health and safety regulations for New Zealanders. It\u2019s about getting the balance right, it\u2019s about supporting productivity, and it\u2019s about improving how we achieve that outcome. As I said yesterday, National will continue to look for further improvements in ensuring health and safety in the workplace and engaging with business, industry, and workers to achieve that. In the meantime, as National continues to focus on fixing the basics and building the future, I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u0022a96e3a34fd2139db5859d8787a42da65\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001850\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a96e3a34fd2139db5859d8787a42da65\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (15:31)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, what a mess. This bill was something that nobody asked for. It was born out of the ideological desires of the ACT Party during their coalition negotiations and a single-minded Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety who chose to ignore workers, businesses, health and safety experts, people who have had friends and family injured in workplace accidents, economists\u2014essentially, everyone was opposed to this bill apart from the ACT Party.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001851\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf one wants to look for an example of wasteful spending, look no further than the hundreds of hours spent on this terrible bill, the reams and reams of paper spent writing and analysing the impacts of this bill, when this bill is a dead duck. It is going nowhere, and the reason it\u2019s going nowhere is because people outside this building have continued to pressure those who are in power in order to get them to see sense and not pass a bill that will end up hurting and killing New Zealanders. That is not hyperbole; that is evidence that we received on this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001852\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think it\u2019s important to go back to the beginning of how we actually managed to get into this terrible, terrible mess. Many other people have mentioned it, but I want to acknowledge those friends and family who lost loved ones at Pike River. I\u2019ve been down there, I have looked at the memorial, I\u2019ve looked at their names, their ID tags still hanging on the hook waiting for those workers to come home. It is not many New Zealanders who can go there and leave with a dry eye, because it is a terrible indictment of the health and safety legacy that we have in this country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001853\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, those families didn\u2019t want that to happen to anyone else, understandably. I am so sorry to Sonya Rockhouse and Anna Osborne that even now, even decades after Pike River, they have to come to Parliament to tell politicians, \u201CPlease don\u2019t pass laws that will injure workers and hurt New Zealanders. Please don\u2019t pass laws that take our health and safety backwards. Please pass laws that mean that other families won\u2019t have to go through the terrible anguish that they had to go through.\u201D I am so sorry that they continue to have to do this. We should know better, and this House should do better by the legacy of Pike River.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001854\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EUnfortunately, that is not, as we know, what has happened. When this Minister came in, she decided to go on a roadshow nobody asked for, a tour of New Zealand asking people who didn\u2019t want to engage with her and didn\u2019t have an agenda to do so what they thought about health and safety. She said that she talked to many workers, and I imagine the conversations went something like this: \u201CDo you feel that you are hampered by green and red tape?\u201D and the worker says, \u201CYes.\u201D, and that is the evidence that has been used to pass this bill. It is not based on anything that has been brought to the Government. There\u2019s no study, there\u2019s been no royal commission; it is something that was only desired to be changed by the ACT Party through their ideological agenda that small government knows best and that for the Government to be out of people\u2019s lives is the best thing for all New Zealanders. Well, the evidence in health and safety says the opposite.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001855\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo this roadshow went on all over New Zealand, and the Minister came back and, blow me down with surprise, the premise that she went into it with is the premise that she came out of it with. So none of those conversations that she had\u2014and in good faith, I, along with Teanau Tuiono, hosted a forum at Parliament; we invited workers to come and speak to the Minister. Those workers, in good faith, told their stories about how health and safety is so important for their work and how we need stronger, not weaker, laws in New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Minister ignored that. She pushed forward, and we see now today that she doesn\u2019t even have the support of her own coalition parties. She doesn\u2019t have the support of the New Zealand First Party; they have made that perfectly clear, and we wish that they had been able to stop this passing today and we wish that they had been able to stop this getting to this stage. But we also see now that the National Party is giving very lukewarm speeches in relation to this bill too, and I am not surprised at that, because the evidence is overwhelming. There is nothing in this bill that actually improves health and safety, and, in fact, the evidence is that it will lead to further deaths and further injuries. I\u2019ve heard speakers on the other side of the House speak in support of bills, and that is not the tenor of their advocacy today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001857\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThankfully for them and their consciences and their legacy, this bill will pass today, sadly, but New Zealanders now have a choice. New Zealanders have a choice, and they can vote for parties that have always stood up for health and safety at the election. If they do\u2014and this is very relevant to the commencement of the bill\u2014this bill will not become law, and that will save lives. That will save lives in New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001858\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe situation of health and safety in New Zealand is not good as it stands, and when the Minister announced that she was doing a review, I thought, well, maybe this is an opportunity to improve the situation. The reason I thought that is when you look at the statistics, they are diabolical. The Business Leaders\u2019 Health and Safety Forum states that New Zealanders are 6.5 times more likely to be killed at work than those in the UK\u20146.5 times more likely; that is an outrage\u2014also, 60 percent more likely to be killed then Australian workers. That is a national shame.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001859\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo fix this system, we need better laws and better regulations, but this bill does the opposite. This bill means that small employers of up to 20 will only have to have a look at critical risk. They won\u2019t have to look at all of the other types of harm that can occur to people in the workplace, and there are many, many, many types of harms that can have huge impacts on people\u2019s lives that would not be considered critical risk. That is a huge shame. In fact, if we look at the number of New Zealand firms in New Zealand that would not be covered by this, it\u2019s 97 percent. Why change the law to make health and safety laws weaker for 97 percent of the companies in New Zealand? It just doesn\u2019t follow logically that this is going to improve health and safety.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001860\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen we raised this with the Minister, she said the objections to this bill were vibes based\u2014based on vibes. That is not a comment of a Minister who is taking responsibility for the serious decisions that she makes as part of the executive, and it is a shame.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001861\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s important to note that the people who this bill is meant to help, who the ACT Party allegedly stands for, do not support this bill. We have had many submissions to the Education and Workforce Committee, including from organisations like Retail NZ, who should in theory be supportive of changes to take away health and safety red and green tape from small businesses. Retail NZ do not support this bill and, in fact, said that headcount alone does not define risk. That is true.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001862\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe look at other organisations who would usually support these kinds of regulatory changes in a way that is allegedly, according to the ACT Party, supportive of business, but we see the Employers and Manufacturers Association, one of the biggest employers\u2019 organisations in New Zealand, say that the bill \u201Cmay unintentionally increase harm, complexity, and compliance [and] uncertainty for businesses and workers.\u201D So not only is this bill going to increase harm, but it actually might increase costs. We\u2019ve seen evidence from economist Shamubeel Eaqub to suggest that this might mean decreased productivity in small businesses, decreased profits, meaning that they are less likely to be successful. So even on that measure, this bill fails. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001863\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to end by acknowledging all of those people who have sadly been injured or who have had friends or family killed at work. Everyone deserves to come home safe, everyone deserves to have their family members come home safe. New Zealand has a terrible record of health and safety; we must do more to ensure that health and safety is improved in New Zealand. Unfortunately, this bill takes us backwards, it was misguided, it was not based on evidence, it has lost support from business, it has lost support from unions, it has lost support from workers, it has lost support from everyone in New Zealand including the ACT Party\u2019s own coalition partners. This is a waste of time, this is a terrible bill, and we do not support it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002227d19573a8ba4d8283b17374978c8ea2\u0022 data-id=\u00229591fe7ac4b2c252a4e7d6f80a7bf76e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001864\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227d19573a8ba4d8283b17374978c8ea2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229591fe7ac4b2c252a4e7d6f80a7bf76e\u0022\u003EGRANT McCALLUM (National\u2014Northland) (15:41)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on the third reading of the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill. After sitting through the full process\u2014I\u2019ll remind you we\u2019ve been through a full process on this this bill\u2014one of the great things that I learnt from the bill and one of the really strong pieces of advice that\u2019s come through and we had a lot of support for was the approved codes of practice. Small businesses in particular were very keen for these to become front and centre as part of their health and safety plans. And with that, I make note of the fact that we\u2019re in the process of fixing the basics and building the future, and I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f988bc72b5e47b8856ba70e41dfbbaf\u0022 data-id=\u00221aeccd14a7951409d8b41fce8031d10f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001865\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f988bc72b5e47b8856ba70e41dfbbaf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221aeccd14a7951409d8b41fce8031d10f\u0022\u003EGEORGIE DANSEY (Labour) (15:41)\u003C/span\u003E: This bill weakens the protections that keep workers safe. It shifts New Zealand backwards at a time when workplace injuries, deaths, and mental harm are already far too high. We are in a situation where we have the most anti-worker Government that this country has seen in years. We have had cut after cut after cut to workplace rights for workers and now the Minister comes in with her swansong of the biggest hit of all, cutting health and safety practices for workplaces and workers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001866\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve had the cutting of pay equity where thousands of women are being paid less than men, and now we are making people less safe at work. Labour supports keeping workers and workplaces safe, and this bill takes us in the wrong direction. We are going to have more injuries at work under this bill. We are going to have more deaths under this bill, and nobody wants that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001867\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s the interesting thing about this, that I can be confident that nobody wants people to get hurt at work. We\u2019re all people who want people to come home after work. Yet, despite that value and despite the evidence that has come before this House in this process, still the Government continues to push through this legislation. New Zealand already has disastrous, bad workplace health and safety outcomes. We are losing workers every single week when they are getting killed at work. Every 15 minutes, a worker suffers an injury that requires more than a week off work. An estimated 750,000 New Zealanders will die from work-related health illnesses and injuries, far above that of Australia and the UK. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001868\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to speak to previous speakers from the Government parties who have spoken about the long process of this bill, that they\u2019re not rushing it through urgency, the process has been going on for some time. Well, I would like to let you know that the process has been going on for a decade and acknowledge the incredibly brave people who have been working on this mahi since the terrible Pike River disaster that killed 29 workers. I want to acknowledge those people who have worked hard to ensure that we have health and safety laws in this country that look after our workers and people at work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001869\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAfter the Pike River disaster, the Pike River royal commission of inquiry and the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety created our critical piece of legislation, the Health and Safety at Work Act, as well as the primary regulator, WorkSafe. This was designed so that the employee and the employer, the person conducting business or undertaking, the PCBU, could work together to ensure that workplaces were safe at work. I don\u2019t think that there is an employer who doesn\u2019t care if their workers get hurt at work. They don\u2019t want workers to get hurt at work. But speak to any employer who has had a significant injury in their workplace and they\u2019ll say, \u201CIt\u2019s important we have good health and safety law and we don\u2019t use cost-cutting exercises at the expense of our workers.\u201D, because the cost of having someone injured at work and the devastating effects of having someone killed at work far outweighs the initial cost of ensuring we have good health and safety processes in the first place. No business wants workers hurt at work and we have seen that through the submissions and the multiple organisations and groups of people who have spoken actively against this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001870\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe want to keep workers and workplaces safe. This Government is anti-worker and this bill should not pass. They are taking New Zealand backwards and there will be more injuries in our workplaces because of it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226c562dc86e974914b8878595e580f138\u0022 data-id=\u0022a8eb3e737b9226b4cff952522ca85b3c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001871\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c562dc86e974914b8878595e580f138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a8eb3e737b9226b4cff952522ca85b3c\u0022\u003ECATHERINE WEDD (National\u2014Tukituki) (15:46)\u003C/span\u003E: Look, keeping people safe at work will always be the National Party\u2019s number one priority. We support practical, sensible regulation, which of course gives businesses certainty and keeps our people safe at the same time. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022 data-id=\u002216c8bbbb52efbd577a9160a5095e9982\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001872\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002216c8bbbb52efbd577a9160a5095e9982\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert) (15:47)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. This is an area I know quite a lot about because I worked in the area and I would say that one of the first lessons I learnt was our big employers, often they\u2019ll overkill on health and safety. They might have issues around proportionality, but our small employers are often really scary in some of their practices. That\u2019s a natural learning curve that happens, but we\u2019ve got to be there to support them with the right boundaries. Those boundaries are to protect our people because that is the most important thing in this country, and it\u2019s certainly the most important thing to the Labour Party.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001873\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I can tell you war stories from this area to support this, but I\u2019ll restrict myself a little bit. I can tell you about a man who was driving home from work after doing several shifts in a row because he wanted the extra money. Now, his employer should have understood that doing that many shifts in a row makes you really tired. He drove off the road and he was killed. That left his family with no support, and it was a deep, deep tragedy. It didn\u2019t matter whether his employer was big or little. It was more likely under this legislation that a small employer wouldn\u2019t consider that risk at all because it wouldn\u2019t be seen as critical. It\u2019s just simply not as obvious. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001874\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat was a case I was involved with because WorkSafe had trouble colouring in the lines as to whether that was a work injury, because he drove off the road afterwards, even though it was caused by his work and his work hours. It took a little sorting out. So imagine a little employer trying to do that without decent guidance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001875\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, his family was just as hurt. That\u2019s my point. It didn\u2019t matter if it was a little employer or a big one. His family deserved the protections of our law to make sure that the interests in his safety were paramount in the minds of that business. Now we know, because ACC told us, that this piece of law will hurt our country financially, and guess what ACT? It will hurt our taxpayers.  They will end up fronting the bill. They will end up paying a lot more in ACC. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001876\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut I want to talk about those employees who slip under the radar, because I met one of those the other day. She was a woman who was selling things at my local market, and she was just selling little bits and pieces to make ends meet. She had worked really hard all her life, but she\u2019d worked in hospitality\u2014so, I\u2019m guessing, fairly small employers. She was carrying loads that were just too heavy and, as a result, she\u2019d injured herself, and so she couldn\u2019t do that work. Her employer hadn\u2019t really wanted to think about the consequences, so she had not put in an ACC claim in time, and it had been rejected, so she was working at the market, just selling these little things.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001877\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s what happens when things slip through the net that aren\u2019t safety critical, because that woman\u2019s income is impacted for the rest of her life. Now, it\u2019s not the great tragedy\u2014and I want to tell you about the great tragedy in a minute\u2014in the eyes of this House, but that\u2019s everybody\u2019s life right now. Everybody\u2019s scraping by. They don\u2019t need this. They don\u2019t need not to be looked after when they take the first job they can get. They don\u2019t actually have that much choice about where they work at the moment. They can\u2019t wait for it to be the big companies, the Fonterras. That might be the life that most of the people in this House have led, but it\u2019s not the life of most New Zealanders. It\u2019s completely out of touch to think that it doesn\u2019t matter\u2014those little injuries\u2014because those are the things that glue our people to wages, and we need to look after them. We need to make sure that we\u2019re looking after them all the time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001878\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I want to tell you about a big employer. I know everybody\u2019s talked about Pike River, for a really good reason, and it makes me shudder. But I\u2019ve talked before in this House, and I spoke almost directly\u2014although, of course, I\u2019ve got to be very careful about that\u2014to New Zealand First when I talked about the Port of Auckland. When I had spoken last time about how many lessons there were to be learnt from the Port of Auckland, I thought I\u2019d better do something about it, so I went on something called a business attachment, where you can go and you can work in an industry. I knew a lot about the port because I\u2019d been there and watched terrible events happen at that port in health and safety for many years not be dealt with appropriately, and I knew that that port had turned things around. I know it can be done, that we can address our terrible rate of fatalities in this country, and I wanted to see how they\u2019ve done it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001879\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s a really interesting story, because we had deaths by crushing of containers; we had terrible deaths for their workforce. It was absolutely terrible. Eventually, the CEO was actually charged, and so it\u2019s all a matter of public record, because he killed people with his behaviour. It was a top-down approach and it was cavalier. There\u2019s now a group in there managing at the port, and one of them\u2019s a guy called Roger Gray. He\u2019s definitely not a friend of the Labour Party. He\u2019s probably a member of the National Party. But you know what, Roger Gray\u2019s spent a lot of time getting to know and working with the union in there, and he did that with the absolute genuine intention of rebuilding that relationship. Now, it\u2019s the union and the management and the workers at grassroots level who fix the health and safety problems in their workforce. They are there working together to do that. It\u2019s a powerful story, because they have really, really impacted on health and safety at that place. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001880\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne story that was told to me was by one of the managers who decided to go and do the lasher programme. She went and worked as a lasher on the waterfront, and she did that and she discovered what the workers were saying was that the health and safety rules written in that situation weren\u2019t fit for purpose because they didn\u2019t actually practically work. The people who\u2019d been writing the law weren\u2019t the people doing it, so they didn\u2019t know how far you needed to stand apart. They were able to amend those rules by a group working together in what\u2019s called \u201Chigh performance, high engagement\u201D. That resulted in a much safer practice for everyone. They also told me one thing\u2014and this was management: \u201CYou know, actually, it\u2019s not all about productivity. Sometimes, those things go together; sometimes, they don\u2019t\u2014and when they don\u2019t, it\u2019s health and safety that wins.\u201D So I was really impressed by what I saw there, because it involved everyone. It wasn\u2019t combative in the way that the law often is. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001881\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat I would say about this law is that it\u2019s, again, missing the point. It\u2019s super top-down. People have talked about the disrespect for exports. What about the disrespect for workers? What this Minister did was create a law based on her view of the world. It was ideological and, as a result, we\u2019ll have deaths in this country we wouldn\u2019t otherwise have. We will have people die because somebody is blindly adhering to an ideology which just doesn\u2019t fit reality, because she forgot, on those tours of the country, to actually spend enough time talking and listening to the people around her who were in the throes of dealing with these problems.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001882\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI would love to see some health and safety reform in this country. It\u2019s by no means perfect, given the rates of fatalities and the rates of injury. I think we can do better; I\u2019d like to see some concepts in this area looked at. I think that\u2019s a good thing. But I see nothing in this law that is wise. I see someone blind to the reality, not very interested in talking and listening, who\u2019s come up with an inhumane law that will kill people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002288978fb9592a4911a8e47eae04d164f3\u0022 data-id=\u0022846dd48999b90474932e70c73083acd6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001883\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002288978fb9592a4911a8e47eae04d164f3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022846dd48999b90474932e70c73083acd6\u0022\u003EDr VANESSA WEENINK (National\u2014Banks Peninsula) (15:57)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It\u2019s a pleasure to be the final speaker in this third reading of the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill. Some of the highlights of this bill, I think, will be the approved codes of practice, which have been called for for a long time across many different industries. This will enable the implementation of real health and safety workforce and culture in all different-sized workplaces. This is one of the key elements that had been missing, and this is part of how National is fixing the basics and building the future. I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001884\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill be now read a third time\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001885\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001886\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001887\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001888\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001890\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001891\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00225a33915a562e04855913acd3117ec0ab\u0022\u003EOffshore Renewable Energy Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001892\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00229f6c40efbbfe9baf4478efa54d970cfc\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u002268a4f618389ed2837e4e77eb5e99af3b\u0022\u003EPart 1 Preliminary provisions, and Schedule 1\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001894\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a929bc657eec48c94c4f6de637705f66\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the House is in committee on the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill. We begin with the debate on Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 9\u2014the preliminary provisions\u2014and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u00226dbdd4244c1a682d2fc1953c0011d85a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001895\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226dbdd4244c1a682d2fc1953c0011d85a\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (16:00)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m pleased to present the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill for the committee of the whole House stage. Offshore renewable energy has significant potential in our energy system, and this bill delivers a regulatory regime to enable it as part of the Government\u2019s Electrifying New Zealand plan. I want to acknowledge the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for considering the bill and to acknowledge everyone who made submissions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001896\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere are a couple of Amendment Papers that I have put on the Table, which I would like to just take a moment to speak to. The first one, and the key one, is an Amendment Paper that I\u2019m proposing that would make the bill more directly address spatial conflict between seabed mining and offshore wind, as recommended by the select committee. This Amendment Paper creates an ability for the Minister for Energy and the Minister for Resources, acting jointly, to issue a notice designating specific marine areas where there are time-limited restrictions on seabed mining approvals. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001897\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn these areas, there would be a pause on the ability to apply for and grant new seabed mining permits or approve area extensions to existing permits under the Crown Minerals Act. This would cover prospecting, exploration, and mining permits, but excludes permits for petroleum. Ministers will be required to consult with persons who may be affected and ensure that restrictions were not in place for longer than is reasonable or cover areas larger than necessary to achieve the purpose of the designation. The proposed amendments will help create clearer pathways for development, ensuring that offshore wind potential can be realised without undue regulatory friction. The first Amendment Paper also includes a minor technical amendment to clarify the regulation-making power in relation to setting levies on permit holders. This is a minor wording change to make it clear that the levy can be specified as either an amount or a rate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001898\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second Amendment Paper is a minor technical amendment to clause 118, sharing of information with agencies. That amends the reference to the Ministry for the Environment to Ministry of Cities, Environments, Regions and Transport\u2014a very happy birthday to that new department. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022 data-id=\u002200767d8904fd5742276b821a48c3b559\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001899\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002200767d8904fd5742276b821a48c3b559\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram) (16:02)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the Minister for Energy for those overarching comments. As in various stages of this bill, and indeed at the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, Labour is supporting this bill. In fact, this was work we had under way when this Government came in. It is work we would like to have seen back on the floor of this Chamber much sooner, because there is an enormous opportunity for New Zealand in the area of offshore wind, and it\u2019s fair to say it\u2019s been sitting around for quite a while, so it is a relief to see it back.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001900\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI note the Minister\u2019s amendment to Part 2 of the bill, and we\u2019ll speak to that amendment when we get to the debate around Part 2. I\u2019d just like to highlight that I have tabled an amendment to the amendment in terms of what we do in terms of what we do around the competing uses in Part 2, but I won\u2019t speak to that now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001901\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe purpose of the bill, I think, is something that has driven the fact that there is broad support for this bill. If we have a look at it, it\u2019s around giving that investment certainty that we will have people who will crack on and will build what, in a decade, are going to be an immensely important sources of generation for New Zealand. We already have commercial interest in this area; we have a number of players that are or were looking at opportunities\u2014particularly, Madam Chair, I\u2019m sure you will be more than aware, off the coast of Taranaki and up into the Waikato.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001902\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think it is unfortunate that we have already seen some of that investment driven away from New Zealand\u2014that international investment\u2014because we haven\u2019t had this consenting regime in place, and we have dragged the chain on this. This was something that we could have had in place two years ago, and we could have been getting on with actually looking to that future. I think we can all agree around the purpose.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001903\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the things, looking through the regulatory impact statement, that I find interesting is, in clause 3(b), \u201Callow the selection of ORE developments that best meet New Zealand\u2019s national interests\u201D. I think one of the things that comes up between the original bill and the regulatory impact statement that went with it and the subsequent Amendment Paper is that flip between developer-led and Government-led approaches to how we do this. Around the world, we are seeing Governments move either in one direction, letting the developers lead the way, or Government taking more of a hand in it and deciding what areas are going to be open for prospecting; what areas are going to be concentrated on; and, with that, is there open data that will accompany it, and what are we doing to attract that investment, because there is international competition for this. There\u2019s quite a lot of discussion in the advice that the Minister received around the development led and Government-led approaches to this, so I would be interested in comments from the Minister in terms of the shift to a more Government-led approach that we are seeing with the amendments that have been tabled. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001904\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019re also told in the regulatory impact statement that during the consultation phases, in both rounds of public consultation, there was generally support for an assessment that considers both the capabilities of applicants and the impacts on New Zealand\u2019s national interests more broadly. I would be interested to know from the Minister, in this purpose clause, which is about the national interest test, what was the policy work that did or didn\u2019t happen in terms of a broader understanding around what the national interest in relation to offshore wind was? That is something that is fundamental. I think we can all see the immense value this will be to our country, but as we work our way through the bill, I think it would just be useful for the Minister to give some detail around some of the policy considerations that went to broadening or not broadening that concept of what the national interest is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022 data-id=\u0022b9a0d454f67bc0df3451e9341e9754c3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001905\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b9a0d454f67bc0df3451e9341e9754c3\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (16:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, thank you. Like my colleague Dr Woods, I am really interested at this stage in the purpose of this bill. Dr Woods has looked at some questions around New Zealand\u2019s national interest. I want to go to clause 3(c), \u201Cmanage the risks to the Crown and the public from ORE developments.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001906\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to understand in particular what the risks to the Crown are and what risks might be foreseen. I guess what I have in mind is the risks that the Crown has had to wear in respect of fossil fuels and offshore fossil fuels and the decommissioning of oilfields and the like, where the Crown has picked up considerable bills in that regard. In terms of the risks to the Crown around offshore wind, if the Minister for Energy could just lay out a little bit of what some of those risks might actually be around offshore wind. Clearly, it\u2019s not going to be around the clean energy itself, but there must be some other risks around it, and I would like to hear a little bit more about that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001907\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen the risks to the public: it would be interesting to know how broadly that term \u201Cthe public\u201D is going to be construed. Again, what sort of risks might be sitting in there? There are clearly some physical hazard risks if any individuals\u2014presumably there must be some people who want to go boating around offshore windmills. But what about the public in general? Is there a sort of risk to more than just individuals doing that? If the Minister could just set out what some of those risks are, that would be very helpful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u002248ee984c699a411f22c9a730580d4cb4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001908\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002248ee984c699a411f22c9a730580d4cb4\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (16:08)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the members for the questions, and I just want to make the point that, obviously, this bill has been through an extensive select committee process, and members have had the opportunity to have officials in and ask many of their questions around the purpose statement, as with every other clause of this piece of legislation. The purpose statement has been well tested through that process, and it\u2019s very clear, obviously, that it\u2019s designed to do exactly what it says: give certainty for developers to invest, and to allow the selection which best meets New Zealand\u2019s national interest\u2014and that is to ensure that through this process, the decisions that are made can meet the interests of our country and manage the risks to the Crown.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001909\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EOf course, with any physical infrastructure that happens anywhere, there\u2019s an element of risk and impact. I note that it\u2019s not just offshore wind, which would of course include turbines, but this could be to do with the renewable energy resource obtained from waves or tides or currents or light or heat or rain or geothermal heat. There is a range of different opportunities that exist and that are being promoted through this piece of legislation. I note that the select committee will have had plenty of time to discuss those in detail.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022 data-id=\u00228af25e5b7e778e0088d3fa852dc4984f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228af25e5b7e778e0088d3fa852dc4984f\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS (Green) (16:09)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. It\u2019s a pleasure to take a call on this, given the work we put in through the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to come to some success, I think, but we also heard a lot about the challenges that we\u2019re facing.  I want to talk to Part 1, clause 3, which notes that the purpose of this Act is to give greater certainty to developers to invest in offshore renewable energy developments. It is somewhat ironic that the time it\u2019s taken for this bill to come through\u2014the time it\u2019s taken, when we were promised it was going to be delivered mid - last year\u2014has meant that BlueFloat, for example, have floated away already. We\u2019ve already lost one offshore renewable developer as a consequence of the time this has taken.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001911\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EMy concern is around the Amendment Paper that I thank the Minister for providing to us\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001912\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022383df05ad03b7507cd07d66f600e770f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I think the amendment might be in the next part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001913\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f4bed512e6776f4c0be93e25b88388e\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: The next one\u2014but my question is related, however, to what that amendment will address, which is around the seabed mining projects and how the Minister intends to give even greater certainty to the offshore renewable energy projects that could develop. We\u2019ve been told through the select committee that these two developments or two projects are simply incompatible. The option, I guess, that we\u2019ve seen with the offshore wind as a renewable project is something that we\u2019ve seen elsewhere can\u2019t coexist with seabed mining, and yet there\u2019s some uncertainty still in this bill about where that\u2019s going to fit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001914\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EReally simple\u2014we\u2019ve got quite a few more questions, but I\u2019m really interested in the Minister\u2019s giving us a hint, and we\u2019ll get to that when we talk to amendments later down the track. But I\u2019d like for the Minister to tell us some of the story, because I\u2019ve got to say, this is something that really did work us through select committee, and we discussed it at length, and it was something that went back and I know that Ministers were discussing it. It\u2019s something that we\u2019re concerned to understand what has happened and how this is going to really work\u2014if the Minister could explain. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u0022a4f4b92833ecdccbcecb992646016b42\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a4f4b92833ecdccbcecb992646016b42\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (16:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Happy to discuss the Amendment Paper in Part 2 during that debate. In terms of the overall Part 1 discussion, of course, as I said in the previous answer to previous questions, there\u2019s a range of different types of energy resource. Offshore wind is one of them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022 data-id=\u00221c218fd36f7e1f260ec2d8aed54ec919\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001916\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221c218fd36f7e1f260ec2d8aed54ec919\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram) (16:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the Minister for answering the questions. I also take the Minister\u2019s point that this bill has been through select committee and it has been examined there. I do note that when we move to Part 2, the Amendment Paper has not gone through select committee, so this will be the first and only time to question that paper on the floor of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001917\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also take the Minister\u2019s answers around the purpose clause and the national interest. I think one of the important things is that when you look through the policy advice that\u2019s been released alongside the bill in the regulatory impact statement (RIS), there\u2019s quite a lot of discussion around choices that Ministers made\u2014and it is Ministers that make those choices, not officials. This is the opportunity for the Parliament to get some understanding of how those policy decisions were made.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001918\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn particular, I point to the regulatory impact statement that came with the original bill, not the RIS for the Amendment Paper, where it talks about the assessment of the permit applications in relation to that national interest. It provides a list in table form, in a tabulated form, of the components of the national interest. What is appearing in the bill and what the Minister gave as his answer is a lot more complex in the policy papers, and this is the only chance that we have to understand the thinking behind that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001919\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf we look at the regulatory impact statement, the considerations in terms of determining what a national interest is are: energy system benefits\u2014I won\u2019t go through all the points beside it; the technical and financial capability; the wider economic benefits, including national, regional, and local; decommissioning arrangements; iwi and hap\u016B engagement; compliance record; existing rights, interests, or limitations; national security or public order risks. This is the list, the shopping list, if you like, that the Minister was given. I think what is not clear when we look at Part 1, clause 3(b) is: is there a hierarchy of these tests that will be used? Are they subjective or objective tests? How are they going to be applied? I think one of the key things is: is there a hierarchy? Are they \u201Cand\u201Ds or are they \u201Cor\u201Ds? Does there have to be three out of four, not bad? How many of them need to apply in order for there to be a determination of what the national interest is?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001920\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGiven that this actually is probably one of the larger discussions of the national interest that I\u2019ve seen in a set of policy papers like this, I think it is important that the House understands exactly how this is going to be applied. It\u2019s not as simple as the Minister\u2019s answer first told us. There is a lot of complicated thinking that\u2019s gone on behind that, and we never, at select committee, had the chance to question the Minister in terms of his policy decisions around that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022fc0fec970645a4a98f0b31c4b3eda0b9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001921\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fc0fec970645a4a98f0b31c4b3eda0b9\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (16:16)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have just three questions on Part 1. The first is on the purpose clause at 3, and (b) is allowing \u201Cthe selection of ORE developments that best meet New Zealand\u2019s national interests;\u201D. I\u2019m interested in this word \u201Cselection\u201D, and it will come up in Part 2 as well, and in the Minister\u2019s Amendment Paper, because I am interested in how the Minister sees the role of Government and how much work there will be in selecting the sites that are going to go to feasibility studies and how much mapping that will entail and how that will be funded. I think it would be really useful for the Minister, either in this part or later, to talk about the selection of those sites and how that will work in practice\u2014would be useful to have on the record.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001922\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy other questions relate to the interpretation section and then back to the purpose. In the interpretation section, the offshore renewable energy (ORE) generation infrastructure is defined as being infrastructure that is \u201Cin the territorial sea or exclusive economic zone\u201D. That appears to be generation that is not in the CMA, in the coastal marine area. The question here is if the Minister considered referring to that coastal marine area at all in any of the interpretations or if that would be something helpful\u2014again, it might be helpful for the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E to talk about why it is that we need this specific piece of legislation. It\u2019s my understanding that there wasn\u2019t a regulatory regime because it was out of that area and in this other area.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001923\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen, my third question is: does the Minister agree with my pet peeve, which is that interpretation sections should come before purpose sections, and then you wouldn\u2019t have a term used in the purpose section that has not yet been defined that is an acronym. \u201CORE\u201D is there in the purpose section. The title is \u201COffshore Renewable Energy\u201D. But there it\u2019s mentioned\u2014\u201CORE developments\u201D\u2014and then you\u2019ve got to go down to the interpretation section rather than the other way around. It\u2019s an argument I\u2019ve had with the Parliamentary Counsel Office quite a lot.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u0022bcf72c42391ff0277d8925a7f78c5980\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001924\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bcf72c42391ff0277d8925a7f78c5980\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (16:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it\u2019s one way or the other, isn\u2019t it? I think we take legislation as a whole to try and define it, I think may be the answer. In terms of the questions around the national interests and the approach, I think the purpose statement is clear in terms of what it seeks to put in place, which is to best meet New Zealand\u2019s national interests. Of course, Part 2 then goes into more detail around how Ministers are to make their decisions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u00228bf8bde8aacffc810774588327878427\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228bf8bde8aacffc810774588327878427\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (16:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a very brief and specific question on the purpose clause 3(b): is it in New Zealand\u2019s national interests to rapidly decarbonise our society, Minister?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022 data-id=\u00224dfa20ddae5d7db791a6c02f0acb08ce\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001926\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224dfa20ddae5d7db791a6c02f0acb08ce\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (16:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, thank you. I\u2019d just like to say to the Minister I take his point about this having been examined in detail by the select committee, but it wasn\u2019t a select committee on which I serve, so I, as an individual member of this Parliament, as we can all do at this stage\u2014is to have a close look at this particular piece of legislation\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001927\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002245a2d3d4ed41fd916d28971a28230f17\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s fine, as long as it\u2019s not repetitive on what the select committee has reported back.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001928\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fc548283923751f6a2ba1dc887ec9e04\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL\u003C/span\u003E: Right, OK, I\u2019ll have a think about that. What I do want to understand, though, again, and this is sitting in Part 1. If we could just go to clause\u00A06, and it\u2019s the \u201CObligation relating to Treaty settlements and recognised customary rights\u201D. Of course, we are in support of ensuring that obligations under existing Treaty settlements are met and so on, and that the customary rights recognised under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 and, indeed, the Ng\u0101 Rohe Moana o Ng\u0101 Hap\u016B o Ng\u0101ti Porou Act are recognised as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001929\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EHowever, what I am a little concerned about is there does not seem to be a Treaty clause per se, a clause that sort of says, \u201CActually, this legislation will honour, respect, endorse, enact\u2014whatever\u2014the principles of the Treaty.\u201D So it\u2019s quite a narrow little bit of work that sits around the Treaty in here, in terms of Treaty settlements that have already gone through. What about the future? You know, there will be obligations under future Treaty settlements as well, but also what about just the obligation to the Treaty in general, not necessarily under Treaty settlements? So I\u2019d like the Minister explain to me, as an individual member of this committee who has not sat on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee as to why we don\u2019t have a broader Treaty clause sitting in this legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u002241c7d3bbc5dc8afd34e20c9a996982f8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001930\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002241c7d3bbc5dc8afd34e20c9a996982f8\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (16:21)\u003C/span\u003E: I would just like to note a number of the questions that have been asked. It is in our interest to ensure we have greater electrification and more electricity generation, and this bill will have a framework to enable that to happen here in New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001931\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of the selection of sites, with how that will happen in practice, then the question of developer-led versus Government-led: I think many of the choices that were made as part of the policy decision were done in consultation with the developers, and that was certainly the preferred approach in the consultation; more of a developer-led approach. We\u2019ll get into those future parts which are feasibility permits and the commercial permits. Ultimately, I think there\u2019s general awareness around where those areas where offshore wind is of interest and the member Dr Megan Woods spoke about Taranaki and also the Waikato as being a couple of areas where there is significant interest.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001932\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI would also note that it\u2019s not just offshore wind that this bill enables. There is a range of other offshore energy resources, and so allowing developers to look to what that technology is and how it enables is, I think, a really important part of how we\u2019ve designed this piece of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001933\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to the Treaty settlements, I think this has taken into account the areas of Treaty issues which are relevant to the issue in terms of future Treaty settlements. As the member will be aware, future Treaty settlements are enacted by Parliament and through that enactment of Parliament, if it requires any amendment to other legislation, that can happen as part of that process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022 data-id=\u00223b23d92bb32104d995e2689119c2e17e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001934\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223b23d92bb32104d995e2689119c2e17e\u0022\u003EDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader\u2014Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori) (16:23)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019d like to pick up on the k\u014Drero of Te Tiriti. We do have a standing amendment to clause 6. It\u2019s great to hear that the Minister\u2019s been focused on providing certainty to the developers. Obviously, iwi, hap\u016B, and M\u0101ori groups see themselves as requiring certainty of enactment of Te Tiriti as well. In fact, reading through of the submissions, iwi were very succinct in what their requirements of the legislation were, and particularly in Taranaki\u2019s case, that\u2019s based off more experience than any other iwi, specifically in the exclusive economic zone space.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the things that the amendment to clause 6 is proposing\u2014and remembering  that, yes, we have a iwi and hap\u016B groups that are yet to settle, but we also have pending applications under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act and also unresolved customary rights and marine interests. Again, taking on board the existing Treaty settlements, what we are wanting to do is make sure that it has explicit protection for those unsettled iwi, hap\u016B, and M\u0101ori groups who are yet waiting for the Government to determine their unresolved customary rights and marine interests. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001936\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENo doubt, it would be of absolute importance for the Crown to provide certainty to those who have interests and rights within this area that we see as having w\u2019akapapa and kaitiakitanga. Most of those iwi who have submitted and who have proposed amendments are also those who inherit the projects way beyond the lifespan of their productivity. So I\u2019d be interested to get the support from the Minister in this amendment, proposed to replace clause 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022 data-id=\u002260892cd7e205eab76c6dea9b9a4e1bfe\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001937\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002260892cd7e205eab76c6dea9b9a4e1bfe\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS (Green) (16:25)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question really is about Part 1, clause 3(c), which is about managing the risk to the Crown and the public from offshore renewable energy developments. I note that the Minister made the point that this bill really has had a lot of developer lead to it, and I think I\u2019m really relating or linking to my colleague Debbie Ngarewa-Packer\u2019s point here, because we\u2019ve heard from iwi and hap\u016B in Taranaki, who have certainly been engaged in the latter part of this, that they want more engagement from the Government on the finalisation and implementation of this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001938\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019m wondering what has happened since and how that\u2019s taken place because if this legislation is developer-led, is there some risk\u2014because if we\u2019re managing the risk to the Crown and the public, is there some risk that with developer-led we are not taking into account all the voices who might well see their concerns overridden. To the point made by my colleague just now: these are long-run projects; they may well have consequences that we can\u2019t foresee. Has there been the type of engagement\u2014and will there be further engagement\u2014to ensure that a wider number of voices can be considered, rather than simply this being developer-led?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u0022c00512be2943f78c84df6aaa60ce33c8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001939\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c00512be2943f78c84df6aaa60ce33c8\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (16:27)\u003C/span\u003E: I note the questions from the members around the debate and developer-led versus Government-led. I note that Part 2 goes into a lot of these questions around feasibility and consultation and all of those requirements; happy to have that debate then.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022 data-id=\u0022a5ff1c376b0700947226246ca518b8a8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001940\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a5ff1c376b0700947226246ca518b8a8\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram) (16:27)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question for the Minister around clause 4. Now, usually I would not be one to go through the interpretation clauses of a bill in a committee stage, but it is also highly unusual for there to be a reasonably substantial part of the select committee report and the discussion of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee around definitions in clause 4. If we have a look at the select committee report, the report\u2019s been around\u2014the submitters told us it was unclear whether permits would be required for infrastructure that would generate energy not directly intended for commercial gain. It went through a list of criteria: there\u2019s demonstration; there\u2019s aquaculture that might have some solar panels; a size that was put on it, I think it\u2019s 30 megawatts was the limit in terms of it not being for commercial gain.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001941\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, my question is: there\u2019s been quite a lot of time between the select committee consideration of this bill, and clearly a lot of advice to the Minister from officials around changes that needed to be made, particularly in response to questions that came up to select committee. Now, those amendments were made from the submissions; they appear in the amended bill that we are that we have back on the floor of the House, but my question for the Minister is: did we get this right? Has there been further advice in the many, many months that have languished between this work being completed by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and the Minister seeking more advice from officials? Is 30 megawatts the right threshold? Is the list that we\u2019ve put in there in terms of the excluded activities broad enough? Are we in danger of some things, or is the regulation-making power that in there, does the Minister see that that will catch it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001942\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, this is actually important in terms of how this is going to run because as we get through this bill, we\u2019ll see that feasibility studies are an absolute critical part of the process that goes here. Actually having these excluded activities for demonstration purposes to understand potential is going to be critical. Thank you, Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022b62190352c5f27af90b7e2dadae9bac6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001943\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b62190352c5f27af90b7e2dadae9bac6\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (16:30)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Just referring back to my question about the coastal marine area not being answered\u2014it doesn\u2019t seem to be referred to in the bill\u2014it might be useful for some \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E on this point. Clause 8 is the area of application, and that refers to the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone. The definition of \u201Cterritorial sea\u201D goes back to a piece of legislation from 1977 and is quite convoluted. It would be useful to know why it is those terms that are used and not exceptions or references to other terms that are used in this similar environment. That\u2019s the question there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022 data-id=\u00220ca77ef31cfb4f91b9a9a6c649985ea5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001944\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220ca77ef31cfb4f91b9a9a6c649985ea5\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram) (16:31)\u003C/span\u003E: I just thought I\u2019d do a bit of a round-up for the new Minister in the chair, given that there are several outstanding questions that the committee is still waiting for answers on. There are the questions that my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking put, but then there were the questions about excluded infrastructure that I went through, just really for the Minister in the chair, giving him time to catch up with where the committee is up to on these, because when we do get into the more substantive parts of this bill in subsequent parts of the bill, these are going to be critical questions. We can come back to them there if we know what questions haven\u2019t been addressed, but I think it would be more useful for this debate to have answers at this stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022 data-id=\u0022be474d3f6937bda5189b8b9397a1531f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001945\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022be474d3f6937bda5189b8b9397a1531f\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (16:32)\u003C/span\u003E: I was going to do a closure motion myself, but anyway, we can\u2019t do that, can we, Madam Chair?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001946\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002233f2f6dd23d4773e55b360e70446bd3c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: No, no. We\u2019re just waiting for some answers, and they\u2019ll come sooner or later.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001947\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002259d697bd7b776ac6f5ed8a22cee5c166\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS\u003C/span\u003E: Good. Very good. Hey, look, firstly, how good is it to be able to get this legislation passed? One billion dollars of economic growth will come as a result of this legislation in the future, opening up a huge amount of energy for this country. This is a very good bill and I\u2019m sure all of those in the Chamber will agree with that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001948\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ETo the Hon Dr Woods in regards whether the exclusions are broad enough, yes, I am confident that the exclusions within the bill are sufficient. The Minister also has the ability to make regulations to futureproof it as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001949\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b7cff05e64f346e68983b2fdbfba3ad8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002239e97c50f44025947d95c1c265413c28\u0022\u003EDan Bidois\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001950\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a454c2fc19e76cd4d1da352a4fb84753\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Is the member about to take a call?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b7cff05e64f346e68983b2fdbfba3ad8\u0022 data-id=\u0022813002b152e30a692041a98502446bc0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001951\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b7cff05e64f346e68983b2fdbfba3ad8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022813002b152e30a692041a98502446bc0\u0022\u003EDAN BIDOIS (National\u2014Northcote) (16:32)\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001952\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001953\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001954\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001955\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001956\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001957\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001958\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e77b04c9728a8db7f1dc7edf79860c7d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer\u2019s tabled amendment replacing clause 6 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001959\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001960\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001961\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001962\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001963\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001964\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001965\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001966\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002269f8504abe5323b7202f650faaa044f1\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001967\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e003871ca97fab28f11f33b5170abb23\u0022\u003EPart 2 Regime for offshore renewable energy permits and infrastructure protection\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001968\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002205991b8387fdd642f83c38c102b46ffd\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to Part 2, which is the debate on clauses 10 to 68A, \u201CRegime for offshore renewable energy permits and infrastructure protection\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=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022 data-id=\u0022cf516c67f5f525a91ad04ab4bfd16872\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001969\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cf516c67f5f525a91ad04ab4bfd16872\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram) (16:35)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. This really is the substantive part of the bill. It is also the part where the Minister\u2019s Amendment Paper is landing in terms of the feasibility permits. I\u2019m just reminding everyone that this Amendment Paper has not been through the select committee process. This is the first and only time that there is a chance for a consideration of this Amendment Paper.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001970\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I think some context for this amendment is incredibly important, and I would like to give credit to the incredible work of those involved in offshore energy who put a huge amount of effort into demonstrating that the bill that came out of this House into select committee was wrong, that it was not going to do what it needed to do, and that was to give the certainty for people to invest in offshore energy in New Zealand. We could not have the competing interests of seabed mining occurring in the same place as offshore energy. It is simply not the case that they can coexist. That was the belief that sat behind the first bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001971\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Transport and Infrastructure Committee\u2014and I\u2019d like to acknowledge the chair, Andy Foster\u2014worked really hard around this issue in terms of how we could find a solution. What was patently clear to every member of that select committee sitting there was you simply could not have a flourishing offshore energy regime operating in New Zealand while we also had the prospect of mineral sands mining happening in the same area. Now, there are a lot of technical reasons why that can\u2019t happen. As I alluded to in my speech, what that caused was a rethink from Government. I think it became so clear that they had to backtrack. I welcome that backtrack, because the first iteration of the bill was wrong. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001972\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe will support this Amendment Paper because it does strengthen the bill. However, I do not think the Amendment Paper goes far enough, so I have put an amendment to the amendment. This sits in this part of the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001973\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat the Minister\u2019s amendment does is it says that joint Ministers may consider\u2014I\u2019m just looking for the exact wording here. Yeah\u2014\u201CThe joint Ministers may, by notice, designate 1 or more areas of the exclusive economic zone or territorial sea (or both) as areas in which restrictions related to seabed minerals apply if they are satisfied that a designation notice is for the purposes\u201D and then it goes through some subparts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001974\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn essence, what the Amendment Paper is doing is saying that we\u2019ll let Ministers maybe make a decision about whether or not we do need to designate these areas. Now, I think it is really important that we give as much certainty and clarity as possible. This is billions of dollars of investment in much-needed energy generation and infrastructure that we are going to need for the future. One of the things that the regulatory impact statement says is the energy system and the benefits to the energy system should be taken into account when assessing the benefit to New Zealand test. Considerations would include the volume and location but also where the generation is intermittent or comes with a firming solution.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, while offshore wind, for example, is still technically intermittent\u2014it\u2019s wind energy\u2014the capacity factor of offshore wind is so much greater than onshore wind. It has a much more firmed profile going into our energy system than its onshore cousin. This is something that needs to be taken into account. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001976\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut while I welcome the changes that the Government has made, I have put an Amendment Paper up that actually puts the application for the permit to the chief executive and puts into the legislation what the criteria is around that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001977\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s a much firmer way of us making sure we are giving the certainty to the investment community, that we are saying to those people that are still here that haven\u2019t already packed up their investment and moved on to other lands where a regulatory regime was put in place and the chain wasn\u2019t dragged, and there was that guarantee that they weren\u2019t going to invest money, do feasibility, get a feasibility permit, and then someone starts seabed mining in the same area and scuppers their project. That is the certainty that we need to give, and them scarpering with their money isn\u2019t theoretical. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001978\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhile the Minister says that it is a great day that we have it here\u2014it is, Minister, and I only wish we\u2019d had this great day sooner\u2014this work was well under way at the beginning of the term of this Government. They told us that we were going to have this regime in place, I think, more than a year ago, but still\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001979\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a11d01dbea314e414634d104ab0cb4ad\u0022\u003ESuze Redmayne\u003C/span\u003E: Well, let\u2019s get on with it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001980\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022646eecdca1118476faec4643b8fd2c1a\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, let\u2019s get on with it\u2014that\u2019s right. We could have got on with it and we could have projects under way. The billions of dollars of investment that has left New Zealand because we did not have a regime in place, we did not have the certainty around competing interests, is something we will regret as a nation. We should have had this on the floor of this House earlier. The fact we\u2019ve got it in the last sitting weeks of this Parliament is not a situation that we should be in.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001981\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ESo we will support it, but I would like the Minister to consider an amendment that gives even more certainty and says to the investment community: \u201CWe welcome offshore wind in New Zealand. We know it\u2019s taken a while to get our regime in place, but finally we\u2019re doing it and we are giving you that certainty that you need to invest in New Zealand.\u201D Thank you, Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001982\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002293f5e0a192ba3ad6e523008f7238ca36\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Just before I call the member, just for the sake of people watching at home, I am a Mr Speaker\u2014just in case there\u2019s some confusion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022 data-id=\u00229831de37d5801141623add38d4976894\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001983\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229831de37d5801141623add38d4976894\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (16:42)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022625ecb7fd3d10766867f900fc441f53d\u0022\u003EHon Member: \u003C/span\u003E\u201CMr Speaker\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001985\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022293ebc8e67053c20b22b74e2f4e8ad98\u0022\u003EHon Members: \u003C/span\u003E\u201CMr Chair\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001986\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002251da7b8ce4e7cfb0686030894ac18179\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS\u003C/span\u003E: God, there are a lot of Chairs in the room today, aren\u2019t there?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001987\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ERight, Dr Woods took a while to get there, but, in the end, we won\u2019t be taking on board your amendment. I appreciate the effort, but the reality is that developers and industry support the amendment that we\u2019ve put on the Table. The proposals that you have outlined would enshrine how competing uses are dealt with in the legislation and not provide flexibility for how this is dealt with in the future. That\u2019s going to be a major issue. You\u2019ve got to think about how technology will change, for example, which will be a key issue with your amendment you\u2019re putting on the Table.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001988\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe amendments that we are looking to do\u2014and it is important that we have taken on board feedback\u2014are targeted, they are pragmatic, and they provide flexibility in the context of being future-proof, which is a point I\u2019ve noted. The use of secondary legislation is driven by the principles of best practice legislative design. Using a secondary legislation notice to put the restrictions in place allows the timing and area of any restrictions to be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the impacts on broader users and the specifics of the situation. It also allows us to make amendments quickly and efficiently when this is appropriate. So, as the member noted, looking forward to progressing this bill with pace.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022fd90683c7a1e7ce3dc60b43c2c7c6590\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001989\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fd90683c7a1e7ce3dc60b43c2c7c6590\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (16:43)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019ve got a couple of questions on this Amendment Paper 571, and then I do have some on the rest of Part 2 as well. I note the Minister was looking at his members opposite there as if to say he\u2019d had enough of this debate on a very important piece of legislation that we\u2019re very happy is here, but of course we have some questions about it and it\u2019s useful always to get things on the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsTerm\u0022 style=\u0022font-style: italic\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001990\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOn this amendment, what happens is that the Ministers in charge of this Offshore Renewable Energy Act, as it will be, and the Crown Minerals Act, get to, if they want to, decide to designate some areas through the secondary legislation. So, again, my question\u2014similar to that I asked in the purpose, not now specifically on this\u2014is: how does the Minister envisage that process happening? We heard from the other Minister who was in the chair that there are some areas where developers have already gone to and have been talked about. We know specifically that Taranaki is an area that\u2019s been talked about a lot. Does the Minister foresee this working that it would be area by area? The developers are interested in Taranaki, so then the Ministers think about designating that area, or is the Minister thinking that the officials might look more throughout the whole country and where different areas would be to designate? Or is it going to go bit by bit? Then again, this does seem like quite some work for the Ministers to do together. Is there a funding mechanism for undertaking that work? That\u2019s my question on here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001991\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen one further question, actually, is at new section 62C(1). It says that the area that\u2019s going to be designated can have restrictions related to seabed minerals apply if they are satisfied, and that goes through. I\u2019m wondering why this word \u201Crestrictions\u201D is used. Can a restriction go as far as a prohibition? All of the discourse on this is that the two activities are incompatible. You effectively have to prohibit the seabed mining for the energy to work. Does the word \u201Crestrictions\u201D go far enough to enable that prohibition on the seabed mining for the area to be successfully designated as an energy area?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022 data-id=\u002222fe7f8e0d53581f129dc797d7e53511\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001992\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002222fe7f8e0d53581f129dc797d7e53511\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (16:46)\u003C/span\u003E: In addition to the comments I made around Amendment Paper 571 previously, to the question in regards to how the designation of the area will happen and whether that will be an area-by-area approach, the short answer is that the decisions in regard to that have not yet been made. Consultation will be required, including with stakeholders such as iwi and broader developers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001993\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe instance of the scenario that was in play in the Taranaki region with the proposal around seabed mining, obviously that proposal and the developer has signalled that they are withdrawing that. That doesn\u2019t mean that it will never happen, but the imminency of that definitely happening is not in play at the moment. That was the only instance that provided a clear example of where, in effect, there were two competing options in play between seabed mining and offshore wind. Obviously, as a Government, we want more abundant renewable and reliable energy. We want to increase generation of that energy. As the member the Hon Dr Woods noted before, the context of having offshore wind is a significant advantage for New Zealand because of its propensity to deliver so much energy, in contrast to and in combination complementing with other energy sources onshore.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022 data-id=\u0022325b17ea7f84ee2720b21a5afd7351a3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001994\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022325b17ea7f84ee2720b21a5afd7351a3\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS (Green) (16:48)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I would note the point made by my colleague Megan Woods that we have gone through a very robust select committee, and hats off to Andy Foster for chairing that work because it was a very productive process. My question is about Part 2, Subpart 1, clause 11, because in clause 11 it notes that feasibility purpose permits mean the permit holders have an exclusive ability to apply for a commercial permit in relation to the feasibility permit area. We can see that to assess the feasibility of an offshore renewable energy development, the permit holder proposes to carry out on the permit area and have the exclusive ability to apply for a commercial permit in relation to that proposed development in the permit area if the permit holder chooses to do so.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001995\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ESo does this, effectively, mean that in essence feasibility permits also grant the holder exclusive rights to a certain area, seeing as the right to a commercial permit for the area is implied from a feasibility permit? If the Minister could give a response, I\u2019d appreciate that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022 data-id=\u00222c562b3abe0b60897ba5cbe81725fafb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001996\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222c562b3abe0b60897ba5cbe81725fafb\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (16:49)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, so just in the context of that and just to clarify for the member, so there\u2019s a two-step process. You\u2019ve got the allocation of the feasibility permit and then there is, subject to the work being undertaken and application for relevant environmental consents, including resource and marine consents in the permitted area. Then after feasibility it moves into that a commercial permit must be obtained subsequently from that. So in regards to the member\u2019s questions, there are two phases, and, in effect, depending on where you are on that phase will determine the point of his question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022 data-id=\u00224c24c344845bdd851f4998fda93c8d9f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001997\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224c24c344845bdd851f4998fda93c8d9f\u0022\u003EDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader\u2014Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori) (16:50)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019d just like to raise Part 2 and propose a new clause 13. One of the lessons that we had in Taranaki\u2014and iwi were extremely involved in the development of the regulations for the exclusive economic zone (EEZ)\u2014was the fact that despite how the Government would often ignore what local iwi and communities required, the private businesses didn\u2019t. In fact, we found ourselves in a situation of developing the best practice engagement manual for communities and oil companies because of the fact that there was better engagement between the private companies and iwi. No matter how legislation comes out, the companies that want to stay around for a long time and that have a lot of money to invest will always go to the extra effort of making sure they engage with the local community and iwi really well, and you\u2019ll see some of that in some of the social licence and relationships that they had, including the likes of OMV\u2014I\u2019m not going to look at you, Steve Abel.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001998\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EBut one of the aspects that we\u2019d like to recommend based on that experience\u2014and based on the certainty that this legislation is wanting to achieve\u2014is proposing that there is a mandatory cultural and environment impact assessment. That measures the cultural and m\u0101tauranga aspect, it\u2019s something that the companies will end up having to do if they want to stay around a long time anyway, and the bill doesn\u2019t currently require that type of assessment or that type of certainty or consideration with iwi. I did hear the Minister say that we\u2019re going to engage, but, again, this is taking on board the lessons of the oil and mineral sector and the lessons of activity that, to be honest, is going to be more in the EEZ than anywhere else. Again, it\u2019s something that could happen before the permits are granted and this amendment will address that gap, and I\u2019m sure that that would please a lot of iwi. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022 data-id=\u0022ac3d056baa12946d500f7e2bc439c9b6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30001999\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ac3d056baa12946d500f7e2bc439c9b6\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (16:52)\u003C/span\u003E: In regards to the Amendment Paper on clause 13, we won\u2019t be progressing with this tabled amendment. The reason why is that as it\u2019s drafted, it would duplicate existing considerations that are already in place, such as engagement with iwi M\u0101ori, as part of the consenting regime, and so there\u2019s no point just looking to duplicate that. The bill that is on the Table here is deliberately designed in order to work in parallel with and alongside with\u2014but not in a duplicative way\u2014the regime in regards to consenting, and, on that basis, we won\u2019t proceed with that amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022 data-id=\u00223c0e9cbd88aee209af9fa4fe949abe12\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002000\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223c0e9cbd88aee209af9fa4fe949abe12\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (16:52)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to direct the Minister\u2019s attention to \u201CSubpart 2\u2014Feasibility permits\u201D in Part 2. Reading this through\u2014and I haven\u2019t had the benefit of the select committee process, so I\u2019m examining it as an individual member of the House\u2014it says that you can make an application for a feasibility permit during an application round, and \u201CThe Minister may launch an application round\u201D. Surely, there must be more to it than that. I mean, it can\u2019t be the case that the Minister is going to wake up one bright sunny day and go, \u201CI know what, today I\u2019m going to launch an application round for offshore renewable energy.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EReading through, you\u2019d think you\u2019d find maybe some regulations or some suggestions as to how often the Minister might do this, when the Minister might do it, or what conditions the Minister might do it. So we\u2019re going to have regulations about criteria, guiding principles, and consultation requirements, but what would also be interesting to know in that\u2014that\u2019s in clause 13(2A)\u2014is just how often we might expect that the Minister might launch an application round. What becomes the process? Is it a perceived need? Is it that there have been a number of entities who want to engage in offshore renewable energy (ORE) who have come knocking on the Minister\u2019s door and said, \u201CHey Minister, it\u2019d be good to launch one of these rounds.\u201D? I\u2019m just wanting to get a sense of how often this might happen, what certainty there is from investors wanting to do ORE that they are going to get an application round in due course, and so on. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002002\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, obviously, once you\u2019ve got those regulations set up, that will specify how long these rounds last for, and so on, but I really want to get a sense of the flavour of what those regulations are going to look like and, in particular, a sense of how often the Minister is actually going to launch these application rounds for feasibility permits. Are we anticipating that it\u2019s going to be annual, semi-annual, biannual\u2014what sorts of time frames are we looking like at for these application rounds?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022 data-id=\u0022dca74bc784ee8fa92389a1c746e82037\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dca74bc784ee8fa92389a1c746e82037\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (16:55)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the reality is that the Government has a clear strategic objective to ensure that we have abundant, affordable, and reliable energy, and so the consideration discretion around how often we launch one of these processes lies with the Minister and the Government. But it\u2019d be fair to say that we\u2019re going to be working as fast as practical to ensure that we remove the barriers for investment and new generation, in regards to offshore wind in this country. It will be in the context of making this easy for communities and developers to work together to make this happen, and, obviously, we\u2019ll choose the areas and the regions based on the consultation with the development community and the opportunities in order to do that. But we want significantly more energy generation in this country, we want offshore wind to be part of the mix of energy generation in this country, and we want that as fast as practical because our having more supply of energy will have a downward pressure on price.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022 data-id=\u0022bd9682bf3baa71b645fa3cd9feeb6530\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bd9682bf3baa71b645fa3cd9feeb6530\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram) (16:56)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I am again going to the Amendment Paper, and particularly the policy advice that has been supplied to the House in the form of the regulatory impact statement. This isn\u2019t policy advice that we got to consider in the select committee phase. This is interesting. As I\u2019ve said, we support this amendment, but I\u2019m just really wanting to understand some of the other thinking around it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs we\u2019ve outlined in discussions around earlier parts of this bill, internationally, offshore wind regimes sit on a continuum between developer-led and Government-led. At the Government-led end of the scale, it usually involves marine spatial planning and there is sometimes accompanying feasibility, environmental work, things that have been prepackaged there for industry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the interesting things that the regulatory impact statement that accompanies the Amendment Paper says is that \u201CThe Bill has been designed to accommodate a shift to a government-led approach to the selection of ORE sites (should government policy and legislative change improve spatial planning in the marine environment), but it cannot address this current issue (which includes existing rights).\u201D So I would like to hear from the Minister exactly where the Government envisages that this sits within that broader context. It says that the bill has been designed to do that, and so has work already begun in terms of that more marine spatial planning approach to what is happening? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other piece of information that is in the regulatory impact statement says, \u201CThe investment context has changed since consultation on the design of the regime. In particular, the listing of the Trans-Tasman Resources\u2019 seabed mining project in the Fast-track legislation has created the potential for spatial clashes between seabed mining and ORE off the Taranaki coast.\u201D One of the things I\u2019d like to know from the Minister is this. All through this document, it shows how it is that particular inclusion in the fast-track legislation of the Trans-Tasman Resources\u2019 seabed mining project in the fast-track process. Did the Minister advise colleagues of the potential risks before that was included in the fast-track regime\u2014because, surely, all of the offshore wind developers were raising it. This was not a new concern when they came to select committee. Something that we had raised with the Government was the jeopardy that this was putting our offshore wind industry in, and so I\u2019d like to know from the Minister whether that was something that was raised. All through this, it says that the key policy objective in terms of giving certainty was being undermined by the fact that there weren\u2019t exclusive rights when a permit was in place. So there are two questions for the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other question that I have is around new section 62C(4) on Amendment Paper 571, where it is around the period of time. It\u2019s one of the things that I\u2019d just like the Minister to clear up, because the bill is quite specific. The bill reported back from select committee adds two timelines in other places.  For example, feasibility permits are seven years; that is specified. Commercial permits have a duration of up to 40 years; this is exactly what you would expect if you\u2019re looking to give certainty for someone to make very substantial investment decisions, because they know that they\u2019ve got enough time to look fairly at the project, assess whether it is feasible, and not just put in a whole lot of feasibility as a way of blocking other developments, which is what we\u2019ve seen in some other regimes around the world\u2014that it\u2019s a \u201Cuse it or lose it\u201D kind of approach\u2014and something that needs to be looked at.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI am concerned that we don\u2019t have the specificity in the amendment around how long the developers can have that exclusive-use guarantee. \u201CThe joint Ministers must ensure that areas are not designated for a period of time that is longer than reasonable\u201D\u2014what does that mean? Does that line up with the seven-year period that is specified in the main bill around the feasibility permit? Is it 40 years, the duration of a commercial period? I think that is something that we would very much be looking for an answer to, among other things, from the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022 data-id=\u00228afa3f1cec9bcc70c53ba6c4118d6ada\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228afa3f1cec9bcc70c53ba6c4118d6ada\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (17:01)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m now repeating myself. I said previously in response to the similar question that we would undertake consultation in regard to the detail around that point with iwi M\u0101ori and others\u2014to the question by Debbie Ngarewa-Packer before.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn regard to the other question from the member around the marine spatial planning approaches, this approach is still developer led, but it would allow a Government-led marine spatial planning approach in the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00228c641806cc1268db47e3609205920e06\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228c641806cc1268db47e3609205920e06\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (17:01)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s good to hear the Minister of Climate Change mention marine spatial planning, and, of course, that would be good if the Government was doing some marine spatial planning there, but I know both options are on the table.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETalking of spatial planning and maps, at clause 13, the \u201CApplication round for feasibility permits\u201D, it mentions within here geographical areas that the Minister may launch an application round, and then there are regulations at new subclause (2A) that may prescribe measures that apply to the launching of their application. I\u2019m wondering if the Minister could tell me if he expects that there will be maps included in this process, either in the description of the geographic area or, in fact, what the regulations are prescribing. Also, if he wants to comment and go into that spatial planning; if there is a role for spatial planning here in the feasibility permits. So that\u2019s one question: maps.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second question is: am I correct in my understanding that the application for a feasibility permit can only be made during an application round? That is what the words say\u2014the Minister has to decide to do an application round before you can even get into the process, because you need a feasibility permit before you can get a commercial permit, so we are very much relying on the Ministers deciding to do this work. That can be yes or no.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnother question is going back to clause 12. This is the \u201CProhibition on undertaking ORE generation infrastructure activities unless person is holder of commercial permit\u201D. I realise that a lot of the clauses in this bill refer back to the definitions, and the definitions are a very important mechanism in it, but, on first reading of it, it looks as though there\u2019s a suggestion that resource consents would only apply to commercial permits and not to feasibility permits. In fact, the way that the definitions work, that\u2019s not what the clause is doing, as I understand it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt leads me to a question, then, about this interaction between resource management consents that are still needed\u2014and I\u2019ve got questions further along on this point\u2014and if the Minister can tell us what sort of resource management consents might be needed for the feasibility permits. I can see from the definitions of infrastructure for commercial permits what the type of resource-consenting requirements might be, but for feasibility, the definition is very vague, and the feasibility permit doesn\u2019t have this prohibition clause that the commercial permits have at clause 12. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA couple of questions there; one is about maps, and one is about this link-up with the Resource Management Act for feasibility permits.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022 data-id=\u0022a88b53135884fab1b065569ed9cbff22\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a88b53135884fab1b065569ed9cbff22\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (17:05)\u003C/span\u003E: In regard to the last question, working backwards: environmental consents would be an example. In regard to the question on clause 13(2A)\u2014I answered that previously, but, again, it was around maps: maps is possible and permissible. A decision has not been made. As I said, we\u2019ll do consultation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EDr Megan Woods\u2019 questions around the time for the restrictions in clause 62C(4) in Amendment Paper 571: the time for the restrictions is designated to give certainty until the point that the consent is made, and the designation notice will, obviously, specify the time. Again, I\u2019m repeating myself, but the consultation will deal with that point. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022 data-id=\u0022dbd35bfa5a58cbe98b3884026c360159\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dbd35bfa5a58cbe98b3884026c360159\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS (Green) (17:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019ve got a couple of very, very simple questions, and we may already have an answer; I\u2019m not quite sure. It really relates again to clause 12, in Subpart 1 in Part 2, that my colleague Rachel Brooking just mentioned. Clause 12 concerns the prohibition of undertaking offshore renewable energy generation infrastructure activities unless the person undertaking them has a commercial permit, as we\u2019ve just heard. It says here that person must not give effect to a resource consent or marine consent by undertaking any offshore renewable generation infrastructure activities unless they are a commercial permit holder.  Now, the question is: is this exactly what that means? Can we get clarity on that? Is the understanding correct that, if a person has a marine consent or resource consent, they\u2019re still unable to undertake any offshore renewable energy generation activities unless they have a commercial permit?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe subsequent question to that is: what type of discussion\u2014because, I guess, we\u2019re sort of assuming that, when we\u2019re talking about offshore renewables, we\u2019re talking about offshore wind, but, actually, this is a bigger bill than offshore wind. This is offshore renewables. My subsequent question is: what is the Minister thinking about the type of tidal generation that could be employed? We know that there\u2019s interest, and there are things like, I don\u2019t know, the UK models\u2014Spiralis Energy, etc.\u2014that may not want a commercial permit; they may want to generate. Where is this quite sitting? We\u2019re in this zone of trying to establish a new regime, so what type of work has the Government or the Minister done with those potential developers? Has it simply been in the wind energy space, or has there been a wider scoping before this was developed? Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022 data-id=\u0022b9ba14404bbbf078ff6e32874f94bb32\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b9ba14404bbbf078ff6e32874f94bb32\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (17:08)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for that question. It\u2019d be fair to say that the predominant focus of this legislation is in the context of offshore wind. I mean, the New Zealand energy market, as the member knows, doesn\u2019t pick winners and doesn\u2019t have any\u2014you know, we want all forms of energy. The drive in the market determines that by the lowest price point in order to generate that energy. We know that with tidal energy, while possible, it is significantly more expensive to produce energy versus other options, including offshore wind.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn regard to clause 12, when the member asked around the point between the feasibility and the commercial permit process and, in effect, can someone\u2014you know, what kicks in? The short answer to the member\u2019s question is yes. It ensures that, when the entity gets a commercial permit, it\u2019s got the appropriate decommissioning obligations and, also, the financial securities around that, which would need to be in play if they do decommissioning of generation capability.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022 data-id=\u00228379fbaca65239bf573c10b1c2fe3ba0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228379fbaca65239bf573c10b1c2fe3ba0\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram) (17:09)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019m going to jump forwards in the part, but I think other colleagues are going through in a more clause by clause way. I want to talk about new clause 24A. This is the \u201CPre-application consultation with Transpower New Zealand Limited and Electricity Authority\u201D. This is something we did consider at select committee, because, unless you\u2019re doing power to X with your offshore wind energy, actually, you are going to have to hook this up to the grid, both the transmission grid and/or the distribution network.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMaking sure that there is alignment and that Transpower in particular can see what\u2019s coming down the line, and that you can effectively hook up this generation, is incredibly important. It\u2019s a very small clause, but I think a mighty clause, and one of them that will actually be critical to the success or otherwise of this regime in New Zealand that we are planning for when we\u2019re planning over the longer term, for what we do in terms of building out the transmission network, where we kind of increase the capacity in terms of those intake points.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy question is, really, what work has the Government done in the many months this legislation has been sitting around while Cabinet went back and did more policy work to fix it? What work has progressed with the Electricity Authority and with Transpower around preparing for this? I think this is a critical part of the legislation that we get right. Has the Government considered whether or not there\u2019s going to be a specific funding track for this? Of course, building out this capacity for something that is in the longer term\u2014how are they going to cope with that? Has a funding and financing regime around that been considered? That\u2019s Transpower. In terms of the local distribution networks where this may impact, has there been any progress in terms of conversations and/or policy work that would sit around that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022 data-id=\u0022f817b4a69ba4ce1892888faf827d4fe4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f817b4a69ba4ce1892888faf827d4fe4\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (17:11)\u003C/span\u003E: The member the Hon Dr Megan Woods is right; this is a critical point in the ability to plug in the new generation that will be put in play as a result of the legislation that will pass\u2014hopefully before the dinner break, all going well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn the context of Transpower, yes, a lot of discussions in regard to them. Transpower will not be a barrier or a blockage in regard to offshore wind. They have been very clear around the fact that they play a role to make sure that they can unlock the ability to plug in, and from a capital aspect and all of that. They have been very clear and are engaging with the sector and industry and developers that they will not be a barrier to that. They will work with industry, not against it, to make this happen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022 data-id=\u00228090269f3d391f0705abc449340ddee9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228090269f3d391f0705abc449340ddee9\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram) (17:12)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the Minister of Climate Change for the answer on that. Yes, Transpower were really clear that they are very keen on this\u2014they want to see the increased capacity that offshore wind can give us in terms of generation\u2014but my question to the Minister was more around whether there\u2019s going to be dedicated price pathways.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think we all know that they think it\u2019s a good thing. It\u2019s not the \u201Cmotherhood and apple pie\u201D discussion; it\u2019s about what work is being done to shore up whether or not there is the funding in place to make sure that we can have those upgrades happen; whether or not the Government has progressed any of that work in terms of setting its expectations with Transpower or the distribution network\u2014and updating the House on this, given that it is a long time since the Transport and Infrastructure Committee had the opportunity to discuss this with Transpower.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis was a bill that was reported back from the House I don\u2019t know how many months ago\u2014more than a year\u2014so I would have expected that the Government would have done some more work on that in the meantime.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022 data-id=\u0022983c788ce54e11e69e3d6e54864f59c8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022983c788ce54e11e69e3d6e54864f59c8\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (17:13)\u003C/span\u003E: With respect, if the member the Hon Dr Megan Woods had listened to my answer to the question, I said that Transpower has advised us that they are not capitally constrained in regard to putting in place the required infrastructure to enable offshore wind. They will do what is required in order to build what is necessary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022 data-id=\u0022824642180541b8ab93d5484bf4425d26\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022824642180541b8ab93d5484bf4425d26\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (17:13)\u003C/span\u003E: Just for the sake of clarity, this bill was reported back\u2014let\u2019s see; it was referred on 17 December, so it must have been July last year that it got reported back, so it\u2019s sat around for a long time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do want to go back to these application rounds for feasibility permits, because there\u2019s a particular clause I want to draw the Minister\u2019s attention to, and that\u2019s clause 14. Clause\u00A014 says that, before someone goes ahead with an application for a feasibility permit, they have to have consulted \u201Cany relevant iwi authorities, hap\u016B, and Treaty settlement entities, including iwi authorities and groups that represent hap\u016B that are parties to relevant Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe or joint management agreements \u2026 the tangata whenua of any area \u2026 any relevant protected customary rights groups, customary marine title groups, and applicant groups \u2026 ng\u0101 hap\u016B o Ng\u0101ti Porou, if the permit area is within [the particular area affected]\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s a lot of pre-consultation that is required to be done before a feasibility permit can even be put in. I previously asked the Minister how often these feasibility permit application rounds would be occurring, and these two things are linked. Nobody\u2019s going to go ahead and go and do all this consultation unless they know that a feasibility permit application round is going to be under way sometime soon or soon-ish. I\u2019d have thought that, before anyone engages in that kind of lengthy consultation and does all the work around it, they\u2019d want to have reasonable certainty that an application round was going to be open or opened in a reasonable time frame from that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen I asked the Minister to give some indication as to how often these application rounds would be open\u2014it wasn\u2019t just going to be a matter of the Minister waking up one morning and deciding it was a good idea for that day, but there would be some indication going on\u2014it wasn\u2019t a frivolous question. It\u2019s actually a serious question, because businesses will want certainty. We hear from that side of the House\u2014they think to lecture us on what businesses want, and they tell us that businesses want certainty, as if none of us has ever run businesses before, but a lot of us have. We know that that\u2019s the case. I\u2019ve run a business, and I know the importance of certainty to businesses\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227b3ebe24438640afbed0da464f9b88bc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002263c9e2746d4d8cab0ad2dfb21d8b1172\u0022\u003EHon Andrew Bayly\u003C/span\u003E: What did you run?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227687f551f2a70fad6479ce214565c97a\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014and cashflow to businesses, and so on. Now, I suspect that businesses, before they\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fdc09792e2a39bfeb3ea29c5587e10d6\u0022\u003EHon Dr Megan Woods\u003C/span\u003E: She was an accountant, for goodness\u2019 sake!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022380ae30d5ba9bc97b3468546a5584bb9\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, I was an accountant. I suspect that businesses will want that certainty.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ETo set it out quite plainly for the Minister: given the amount of consultation required, could he give perhaps a more certain answer about how often these feasibility application rounds would be set up?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022 data-id=\u002251c21137d55e906902e914941d7e3704\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002251c21137d55e906902e914941d7e3704\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram) (17:16)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Just further to that question, which is a really important one, from the Hon Deborah Russell, I\u2019m just wanting to know if there\u2019s been any further thinking that, in many ways, the Crown Minerals Act and the regimes that were put in place that enabled fossil fuels provided a bit of a template for the regime that happened here\u2014that is about granting people rights to explore, which is feasibility, and then to produce, which is the duration of the permit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the things that we\u2019re talking about here is really a process that is akin to what, in the petroleum sector, would be called the Block Offer regime. Under the Crown Minerals Act, there was always an open market, competitive process clause as well\u2014it was an \u201Cand\u201D. It wasn\u2019t just a Block Offer\u2014a Block Offer could be offered, in terms of the petroleum sector\u2014but there was an open market, competitive process regime that could be there as well. I want to know whether any thought has been given in this year to whether or not there has to be the kind of two-track, in terms of the ability to come, or does the Government think that we can assess the benefit to New Zealand more comprehensively by having a Block Offer regime where you can kind of line up all the options and think \u201CWhat are the best ones for New Zealand?\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGiven that we\u2019ve seen so much of the investment capital leave New Zealand in the time that this legislation has been crawling its way through the process, I want to know whether or not there is now a case for there to be a parallel open market, competitive process there as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u0022b542a4956b532b0c6fb17a021bc29433\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b542a4956b532b0c6fb17a021bc29433\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (17:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. It\u2019s a follow-up. Given that the Minister hasn\u2019t yet answered my colleague Deborah Russell\u2019s question around the pre-application consultation requirements, I have an expansion on that question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGiven that we applaud the effort of the legislation to make sure that there was proper engagement with impacted iwi from the get-go, it is genuinely our view that that is the best way to ensure that we have a well-structured development process and basis for offshore renewable energy. How is it that an applicant will correctly identify which groups are capture by clause 14? It\u2019s substantial in terms of the iwi authorities, impacted tangata whenua, those who have customary rights, those who may be entitled to customary rights or have an application. If we have, for example, an overseas renewable energy company that simply may not have a concept of who is captured by those requirements, how will they be informed of that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA follow-up to that is but a small part of clause 16. I don\u2019t want to go into the substance of clause 16 yet. Clause 16(ca) requires that a record is included of the consultation that occurred in section 14, and would you not agree, Minister, that the more thorough a delineation of who must be consulted with and included in that process of development the easier it will be for any applicant to fulfil their obligations under the subsequent clause\u00A016?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy final question in that regard\u2014and I don\u2019t know where it best belongs, but given we\u2019re speaking about that consultation with iwi and hap\u016B\u2014are there processes and pathways by which there can be direct benefits to those impacted iwi, from the project itself, should it proceed? That would be a very useful thing in terms of these big offshore renewable energy projects. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022 data-id=\u0022ca11eb30f767de741b76953c5f130530\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ca11eb30f767de741b76953c5f130530\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (17:21)\u003C/span\u003E: Thanks, colleagues, for these questions. Just in regard to the question around the concept of an open-market approach or what\u2019s been referred to as a block-offer approach, the consultation with development community has similarities to a block-offer approach\u2014in effect, a clearly stated opening date and a clearly stated closing date. People need to ensure that their applications for feasibility permits are put in as part of that period. What is submitted as part of that process will be considered, and a decision will be made around that. We\u2019re not following, in effect, an open-market approach in that context.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EClause 20 also deals\u2014just to the point that was raised around ensuring that there\u2019s good, competitive tension in regard to that process. In regard to clause 14, around iwi M\u0101ori engagement, that process is already heavily under way by the development communities, even pre-feasibility, and, actually, in some cases, some of the arrangements include iwi M\u0101ori in equity ownership as part of that broader mechanism, potentially, as well. This is a significant opportunity for iwi M\u0101ori and all the business community in New Zealand. The key here is to get this legislation in place so we can get this feasibility permit process open, and let\u2019s get on with it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022 data-id=\u00223532a8159ccc06fee9cc075ee8fc2934\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223532a8159ccc06fee9cc075ee8fc2934\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram) (17:22)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. My question this time for the Minister relates to clause 19(3), which is \u201CBefore granting an application for a feasibility permit, the Minister must also have regard to whether the applicant poses, or granting the permit could pose, any significant risk to national security or public order and whether that risk can be adequately avoided, mitigated, or managed.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis was an amendment that was inserted through the committee process, but, again, given the time that has passed, the world has fundamentally changed in that period of time in regard to energy security and in terms of the kinds of considerations in national security that countries are giving around the security of their energy systems. I would like to know from the Minister whether Cabinet\u2014or, indeed, the Minister\u2014has received any advice from their own officials or have had security briefings around anything that may impact on this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019re seeing around the world that there are countries that do have offshore wind that are having to think about how they protect that infrastructure and ensure that it isn\u2019t a target in terms of national security. I want to know whether or not there\u2019s been any further advice in the current geopolitical climate around that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022 data-id=\u0022a59667c95bbdd43465b298ea9b0bf1b5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a59667c95bbdd43465b298ea9b0bf1b5\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (17:24)\u003C/span\u003E: The short answer is yes. Ministers, including the Minister for Energy, received a wide range of briefings advice, from a wide range of officials, including in the context of the points raised under clause 19, and it goes without saying that Ministers will take on board that advice as part of the decision-making process to protect the sovereign interests of this country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022 data-id=\u0022ee0c62389e0414865350afd5c7c376d4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ee0c62389e0414865350afd5c7c376d4\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram) (17:24)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the Minister of Climate Change for that answer, and I fully understand that the Minister can\u2019t stand in the Chamber and tell us everything that was in the nature of those briefings, but what I am interested in is whether or not that clause is now sufficient in terms of the national security concerns that we need to be thinking about in terms of our offshore energy regime and whether or not we do have enough protection and we are making sure that we\u2019re not exposing ourselves to risk and whether the Minister is confident that that clause is adequate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022 data-id=\u0022282f40e74f0268c2351ac915cc3a4f41\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022282f40e74f0268c2351ac915cc3a4f41\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (17:25)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022b14813505446b68828febda969b19620\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b14813505446b68828febda969b19620\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (17:25)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I\u2019m just reminding the Minister of Climate Change that he hasn\u2019t answered my questions on whether restrictions can equate to prohibition\u2014that is for the Amendment Paper and the restrictions on seabed mining in a designated area\u2014nor has he given me any clues about the types of feasibility activities that would need permissions under other legislation. That would be good. Then I\u2019ve got two more questions here. One of those is on clause 32, which is \u201CMinister may impose conditions of commercial permits\u201D. I would assume that there will be many, many conditions on these permits, and has the Minister given any consideration to having some more detailed provisions in the legislation about what those conditions might be? There just seems to be one clause on the discretion to impose conditions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThen I have a separate question. Permits may be revoked at clause 53, and there\u2019s some fairly sensible reasons for revoking a permit, such as failing to comply with one of those conditions I was just referring to, but I am interested for the Minister to comment on paragraph (c), which is where someone\u2019s gone to the effort of getting their commercial permit but they\u2019ve failed to begin generation infrastructure activities within a reasonable time following the permit\u2019s start date, and that can be revoked. That seems like quite an onerous power for the Minister to have. I was thinking that, perhaps, the Minister could give us some commentary on the sort of time frame that he considers would be sufficient to have clause 53 invoked to revoke.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022 data-id=\u002242a9639a034150e78b0ec2d24aee42a5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002242a9639a034150e78b0ec2d24aee42a5\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (17:27)\u003C/span\u003E: Thanks, Mr Chair. In regard to clause 53(c), the reality of that clause does give the powers to the Minister to avoid, I guess, the concept of seabed banking in the context of offshore. Is there a timer? No, we\u2019ll take it case by case. It just gives the powers for us to make sure that there is tension in the model in regard to developers actually following through with their commitments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust to go back to some of the questions asked previously, clause 16(ca)\u2014would it be better to include a record of who\u2019s been consulted?\u2014this is what the clause will require amongst other details, so this is confirmation of that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ERachel Brooking asked a question in regard to restrictions\u2014what does \u201Crestrictions\u201D mean? It, effectively, acts as a temporary prohibition mechanism. There was another question on clause 32\u2014could there be more detail in the legislation?\u2014again, from Rachel Brooking. The right conditions will depend on factors. I raised this earlier as well in response to a similar question around a technology area in a particular project, and prescribing that in legislation would not enable them to be bespoke enough. I spoke previously around the lack of flexibility, so, again, I\u2019m repeating, but there we go.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere was a question on groups captured by clause 14\u2014how will developers know who to engage with? The short answer is that relevant groups will need to be determined by developers case by case, so there we go.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022 data-id=\u0022b46e78b8e4be7d8437f9ddc117cbec1a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b46e78b8e4be7d8437f9ddc117cbec1a\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (17:29)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to tease apart some of the regulations around the duration of feasibility permits. In clause\u00A022, we have \u201CA feasibility permit [lasts for] 7 years\u201D, except that, elsewhere, you\u2019ve got to actually meet the various conditions and, elsewhere, that feasibility permit can be withdrawn. Going through to the clause that my colleague Rachel Brooking was focused on, clause 53, on the revocation of permits, if the permit holder doesn\u2019t comply with the condition, then the permit can be withdrawn. And here\u2019s the interesting bit: it turns out that, with a feasibility permit going back to clause\u00A021, it\u2019s quite a tangle here. There must be some offshore renewable energy (ORE) feasibility activities that must be commenced within 12 months of the permit start date.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 53(b) originally had, \u201Cin the case of a feasibility permit, the permit holder has failed to begin ORE feasibility [studies]\u201D. Now, that clause 53(b) has been struck out, so I\u2019m assuming that the supposition is that the other clauses around that are enough, in terms of law, to make sure that someone who doesn\u2019t engage in the ORE feasibility activities\u2014so clauses 21 and 22 and the general revocation in clause 53(a) is enough; we don\u2019t need clause 53(b) as well in order to make that all work. There\u2019s a little bit of a tangle there. I can see how it probably is enough without clause 53(b), but why not leave clause 53(b) in there? It\u2019s a bit of a belt and braces kind of approach. This is actually where I disagree with what the select committee has done, and I just invite the Minister to consider clause\u00A053(b) and whether putting it back in might actually be worth it under a belt and braces approach to make sure that the Minister really does have the capacity to withdraw a permit if those ORE feasibility activities have not commenced, instead of relying on the permission in clause 53(a).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen, of course, this all begs the question of what an ORE feasibility activity is in any case. You go to the definitions section and \u201CORE feasibility activities\u201D means \u201Cactivities that are for the purpose of assessing the feasibility of ORE infrastructure activities\u201D. That all begs the question of how much is enough. An ORE feasibility activity might be as simple as a desktop cost-benefit analysis. Is that enough to count as an ORE feasibility activity, because it says it\u2019s for \u201Cassessing the feasibility of ORE infrastructure activities\u201D? If you go to that definition as well, it means ORE generation infrastructure and ORE transmission infrastructure. The point is: just how much is enough of an activity? The way the law is written it could be that the merest amount of activity is enough to enable a permit to continue\u2014so the merest, smallest amount of activity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I think, sitting somewhere there might be that you can specify in the permit what activities need to take place, but I guess we want to have some\u2014I think I read that somewhere, but I\u2019ve just gotten a little bit lost. You have to remember this is the first time I\u2019ve had a chance to look at this bill in detail. I think the feasibility permit does say what feasibility activities must be commenced within 12 months of the permit start date, but, again, even then, we still want to know what is going to count as enough. Surely, it is more than just a cost-benefit analysis. Surely, there would have to be some substantial activity. I guess the Minister gets to judge that. Is there going to be a process of the feasibility permit holder having to report back into the Minister or report back into whichever officials were doing it? It would just be interesting to know exactly, as I said, how much is enough and, before that, why not the belt and braces approach?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022189d45434c3e9f0324409c257585e3b3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Just before I call the Minister, I would like to push back a bit on the comment that it\u2019s the first time that the member has had an opportunity to look at this piece of legislation. It\u2019s not been put on the Table today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022 data-id=\u00223274813a44d1c5ad28bceb2f50a5fd11\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223274813a44d1c5ad28bceb2f50a5fd11\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (17:34)\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s right. And if you have a read of the select committee report, you\u2019ll get most of the answers to the questions you\u2019ve asked. But, anyway, I\u2019ll help for the purpose of this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 53(b)\u2014questions from the member in regard to that clause. The short answer is that the select committee did spend a lot of time on this. Developers said that the clause aspect was too uncertain for them. The other drafting was preferred. Therefore, the select committee, in their diligence and wisdom, took on board that feedback and made the changes to give developers more certainty\u2014more certainty, more investment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn regard to the feasibility permit, one feasibility permit is allowable in each area. To the member\u2019s point around that, that enables exclusive use of that space for offshore renewable energy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e30aced9399ad482e06895ab598e82d4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m going to take a question from Hon Dr Megan Woods because, having watched, I know her experience in this area and she has completely worked with Part 2 asking expanding questions, rather than things that happened at select committee. It\u2019s time to get to the really nitty-gritty now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022 data-id=\u002279d9d3c4d1f7174bc5bea481f4bb24f7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002279d9d3c4d1f7174bc5bea481f4bb24f7\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram) (17:35)\u003C/span\u003E: Absolutely. I am going to focus my questions back on Amendment Paper 571, which, of course, wasn\u2019t something that was considered at select committee. This is the first time the House and members have to grapple with this. It goes to really what is the guts of this amendment, which is new clause 62C, which is \u201CJoint Ministers may designate areas in which restrictions related to seabed minerals apply\u201D. We\u2019ve gone through some of the questions around that. One of the answers that the Minister of Climate Change made is that\u2014and it does specify it in the clauses\u2014there will be consultation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Minister specified some areas of people that will be consulted\u2014industry, iwi, hap\u016B\u2014but my question is: will there be consultation with other people within the broader Crown Minerals Act family? Will there be consultation? What we\u2019re not doing under these amended clauses is\u2014it\u2019s only seabed mining that is the excluded activity. It doesn\u2019t address petroleum exploration. Will there be consultation with the petroleum industry, for example, when they come to the very subjective powers that Ministers have granted themselves in terms of this clause in this provision? Exactly who will be in the consultation group that goes there? I\u2019m assuming seabed mining\u2014they\u2019re an affected party\u2014but I would like to hear from the Minister whether or not, within those subjective powers, he would see that falling under that heading but also that broader activity that might have happened offshore.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat would, therefore, also extend to fisheries. Often, we\u2019ve seen around the world in different regimes that this is one of the industries where marine spatial planning can take us a long way in terms of how you balance the rights and activities of offshore renewable energy with abundant fisheries and active fisheries, along with any other activities that happen in the sea. I want to know whether the Minister sees those groups as falling within the groups that would be consulted under new clause 62C.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022 data-id=\u0022aa5fe39b2f3649674e73951b19e3afcc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022aa5fe39b2f3649674e73951b19e3afcc\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (17:37)\u003C/span\u003E: This is my fourth response in regard to Amendment Paper 571. In answer to the member\u2019s question, if she looks at clause 62C(2)(b) of the bill, she will see that it says \u201Cany persons \u2026 who may be affected\u201D. There\u2019s the answer to the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u0022c575448d0302dce2c69aef183a646a76\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c575448d0302dce2c69aef183a646a76\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (17:38)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019ve got a very specific question about the imposition of conditions under clause 32 regarding environmental protections.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s an obligation to the Resource Management Act\u2014which is going to be phased out soon\u2014and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act (EEZ Act), which requires that marine biodiversity is protected. Of course, 80\u00A0percent of New Zealand\u2019s marine biodiversity\u2014endemic species, that is\u2014are contained in the ocean. We know specifically where there\u2019s a lot of interest in offshore renewable energy development in the Taranaki Bight. We have some extraordinary marine mammals living there: whales and dolphins, including the rarest dolphins in the world. What obligations are likely to be placed on the development of offshore renewable energy there to ensure there is protection of those marine species?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELet\u2019s be clear that, in the instance of wind turbines, which is the obvious opportunity that is present to us now and is being implemented around the world, they are huge industrial structures that are required to be implanted in the seabed, which is exactly why seabed mining is a contrary activity. They require piledriving, for example. They require a lot of oceanic noise and disturbance. What sort of conditions does the Minister envisage putting in place to uphold those obligations under the exclusive economic zone Act and under other legislation that those second consents may be obliged to fulfil in regard to protecting marine species and the marine environment? Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022 data-id=\u0022b9f22f1c0a22981948e7e3afbf62a501\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b9f22f1c0a22981948e7e3afbf62a501\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (17:40)\u003C/span\u003E: The member asked a question in a similar context previously, and the answer in regards to the conditions under the clause that has been noted is that the consenting process will continue to provide the mechanism in order to deal with the effects that the member is referring to. As I said before, the consenting process runs in parallel with this. It\u2019s not the intent to be duplicative of those two aspects and the bill does not cut across those two points.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002258f8b5a57f89467f40a8e67717ffed16\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Dr Megan Woods, I feel like there\u2019s a\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002218386c3cd9c001658853cc6c0cb09714\u0022\u003EHon Dr Megan Woods\u003C/span\u003E: A follow-up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022037b63c902d616ce63a38787985409e7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, a follow-up, and just a bit more clarification.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022 data-id=\u00224ca271652d8c130cd7e44e783322ed0d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224ca271652d8c130cd7e44e783322ed0d\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram) (17:41)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. That was my fourth question on Amendment Paper 571, and it is not unreasonable for an amendment that has not been through select committee. It is quite a substantive change that does actually move the policy settings of the bill from what the committee agreed to. As I said, we support it, but when I asked the Minister about \u201Cconsult any persons, or representatives of persons, who may be affected by the proposed designation notice\u201D\u2014which, as the Minister pointed out, is section 62C(2)(b), in terms of the Amendment Paper\u2014I\u2019d read that clause. I knew that to be the case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy question, however, to the Minister was around the subjective nature of the powers that were being given and who were deemed affected persons. Given that this is just confined to seabed mining, is it just offshore renewable energy developers and the seabed mining industry, along with the other list of iwi and hap\u016B that the Minister had talked about in an earlier contribution, or does it include what could be competing activities? Are they affected people? Is it fishing? Is it people who are seeking to do other commercial activities at sea\u2014for example, the oil and gas industry, do they fall under the heading of affected person? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think we can all read the clause, Minister, but we still need to know\u2014given that this is a new amendment, that the committee hasn\u2019t had a chance to talk to officials, and that there are a lot of subjective powers in there\u2014exactly what does fall under that. That is incredibly important. When you look through the policy documents that have been tabled with this Amendment Paper that talk about shifting this policy intent from developer-led to Government-led, along that continuum\u2014and it is a continuum; this is by no means marine spatial planning, with all the work done by Government and offered up for commercial interests. It\u2019s by no means at the end of it, but it is the Government dipping its toe into the water of a more Government-led.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnd that is quite a difference. When you read the regulatory impact statement from the original legislation that was tabled in this House and sent to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, it was all gung ho about this being developer-led. The amendment says explicitly\u2014and the regulatory impact statement, with that, talks about how the policy intent is shifting in that area and says that the legislation, indeed, has actually being designed to actually be moved further along this continuum. So this is incredibly important for the committee to understand, in terms of what the Minister understands affected people under this clause to mean.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022 data-id=\u00222bb36f2173e4a1b168a9fd6273165422\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222bb36f2173e4a1b168a9fd6273165422\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (17:44)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019d refer the member the Hon Dr Megan Woods to, in new section 62C, inserted by Amendment Paper 571, the word \u201Cany\u201D. \u201CAny\u201D, as the member can look up in the dictionary, will bring in scope the wide range of stakeholders that can be considered as part of that process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022 data-id=\u0022a660f40e37192009ba646bb49278ebf3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a660f40e37192009ba646bb49278ebf3\u0022\u003ESUZE REDMAYNE (Junior Whip\u2014National) (17:44)\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002089\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002092\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226476d0f53f9f9bcf0a74f3efc4a32493\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 571 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226bcbb6bc92525eda6843e7994efeef9e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer\u2019s tabled amendment inserting new clause 13 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002098\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002099\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 2 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002290d2f262404b2a65c2e96915a392f767\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u002271954395d72feaafaf380eead30a5e3a\u0022\u003EPart 3 Decommissioning ORE infrastructure\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002207c98f689caa3a8002f6a137cc5822a7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to Part 3, the debate on clauses 69 to 97, \u201CDecommissioning ORE infrastructure\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=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022 data-id=\u002263939c2060c8906434705571300a172a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002263939c2060c8906434705571300a172a\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram) (17:47)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. This is an incredibly important part of the bill, because it\u2019s not only that we have to understand how it is we establish these assets in New Zealand but it\u2019s also about how they are decommissioned and who pays for it and who carries the liability. This is something that we have learned only too brutally through the oil and gas regime; that the New Zealand taxpayer can be left holding the liability if we don\u2019t get this right. So this is an incredibly important part of the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the questions I have for the Minister is that, when we were doing this work, we went through the bill in terms of what is fair and reasonable for New Zealanders in terms of the kind of liability and who should hold it. Trailing liability was something, of course, that was discussed. Trailing liability is about the person who holds a commercial permit having an obligation, and this obligation continues even if the permit were transferred to a new permit holder\u2014so that just because you\u2019re transferring a permit, it doesn\u2019t mean that the obligation around liability dissolves and, all of a sudden, the New Zealand taxpayer is holding that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, it is fair and reasonable that the people that are reaping the profits from this infrastructure will continue to hold the liability for decommissioning and, if something goes wrong, that they will clean it up. My question is: when Cabinet came back to discuss the amendments to this, was there any discussion about the equity of having trailing liability in the offshore energy regime\u2014which I fully support, I\u2019ll put on record; I fully support\u2014but, at the same time, we\u2019re dismantling those obligations for the oil and gas sector so that trailing liability is being watered down when it came to the oil and gas sector in New Zealand. So I want to know whether or not there were any conversations that happened at Cabinet in the year that it took between the bill being reported back and us debating it here in terms of whether or not there needed to be any movement, either in terms of what was happening on the side of oil and gas, or what was happening with this in terms of having more alignment around that\u2014because it is asymmetrical; it is a very different regime that we\u2019re setting up. So: why would that be the case, and were discussions had in that area?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u0022d87ad87dd1dd8173260810d193cab156\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d87ad87dd1dd8173260810d193cab156\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (17:49)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. The specific wording in the decommissioning requirements ensure that an acceptable financial security arrangement is put in place and maintained and is sufficient to cover the estimated cost of the Crown decommissioning that infrastructure in the event that the permit holder or other obligated person fails to decommission. What guidance have you had, Minister, on what is an acceptable financial security arrangement, and the scale of what that might look like? There\u2019s an obligation for the applicant to submit decommissioning plans. Presumably, those plans will require the proving of that financial security, but I also presume that you\u2019ve had guidance on what sort of moneys or security arrangements we\u2019re talking about here. Perhaps that guidance has been borrowed from overseas experience. I wonder if you could give some guidance on what that advice has indicated to you, Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022 data-id=\u002260c5e101805e8aa7ea74bdb5b02f1888\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002260c5e101805e8aa7ea74bdb5b02f1888\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS (Green) (17:51)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair, and it is a pleasure to be able to take another call, although I did hope to be able to have some calls on the previous part. However, it is good to see you back in the Chair, Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EMy question is on Part 3, Subpart 2, clauses 70 and 71. Clause 70 notes that the commercial permit holders have decommissioning obligations for generation infrastructure, while owners have decommissioning obligations for transmission infrastructure. It\u2019s really just a query about how these two things interact. Why is it that the commercial permit holder has obligations for generation infrastructure, but the term \u201Cowner\u201D is used for transmission infrastructure, noting that this doesn\u2019t include Transpower as the owners? Why is there a difference in the language for this part? If the Minister could give me a response, I\u2019d appreciate that. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00226fb16a9481552572c4bff5ee1e929370\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226fb16a9481552572c4bff5ee1e929370\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (17:52)\u003C/span\u003E: I was asking questions before about the conditions, and maybe it\u2019s similar to this question, but if the Minister could take us through the hooks that get you to that financial security arrangement. I think it\u2019s not related; the conditions are separate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen, in Part 3, anyone who holds a commercial permit has an obligation to decommission. That\u2019s at clause 70, and then you turn to clause 79, and that is a person who has that decommissioning obligation\u2014that\u2019s clause 70\u2014must ensure an acceptable financial security arrangement is put in place. Then, at clause 83, the Minister has to determine whether or not that security is good enough.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt seems like quite a separate process to the conditions. I\u2019m wondering if the Minister can comment on that link and just confirm that I am right in terms of the hook\u2014as soon as you\u2019ve got that commercial permit, you\u2019re then hooked into the decommissioning requirements and the financial security that goes with that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022 data-id=\u00225309df825929c0e30e3f0061c0f802c3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225309df825929c0e30e3f0061c0f802c3\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (17:53)\u003C/span\u003E: Just working backwards for the members\u2019 questions, yes, in short, the commercial permitting aspect ensures that all the obligations on the party are done upfront, and therefore the context of those obligations would include the points which the member the Hon Rachel Brooking has noted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo Scott Willis\u2019 questions around clause 70\u2014why the language difference in terms of owners of the transmission infrastructure?\u2014the point there recognises that the transmission owner may not be the permit holder, hence why the language point is different.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf members could just note the clause that they refer to in the question, it would make it a little bit easier for the first two questions. The one around trailing liability from the Hon Dr Woods\u2014the context is different: the offshore renewable energy obligations, as I noted in the answer to the question just before, are in place at the start of the development process, which is different in the context of the dismantling for oil and gas obligations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESteve Abel\u2019s question in regard to the guidance on what are acceptable arrangements: the bill actually states, and I haven\u2019t got the clause in front of me, that it has to be enough\u2014this is around the fiscal points\u2014to cover the full cost of decommissioning, and further detail around that will be in the regulations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229e63c334f24a8ea5e84dc4933aa94067\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, it\u2019s time for me to suspend the committee for the dinner break, but, before I do, I just want to remind everyone\u2014because it\u2019s not appropriate to wear T-shirts in the Chamber, but I\u2019ve got this \u201CEveryone Loves Roland\u201D T-shirt\u2014that Roland\u2019s farewell is on tonight, in the dinner break. The committee will resume at 7 p.m. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterItalicsCentred\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 5.55 p.m. to 7 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b81a481eb4580e263fc9f00d337ad7f3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the committee is resumed. Before the dinner break, we were discussing Part 3 of the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill. Part 3 is the debate on clauses 69 to 97, \u201CDecommissioning ORE infrastructure\u201D. The question is still that Part 3 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022 data-id=\u002253ed043e2f8503419c6805c1a550b2a1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002253ed043e2f8503419c6805c1a550b2a1\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram) (19:00)\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m just seeking some clarification from you in the approach that presiding officers are taking. Over the dinner break, I\u2019ve looked through Speakers\u2019 rulings, and in terms of the function of the committee stage, one of the things that a number of presiding officers have been saying through the course of this debate is, \u201CThat\u2019s been dealt with in select committee.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ELooking through \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ESpeakers\u2019 Rulings\u003C/span\u003E, there is no Speaker\u2019s ruling that precludes members in the committee of the whole House stage going back through and asking Ministers questions. In fact, if we go back to a 1970 ruling by Speaker Jack, it points out that it\u2019s the \u201Cnuts and bolts stage in which a bill is considered as drafted to decide, in effect, whether the detail clauses do properly incorporate the principles already agreed to by the House.\u201D Subsequent Speakers\u2019 rulings also go on to say that it is the time when the House genuinely is asking questions, and whether amendments are needed to the bill to meet the purpose of that. I\u2019m seeking your clarification that this seems to be quite a different approach.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002205c62201db7d9010e066b6cbab34c56e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, look, I\u2019m not going to disagree with the member, but I think there\u2019s a clear expectation from committee Chairs that if a bill has not gone through a committee stage, there will clearly be much more of an extended process than there will be if it has been. I think the point I made before to one of the members was, yeah, it\u2019s okay to go there, but we\u2019re not going to redo the committee stage. Points of clarification on what\u2019s in the select committee report are fine; bringing up things for select committee and, of course, the addition of a Minister\u2019s Amendment Paper then expands that a bit further. So we\u2019re not precluding select committee, we\u2019re just saying that it wouldn\u2019t be the expectation that we have a long stage like we do on something that\u2019s all-stage urgency or didn\u2019t have a full select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002229e5b102d13c4382658246b802158461\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order. Thank you very much for the explanation, Madam Chair. One of the things that I\u2019d be interested to know, when you\u2019re saying points of clarification, particularly the Amendment Paper that hasn\u2019t been to select committee\u2014also whether, within your thinking, that includes members asking the Minister about whether or not he is prepared to amend the bill around different points that are brought up?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b850f1348f223a33165e5ab5a2d22fee\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, that\u2019s fine.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223d50c528470488be72baf26d963a761e\u0022\u003EHon Dr Megan Woods\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022859ace2f8845efa773b280a92fe452c2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022859ace2f8845efa773b280a92fe452c2\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (19:03)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a little question from me here on the \u201CMiscellaneous provisions\u201D. In Subpart 4, at clause 93, there\u2019s the \u201COwnership requirements for transmission infrastructure\u201D\u2014and so, the owner of that infrastructure must be a single entity. Then we go to clause 96, which is about liability, and it says that \u201Cif there is more than 1 person that, under this Part, must carry out, or meet the cost of decommissioning any infrastructure.\u201D, then they\u2019re \u201Cjoint and severally liable\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019m just wondering if the Minister can explain why there are references throughout this part to a person\u2014there\u2019s a lot of obligations on a person\u2014and how that fits with clause 93, with this requirement that there must be a single entity. Can we get into a situation whereby it\u2019s not a single entity, or where is the liability going to be split if there is a single entity? That\u2019s my question. How do those different clauses relate to each other and what is it that we\u2019re expecting to see in terms of who is up for providing that security that this part is all about?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022 data-id=\u0022338527ad8a066f3eda12f0ace563fc2e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022338527ad8a066f3eda12f0ace563fc2e\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (19:04)\u003C/span\u003E: The answer simply is that the prior owners or previous owners can be liable. So, in this case, that\u2019s why it\u2019s so clearly defining the individual that is held liable in this case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EPart 3 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00226dd0a4467630ed7e73e85dc8ce59383a\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022708dd00627c912e731aa4dac6271d623\u0022\u003EPart 4 Administration and enforcement\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226332053897d62f7d65b23c06a8400cea\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to Part 4. This is the debate on clauses 98 to 171, \u201CAdministration and enforcement\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=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022 data-id=\u002210cd512a6f59cc07a5b07c023ad1383f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002210cd512a6f59cc07a5b07c023ad1383f\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram) (19:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. There\u2019s just some clarification questions around this, and some of those are about how they interact with some of the changes, I think, in terms of Amendment Paper 571. We have the \u201CAppointment, and termination of appointment, of enforcement officers\u201D. What the Amendment Paper is relatively silent on\u2014and I may have missed something\u2014is really around enforcement regime, in terms of the period of time when there are the exclusive-use provisions in place, and what play that any of those enforcement officers may have in making sure that we do have that exclusive use within there. That would be my first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EBut then, also, the power to require information: how does this intersect with the Amendment Paper that has been put forward? Because, obviously, in making the decisions that are spelt out within the Amendment Paper, information is going to be required. Were there policy considerations around how that would interact with these powers that are granted under Part 4 of the Act; and what is the role of the enforcement team?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022 data-id=\u0022c7a00480cd0405a0750e8d4fbb7bcd69\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c7a00480cd0405a0750e8d4fbb7bcd69\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (19:06)\u003C/span\u003E: I am looking at clause 109, clause 110, and so on. It\u2019s the \u201CSafety zone officers\u201D. I\u2019m just interested as to how this is going to operate, because by their nature, offshore renewable energy installations are offshore, so they\u2019re at sea. It means that we need to think of who\u2019s actually going to be responsible for getting out there in a boat of some sort and deterring people and other boats from going near the offshore installation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019m just thinking of the likely sites, because if we think, you know, of up my way, we obviously have the coastguard, which operates out of Manukau Harbour and out through the bar and so on. But I\u2019m thinking of the South Taranaki Bight, which is one of the obvious places for an offshore wind installation. Who exactly is going to be the safety zone officers there? It\u2019s not going to be the local cops, that\u2019s for sure, because they\u2019re not going to have boats. I\u2019d just like a little bit of discussion or description from the Minister as to who we envisage those safety zone officers being. Elsewhere, and we see in these sections, there are various provisions that can be enforced, and the Minister can appoint enforcement officers and they can be local body people and so on, but it\u2019s going to take a person with a particular set of skills to be a safety zone officer, given the nature of the offshore nature of these installations. Just some information there from the Minister, please. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022 data-id=\u0022fcb6e57f10a6d614719cdeac046b2e7d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fcb6e57f10a6d614719cdeac046b2e7d\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (19:08)\u003C/span\u003E: Thanks, members, for the questions. In regards to the Hon Dr Megan Woods\u2019 question\u2014I didn\u2019t get the clause specifically, but in the context of the enforcement regime around seabed mining restrictions when they apply, those aspects are already covered under the Crown Minerals Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn regards to the question from Dr Deborah Russell around safety zones and who will be responsible, the answer there is that it is likely that we\u2019ll use existing officers that are already out there, acknowledging that there\u2019s already infrastructure that\u2019s in play offshore that is being monitored in other industry aspects, particularly in the Taranaki region.  Again, it will depend on the location in terms of the skill sets and the mechanism of gathering that information, as well. Clause 109, just for the member\u2019s interest, does set out who can be an officer. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u00229c97f5ba27bc8199ec48aebb9b742f86\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229c97f5ba27bc8199ec48aebb9b742f86\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (19:09)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. It\u2019s a follow-up to that same section around the enforcement of the safety zone. Given that section mentions section 63, I\u2019m hoping you\u2019ll suffer me to go back to section 63, which I had had a question on, but the debate sort of wrapped up. In terms of navigation of the sea\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002249c595f6154252d69add22e3e3a59b77\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, can the member just explain, you\u2019re talking about clause\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226d4c052169f3e137689593700b5c3e30\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, so I\u2019m on clause 64.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224db27144cb3a78963c5b668596589b27\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, we\u2019re actually\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002286e84ece952bf3fe0fd4f06ef457b6b8\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry. No, I\u2019m not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c43e1b861328d51871b8ce8ed57d61b3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019re on Part 4 now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bdcd875ddc9c32aa6575cac23288ca2e\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: No, you\u2019re right. I understand that. I\u2019m going to take you back there, though. \u201CPowers of safety zone officers\u201D in clause 110 in Part 4\u2014if you go over the page to page 66\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224e8321e66fe43a6fc1389297cefb2af1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Ah, now I\u2019m with you. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bd634e796284ee134a4cd16cab16c54b\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014subclause (3)(c) refers to \u201Csafety zone that contravene the restrictions declared under section 63\u201D. Section 63 outlines that the Minister may declare safety zones. Now, this seems logical\u2014500 metres is suggested\u2014but it goes to the question of enforcement, because of course if we\u2019re talking about wind turbines and we take 500 metres either side of a wind turbine and you have an array at sea, that takes up a vast area of the ocean.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat advice has the Minister received on rights of freedom of navigation in regard to enforcement of safety zones? Are those safety zones permanently regarded as such, or are there going to be requirements within those safety zones which will allow navigation\u2014for example, through a wind array, given the expanse of space between them\u2014or will it be an absolute restriction? Will there be the allowance of, for example, fishing vessels to pass that way, or anyone navigating the sea? I wonder what account you\u2019ve taken of that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe final question in that regard is the right to protest at sea. Does this element of the legislation\u2014and this relates also to the enforcement\u2014take into account the freedom of protest? I know that a previous Government in regard to offshore oil and gas exploration passed something that was dubbed the Anadarko amendment, which restricted protesters from coming within 500 metres of an oil exploration ship. I wonder what advice or consideration has been given to that right as well. My broader question is just: how do you deal with the size and expanse of ocean that will be impacted by offshore renewable energy and that 500-metre exclusion zone?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00220d7e09009ef89c4ce55d868c96a8fe31\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220d7e09009ef89c4ce55d868c96a8fe31\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (19:12)\u003C/span\u003E: While the honourable Minister\u2019s getting up, I\u2019ll just follow with a very short question. Back to clause 109 on safety zone officers, I note that it\u2019s constables and someone in charge of the ship from the New Zealand Defence Force or someone under their command. That is why I think my colleague Deborah Russell referred to boats before. But I\u2019m wondering if planes would also be involved, and the role of the New Zealand Defence Force in that\u2014just thinking back to the fisheries enforcement action or certainly surveillance action that occurs on planes\u2014if there\u2019s been any thought about that. And also whether or not other Government agencies ,such as the Department of Conservation, that sometimes also have vessels would be considered to be included in here as well. Going to the protest point that was just mentioned, I think that was the previous, previous Government that did that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022 data-id=\u0022ddfa653d452256a42126cf038cbadedb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ddfa653d452256a42126cf038cbadedb\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (19:13)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, members. The questions raised in regards to the safety zones and the protest points by Steve Abel\u2014the safety zones will be provided in accordance and aligned with international law, and navigation will be taken into account when determining the size of the area and the way in which it will be applied. As the member will be aware, there\u2019s a wide range of different types of offshore wind technology and array, and that will no doubt change in the future as well. The model is flexible in that context.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe point around protest is that the safety zones are in place to protect people and assets first and foremost, and they\u2019re not designed, as a primary purpose, to prevent protest. I guess the point of difference in the consideration with, as the member will be aware, those turbines when they\u2019re operating at full tap and speed, there\u2019s obviously quite a significant degree of risk of getting too close around that, but safety will obviously take precedent in the context of that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn regards to the member\u2019s question around the New Zealand Defence Force, it is the expectation that all aspects and mechanisms to gather information, including other agencies, will be used in order to fulfil the requirements of the Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022 data-id=\u0022c8bec9bfbfbb08c3b6fb195c7f51a6a3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c8bec9bfbfbb08c3b6fb195c7f51a6a3\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS (Green) (19:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. It\u2019s a very brief question in relation to clause 101, in Subpart 1 of Part 4\u2014in relation, actually, to the question from my colleagues in Labour just before\u2014who will be the enforcement officers under this bill? Because what we see under 101(1) is that \u201CThe chief executive may appoint persons who are employees of a government department, a Crown entity, or a local authority to perform or exercise 1 or more of the functions or powers conferred on enforcement officers under this Act.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWill it be the Environmental Protection Agency, who currently do exclusive economic zone enforcement on oil and gas rigs; or will it be Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment officials; and which department, which entity, will this enforcement sit under? If the Minister in the chair, the Hon Simon Watts, could help us understand\u2014because it would give assurance if we could know what the Government\u2019s thinking on this point. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022 data-id=\u0022689649eb318e1445341d531711bfc8fc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022689649eb318e1445341d531711bfc8fc\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram) (19:16)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. My questions also relate to the safety zone powers, and just a point of clarification, really, from the Minister. If we go back\u2014and I am dealing with the sections in Part 4 around the powers of the safety officers\u2014to clause 63, where the safety zones are designated and the Minister may declare them, we also get through that the application of the Submarine Cables and Pipelines Protection Act comes into play, because that\u2019s traditionally what we\u2019ve had. But what I\u2019m unclear on when looking through this\u2014and it has been some time since we discussed it at the Transport and Infrastructure Committee\u2014is whether this equally applies to the land-based infrastructure for the offshore renewable energy in the same way it applies to the marine-based infrastructure, either the platforms or the moorings and the cabling, or are there separate provisions that the Minister would see operating under other statutes that would operate here?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022 data-id=\u0022790f7796f136b3bf3ea0327c7c1e1fc2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022790f7796f136b3bf3ea0327c7c1e1fc2\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (19:17)\u003C/span\u003E: Thanks, members. In regards to the question around who will be the enforcement agents, it is likely that there will be a combination of agencies with relevant responsibilities, including and not restricted to the Environmental Protection Authority, Maritime New Zealand, WorkSafe, and also the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. It\u2019s likely that the mechanism, in order to coordinate between those agencies, will be something that will obviously be put in place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAgain, the question around\u2014oh no, I\u2019ve already answered it. That\u2019s fine.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002248fbecd7bfc086dd0fffdc67b1ea19f7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m going to take a clarifying question from the Hon Dr Deborah Russell, but we\u2019ve spent a long time on safety zones. I\u2019m just wondering if there\u2019s\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002273f2268a93a53daa3454f22d5143137d\u0022\u003EHon Dr Deborah Russell\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll be moving on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022489692a99b9c1cf0234dd6014712a6fe\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: OK. Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c987e779ac98a2759a8a24105df3c316\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Do you feel safe?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022 data-id=\u00221da2c648725d54e895a6bb1a04327376\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221da2c648725d54e895a6bb1a04327376\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (19:18)\u003C/span\u003E: I do feel safe. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to direct the Minister\u2019s attention to clauses 144 through\u2014140-something or other; it goes a bit further\u2014149, where there\u2019s a variety of offences spelled out. Alongside those offences are a variety of penalties, with some such as imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or a fine not exceeding $1 million, or a fine not exceeding $10 million, a fine not exceeding $800,000. It\u2019s just sitting within these various offences, and if I could just have some reassurance from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Simon Watts, perhaps, or from his officials, that, in actual fact, these fines are consistent with fines and penalties that are imposed in other, similar legislation? It\u2019s just a reassurance there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022 data-id=\u00228d0bc6f183dfe8daa92250ba9bb5f774\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228d0bc6f183dfe8daa92250ba9bb5f774\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (19:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022 data-id=\u00222371c46f51f90aaf0b016b4131a347be\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222371c46f51f90aaf0b016b4131a347be\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS (Green) (19:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019ll keep my question very brief, and it is on clause 115. Clause 115 notes that permit holders must keep records, and presumably this relates both to the feasibility and commercial permits, but clause 115(2)(a) notes that records must be kept for at least seven years. However, we\u2019re talking about 40 years of operation for offshore renewable energy infrastructure. Is seven years going to be adequate time to keep those records? Why aren\u2019t commercial permit holders required to keep information over the lifetime of that offshore renewable energy infrastructure, to ensure that there\u2019s a clear record of information? That\u2019s my question to the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022 data-id=\u0022a5c95e59294df22a58ba2a90574c309f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229fb4ce970d4f47d9853d2ea64ddc5b74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a5c95e59294df22a58ba2a90574c309f\u0022\u003EHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (19:20)\u003C/span\u003E: Seven years is the standard period of time for retention of records\u2014particularly common with financial records as well. It does use the wording \u201Cfor at least\u201D, and, obviously, the obligations around that with technology, around electronic record keeping\u2014the duration is less relevant than what it used to be in the context of paper-based records.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002260fbf129879fc2331f3d58c03dadc269\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m not sure if there\u2019s a \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E for this, but I\u2019ll call Dan Bidois. I can take a closure motion if nobody stands up. So just for clarification for the Government members, taking a closure motion just installs another vote, but seeing as you\u2019re so persistent, Dan Bidois, I\u2019m going to call you to take your call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b7cff05e64f346e68983b2fdbfba3ad8\u0022 data-id=\u0022514a188ee42501ba3612c652295380ca\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b7cff05e64f346e68983b2fdbfba3ad8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022514a188ee42501ba3612c652295380ca\u0022\u003EDAN BIDOIS (National\u2014Northcote) (19:20)\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002173\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002176\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 67, Noes 55.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002225a0b5203036c08fbc0217d8bb33791f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Part 4 set out on Amendment Papers 571 and 643 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 4 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00224c6b535ae9df2413e48baad945f83d77\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d49ea1174cb1b4e096ddbb8f8d89d389\u0022\u003EPart 5 Amendments to other Acts, and Schedules 2 and 3 and proposed new Schedule 1A\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e63c307e1e6011b368a567894d5e7605\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to Part 5, the debate on clauses 172 to 180\u2014\u201CAmendments to other Acts\u201D\u2014Schedules 2 and 3, and proposed new Schedule 1A. The question is that Part 5 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022 data-id=\u0022ac44ce12ccf1a2b2464ff70bdb84bf14\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ac44ce12ccf1a2b2464ff70bdb84bf14\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram) (19:22)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m sure colleagues will have questions on other pieces of legislation that are being amended, but I have a very specific question for the Minister in the chair, Simon Watts, and that\u2019s around the Transport and Infrastructure Committee changes. They were the recommended inserted clauses of 177C and 177D, which are in there to amend section 12(5) of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act. It expands the definition of \u201Coffshore marine structure\u201D to include \u201CORE infrastructure\u201D\u2014a perfectly sensible amendment and one that we needed to put in there. That allowed Fire and Emergency to respond to maritime incidents as part of our search and rescue region, should any incident occur on any offshore renewable energy infrastructure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EMy question is, for the Minister, whether there has been any thought given\u2014will there be a levy on this infrastructure in terms of contributing into Fire and Emergency New Zealand? What we have seen in other parts of the economy\u2014and I know with my conversations that I\u2019ve been having with our firefighters, for example, that we have quite a perverse situation where we have offshore insurance of forestry assets, which means no fire and emergency levy is paid, but we know that our fire service is called on frequently to ensure that we maintain fire safety in those areas and respond, obviously, to fire incidents. So, whether any thought has been given, if we get into a similar situation where, while we\u2019re including the services of Fire and Emergency New Zealand\u2014and we need to do that; it is a good amendment, but in terms of how it is that will be funded, whether any thought has been given to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00223711e16e12f8ae6981ffe2bab90f781c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223711e16e12f8ae6981ffe2bab90f781c\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (19:24)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Moving on to a different Act that is amended, the Fast-track Approvals Act\u2014what a surprise that I\u2019m talking about this!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002244860f8d21d1722a8566f51038600709\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Isn\u2019t it!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022329940ddfe4fa68a41cee353fbbef1fe\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Maybe Winston Peters is listening; maybe not\u2014he doesn\u2019t appear to have listened to my other many hundreds of contributions on this topic, but anyway. What the Fast-track Approvals Act does is it lists ineligible activities\u2014so, these are things that cannot come into the fast-track process. At the moment, listed is \u201Can activity undertaken for the purposes of an offshore renewable energy project.\u201D What these amendments do is they delete that and replace it with this clause, which is 177B, \u201CSection 5 amended\u201D. It includes in the definition of \u201Cineligible activity\u201D\u2014so, the things that can\u2019t happen in the fast track\u2014an offshore renewable energy activity; I\u2019m paraphrasing. So you would think that the fast track then doesn\u2019t apply to this, but: \u201Cunless the applicant is the holder of a current feasibility permit or commercial permit\u201D. So that means that they are eligible; they\u2019re an exception in the ineligible list.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ESo I\u2019m just checking that the point of this is that the fast track is available for offshore renewable energy, but only after they have already established a feasibility permit or commercial permit\u2014their choice. So they have to do the feasibility permit / commercial permit under this legislation first before they can get into that fast-track process for whatever other permissions they might need, depending on what the activity is and where it is. So that is my question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u002279b610c9aa1c9b20105f4632078ff9f7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002279b610c9aa1c9b20105f4632078ff9f7\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (19:26)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m advised, yes: so the bill amends the Fast-track Approvals Act so that feasibility or commercial permit holders are eligible to apply to build offshore renewable energy infrastructure through the fast-track regime, but they have to have, obviously, the feasibility permission.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002233ca1de0b606fac9c79d3d92b1698d12\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Megan Woods\u2019 tabled amendments to the amendments to Part 5 on Amendment Paper 571 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments to the amendments be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments to the amendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 55, Noes 67.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c9e12d5c86aebcbac69dc793a096ea87\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Part 5 set out on Amendment Paper 571 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 5 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223638dba9f3def0dbeb76c6690b46ec3a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendment set out on Amendment Paper 571 inserting new Schedule 1A be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ca1169438ecc13144b5d5a0746d01cfa\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Schedule 3 set out on Amendment Paper 571 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 3 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00222fbe0a73cf02f673751830335b860903\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a4934b9d7c586886e596c26cd02c8959\u0022\u003EClauses 1 and 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022 data-id=\u002263a8b024d900910888c152cd51ba15fe\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002263a8b024d900910888c152cd51ba15fe\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger) (19:29)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to our final debate, on clauses 1 and 2, \u201CTitle\u201D and \u201CCommencement\u201D. The question is that clause 1 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHouse resumed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a3b5de5540be5c1b1a8c5d30dc6be80c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the report be adopted\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EReport adopted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00228ab853f7a1fc0a189e53d25ba257b2c8\u0022\u003EThird Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u00223f633c542e4267af72ac05eced3193d4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223f633c542e4267af72ac05eced3193d4\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (19:31)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill be now read a third time\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224cc0efe5b59859852e214b28bf8934f4\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Was there a legislative statement?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e5ea3a607fcb0f23774b95f9fb51b9b3\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: No. Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to the House for their support through the committee stage of this bill. This is an exciting moment for New Zealand as we pass legislation to enable offshore renewable energy here in New Zealand. This bill delivers on a commitment to put a regulatory regime in place for offshore renewable energy as part of National\u2019s Electrify New Zealand plan. Offshore renewable energy has the potential to help grow our economy, but also help us to reach the needed electricity generation to be able to support a growing economy and also our net zero carbon emissions targets by 2050.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to acknowledge all members of the House for their support of this bill, but also to acknowledge Minister Simon Watts, who has played an important role in this bill as the former Minister for Energy as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOffshore renewable energy fills in gaps in the current regulatory environment. The bill will give offshore renewable energy developers greater certainty and therefore more confidence about investing in New Zealand, as well as allowing the Government to select the developments that best meet New Zealand\u2019s national interests. This bill will also enable risks to the Crown and the public from offshore renewable energy, such as decommissioning of infrastructure, to be appropriately managed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill has been through extensive consultation: not only the work of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, who heard public submissions and recommended changes to improve the workability of the bill and increase certainty for developers, but also wide consultation with iwi and stakeholders and potential developers as well. I want to thank everyone who has contributed to the preparation and passage of this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s important to think about offshore renewable energy as not just about wind energy. I think a lot of the conversation in terms of the legislation is thought of around wind energy, but this enables all manner of offshore renewable energy infrastructure to be able to obtain permits, whether that\u2019s wind energy, whether it\u2019s solar at sea, wave energy, tidal energy. It allows for the innovation of our energy sector to be unleashed here in New Zealand through the obtainment of permits\u2014first, feasibility permits and then commercial permits. The feasibility permit will give the holder certainty that no other offshore renewable energy developer is able to be approved to develop that same site when undertaking feasibility studies, giving them the exclusive ability to then apply for an offshore renewable energy commercial permit, as well as the right to apply for relevant environmental consents, resource or marine, in the permit area.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI expect we\u2019re going to see people applying for permits shortly. My intention is, once the bill is passed\u2014well, as the bill says, the commencement is the day after Royal assent, which I think is the appropriate commencement date\u2014I intend to introduce feasibility permit and cost recovery regulations as soon as possible so that the regime is able to become operational. Developers will be able to then apply for feasibility permits once a round is opened, and I think that\u2019s an exciting economic opportunity for New Zealand as well as the opportunity for these companies to be able to look at the innovation and the opportunity that is available in our offshore areas.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOnce a feasibility permit has been applied for and granted and studies have been done, a commercial permit will then need to be obtained before construction begins, providing assurance that the project is ready to progress to construction. This, obviously, is a really important next step for developers, and providing this certainty is exactly what developers need, so they can have certainty around the locations that they\u2019re looking at and studying and then the ability to apply for commercial permits to be able to build.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is a really important step forward, as I said, for the country. I do want to acknowledge every single member of the House who has played a role in support across the House for this. I think it\u2019s a sensible change as we build the future of an affordable, abundant, reliable, and increasingly renewable energy system here in New Zealand. I\u2019m excited about the potential that this is going to unleash across our country as we seek to grow the energy that this country is delivering.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EUltimately, that is what matters if we want to grow our economy. We need to grow our abundant, affordable, reliable energy opportunities in New Zealand, because, ultimately, that is what underpins a strong and growing economy. On this side of the House, we\u2019re very clear: we\u2019re agnostic as to what that development might look like. We want people to come to New Zealand, we want to seize those opportunities, and be able to unlock that opportunity in this country so that we can have the industries that flow from cheaper electricity, more affordable electricity: the jobs, the opportunities, the innovation\u2014all of those good things.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill might just say it\u2019s unlocking offshore renewable energy, but, ultimately, it is unlocking economic growth and opportunity in our country. It\u2019s fixing the basics; it\u2019s building the future. I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222ce8ab1e98ef8ffdc291f340c0139e8d\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022 data-id=\u00223514d1e736e977f710cb4e3e3b428215\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223514d1e736e977f710cb4e3e3b428215\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram) (19:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I agree with the Minister for Energy; this is an exciting day. I think it\u2019s also fair to say it\u2019s a very long-anticipated day that we are coming to finally get the legislation passed to put in place this regime. I still recall going to visit the global wind energy association in London, them showing me the maps when I was Minister, and them telling me that New Zealand was the \u201CSaudi Arabia of wind\u201D, that this was the potential that our country had in terms of economic opportunity. This work started in 2022 in terms of the consultation, so there was consultation that was carried out in 2022 and 2023. It was set up to have a regime in place by July 2024. I think it is concerning that it has taken this long to get here, but I have been more than happy to play my part across the House to make sure that we\u2019ve got the kind of legislation that can actually unleash the potential of offshore energy in New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe, too, are agnostic, but let\u2019s be very clear: the projects that are front and centre at the moment, the projects where there is actually capital being deployed around the world and that New Zealand is in a competition to attract here, are in offshore wind. It is a shame that over the period of the last 2\u00BD years, while we haven\u2019t had the regime coming in in a time frame that was anticipated by the industry and was achievable, we\u2019ve seen BlueFloat, we\u2019ve seen Sumitomo, and we\u2019ve seen JERA Nex bp all take their capital away from New Zealand and invest it in places where there is more certainty. That is what we have to give to investors, and why we have been more than happy to work across the House to make sure there is broad support to signal to that international investment that no matter who is in Government in New Zealand, there is broad support for this. This is a regulatory regime that is put in place that is going to survive changes of Government. This is something that people can agree on, and I think that is incredibly important that we do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think that we can see just the potential that can be unleashed from this. There have been numerous studies that have looked at the potential and what can be contributed in New Zealand in terms of jobs: the number of jobs that can be put in place can be measured in the thousands, that can be stimulated by attracting this investment here, and that\u2019s only for it as energy\u2014that\u2019s only for the energy it generates. That\u2019s not thinking about the downstream effects of what us having abundant, affordable, renewable energy looks like; the opportunities that will open up in terms of our industrial sector when we have more affordable energy\u2014so, that\u2019s 5,000 to 30,000 jobs, are the projections from a PricewaterhouseCoopers report. This is big change that this is signalling. We\u2019re also seeing the projections around GDP growth, ranging from $12 billion to $94 billion over the project lifetime, of having this put in place. Again, this is potentially truly transformative; this can really change the trajectory that we\u2019re on and whether or not we have flourishing industries in this country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAlso, one of the things that excites me the most about this is the skilled jobs that will accompany this, and the ability to transition many of our workers that are working in industries that we are transitioning away from to work in this industry. A number of the skills that are associated with working in offshore oil and gas exploration can be transferred into offshore wind and offshore renewable energy projects in communities that have depended on those industries for a number of decades, and a number of generations of families have grown used to it. The potential for us to make sure that we are smoothing that transition, that we are making sure that workers and communities are protected, is one of the reasons why Labour in Government put so much work into making sure that this work began and got under way and that we were attracting investment in this area.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of offshore renewable energy, regulate it and they will come. Establish the regulatory regime; give the certainty; tell people that you are open for business in this area and that you\u2019re not going to put pet projects like seabed mining, which has been turned down by every court in the land, into the fast track and drive that capital away. That has to finish, and I hope the amendments that we\u2019ve seen to this legislation, that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee worked through very carefully\u2014we listened to the submissions. We heard submitter after submitter come and say that just allowing open slather\u2014\u201CYou\u2019ve got that big seabed mining resource going through; that\u2019s not going to allow us to get on with it.\u201D That\u2019s not going to allow us to get on and establish the opportunities that we can all see in front of us here in New Zealand, so I was pleased to see that Ministers did pause and reflect that the legislation they had brought to the House was inadequate. It needed to change, it needed to give that certainty to the investment community, and I do thank the Minister for making those changes, because I think we would have put so much at risk if we hadn\u2019t made those changes. That is absolutely critical.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the things that we also need to do is send the signal to everybody that the transition is actually about growth. This is where opportunity lies; this is where the jobs of tomorrow will lie. This is where the skilled jobs will lie. Actually, our transition to renewable energy is a cheaper, affordable, abundant source for our nation, and that is where our prosperity and our opportunity lies as we head into the 21\u003Csup\u003Est\u003C/sup\u003E century. We know that actually, in terms of getting this affordable energy, it is not expensive imported fossil fuels. Energy that passes through the Strait of Kaukau, the Strait of Foveaux, rather than the Strait of Hormuz, to get to New Zealand to serve us is going to give us that energy security that we need as we go through the 21\u003Csup\u003Est\u003C/sup\u003E century.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is energy made here in New Zealand; this is energy made here in New Zealand, by New Zealand workers. It is energy for us that is secure\u2014that we are not subject to the vagaries of the international winds; we are, rather, subject to the vagaries of the offshore winds that are a far more secure place for us to be. This is in so many ways a win for New Zealand, and I\u2019m pleased to see that the legislation we are putting in place is going to come into place so quickly. The Minister has given his reassurance that he will get on and do the secondary legislative piece of work to actually put in place the regulatory regime, because it is so needed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe literally have international capital camped down in New Zealand, waiting to see this, to unleash this potential, and I encourage that. I\u2019m very pleased to see it come to fruition, and I\u2019m very pleased to see that we finally have this regime. It would have been better if we\u2019d had it sooner, but better late than never, and I look forward to seeing the opportunities that can be unleashed for this country to grow our wealth, to employ our people, and to give us the security that we need going into this uncertain 21\u003Csup\u003Est\u003C/sup\u003E century. Thank you, Madam Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022 data-id=\u002232fb5f95c8882a7c94a6ef79afd0890c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002232fb5f95c8882a7c94a6ef79afd0890c\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS (Green) (19:46)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I can say I\u2019ve been a member of the New Zealand Wind Energy Association for well over a decade and this is a good day. It\u2019s a good day when we can finally celebrate some progress on the electrification journey that we are on, regardless of the direction that parts of the Government want to take us.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve been thinking about this Government\u2019s recent enthusiasm for the electrification journey, and just to remind myself, I went back to National\u2019s Electrify New Zealand document, which says: \u201CNational wants a future where buses and trains are powered by clean electricity, where we go on holiday in cars powered by clean electricity, and where industrial processing plants are powered by clean electricity not coal. But to do that, we need to double the amount of renewable electricity we [will] produce from New Zealand\u2019s abundant natural resources\u2014particularly solar, wind, and geothermal. National will make it happen.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI can hear the catcalling from the other side of the Government because we know what they\u2019ve done. Let\u2019s forget liquefied natural gas (LNG) for the moment; the uncomfortable decision to force the big power companies to contract for LNG. Well, that\u2019s not renewable. We\u2019re told that National will make that clean energy transition happen. Well, except for the Government slashing the Clean Car Standard; except for putting in extra high - road-user charges on electric and hybrid vehicles; except for cancelling funding for councils to buy electric buses and ferries; except for offering a $200 subsidy for the fossil fuel sector, for the gas security fund; except\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222dde59f69bfa754b38a703cedc592e94\u0022\u003EHon Member: \u003C/span\u003E$200 million.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c032f628fec0546a5a66c2fee8d243af\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Two hundred million, yes; thank you to the member from New Zealand First: $200 million for the fossil fuel sector, a subsidy that the British are very concerned about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ca1c62dc71823e0adbc2c711c4a3d83b\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That was a good setting of the scene, Mr Willis, but now we might come back to the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eb548bac1377801f2c4ca6e46d100b45\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Except for all of that, apparently National will make the transition to clean energy happen, despite all the fossil fuels!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELet\u2019s remember the offshore renewable energy legislation regime has been worked on for several years. Policy and public consultation took place between 2022 and 2023, and it took more than a year after taking office for the Government to finally introduce the draft Offshore Renewable Energy Bill to Parliament\u2014more than a year. For a Government that claims it wants to make things happen, they certainly took their damn good time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMeanwhile, we\u2019ve heard that three developers floated away. Yes, the coalition Government at that time simply couldn\u2019t make up its mind whether it wanted seabed mining or to support offshore renewables\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223083afecc5f1cdef42580eafbb9b194e\u0022\u003ETom Rutherford\u003C/span\u003E: Stop reading.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002299d7b7a4107b1606273ac86877853e01\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014so, on 17 December 2024\u2014thank you, Tom; thank you for that\u2014the bill passed the first reading and was transferred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, and I want to thank Andy Foster for chairing that committee so well, because it was a really useful select committee where we could dive into the complexity of this argument. We could hear from the wind energy sector. We could hear from iwi and hap\u016B. We could hear from communities. We could hear from people who had real concerns and had worried about where this bill was going and why it had disappeared and why it had reappeared. We got a lot of detail out of that select committee process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve got the Amendment Paper that turned up on 4 June; that was helpful. We could see that the Government had been working. The Government aimed to pass this bill by mid-2025 and here we are in mid-2026, near the very end of this parliamentary term. The first draft of a national policy statement on renewable electricity generation, requiring councils to issue consents within one year\u2014that was supposed to be released within six months of the Government coming to power. How did that go, National?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA national energy strategy\u2014something the sector is crying out for, something industry is screaming for to give certainty, something that manufacturing wants to understand how we can stop the de-industrialisation of our nation\u2014has been ruled out by this Minister. This is crazy stuff. \u201CNational will make it happen.\u201D Well, I think at this point National is in competition with Tui for the best billboard advertisements they could possibly get.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis Amendment Paper, which is helpful, reads like the compromise between the coalition partners that it is. Offshore renewable energy developers\u2014clearly what\u2019s at stake if there\u2019s any chance of building offshore renewables is to stroke the ego of MPs if they can, because it was abundantly clear that seabed mining and offshore renewables were so incompatible. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHere we are. We\u2019re going through the third reading of the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill more than a year after it was promised to be delivered. While many more inconsequential bills have been promoted through urgency in front of this one, National will make it happen. The National Party really has become the manifestation of a Tui billboard. You really have. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo Mr Speaker\u2014Madam Speaker. My apologies. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ac9d414d2e9e033cca74f5cb101d832b\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s OK. It\u2019s not the first time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b85cfdb6feb81259209eaa8081a09ad3\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: I wonder, when this bill is passed, whether the coalition will say, \u201CJob done.\u201D I suppose it will at least be done. We will have some legislation. Better late than never. But does the Minister believe that when this bill is done, after all this time, that this bill is going to unlock offshore renewable energy projects that he\u2019s so keen on? Every other jurisdiction that offshore wind, for example, has been built in has required not only a regulatory and consenting framework\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d8609c612411686d517d0f9b09b28\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002299bf4aa4d64df36a6661f6ebe6cb52f5\u0022\u003EDavid MacLeod\u003C/span\u003E: Subsidies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002246d2db039dca24fce30d303786d4ed5c\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014but also\u2014that\u2019s right\u2014revenue-stabilising mechanisms, contracts for difference to guarantee a floor price for the generated electricity to shield generators from volatile wholesale market prices. That\u2019s right\u2014that\u2019s right. It has never been developed without those additional elements.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI understand the Government clapping themselves on the back and saying, \u201CJob done.\u201D. but how we got here has been a long and painful journey, really. I understand that these big investments with big capital need additional insurance, but if we want to support the independent generation for wind development, if it\u2019s offshore or even onshore, wouldn\u2019t a contract for difference platform be useful? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWay back in 2020, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment sought submissions on their discussion document titled \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EAccelerating renewable energy and energy efficiency\u003C/span\u003E. One of the questions was, \u201CDo you agree there is a role for government to provide information, facilitate match-making and/or assume some financial risk for [power purchase agreements]?\u201D It appears that through successive Governments, work has been done on ways to accelerate the renewables transition and yet much of it\u2019s been shelved and Governments change or a Minister, such as this one, refuses to acknowledge things like a national energy strategy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe do support this bill\u2014we certainly do\u2014but let me make some things very clear. It has taken way too long. Iwi and hap\u016B have not been appropriately engaged through the development of this bill. We note that iwi and hap\u016B in Taranaki have sought real engagement from the Government on the finalisation and implementation of the legislation. Attention needs to be given to this. It is the type of legislation that could help us develop a future where buses and trains are powered by clean electricity, etc. But if we do that, we have to throw out much of this Government\u2019s fossil fuel agenda. Cancel the liquefied natural gas project. Provide renewable\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002288aed36e797b7813381ebd4f928a3dca\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member\u2019s time has expired. Just before I call the next speaker, I have to say there\u2019s quite a lot of wind that we could capture on the Government backbenches tonight.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b064dd56673f4c1cb11c1242823abb92\u0022 data-id=\u0022b13d597efa8b6637ce506e66c3577b4b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b064dd56673f4c1cb11c1242823abb92\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b13d597efa8b6637ce506e66c3577b4b\u0022\u003ELAURA McCLURE (ACT) (19:56)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill. Look, the member on the other side of the House is failing to recognise that we need to keep the lights on this winter, we need to keep people warm, and there is a transition process that the other side clearly failed to understand well. That\u2019s why energy is so incredibly expensive right now in New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIf we are going to unlock New Zealand\u2019s potential, we know that we need to be investing in more new technologies. This is an incredible opportunity for New Zealand. We know that a clean, green future is on the horizons for New Zealand and I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002248ce26e54d83406399b875df20400dec\u0022 data-id=\u002221afe1ea1743a6c98c3b498af1f234ed\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002248ce26e54d83406399b875df20400dec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002221afe1ea1743a6c98c3b498af1f234ed\u0022\u003EANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (19:57)\u003C/span\u003E: Thanks, Madam Speaker. It\u2019s great to get here. There is one thing I\u2019m going to agree with the Opposition on: it\u2019s taken a while to get to this point because, as chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee that considered this, we reported this back in June last year. It\u2019s taken quite a while to get there, and I did wonder whether we had actually forgotten about this bill, but we\u2019ve got here and that\u2019s great.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe need more energy. I think that is going to be something we agree about across the House. We know\u2014and sometimes the generation industry is chastised, but we know that there is a lot more generation coming on. In fact, more generation is being built now than has ever been built in the past. Most of that is renewables\u2014the vast majority of that\u2014but we need firming too. This is where I part company with the Greens over there. Some industry actually needs gas because it cannot operate and it will not be able to operate without gas. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOf course, the Opposition over there did nothing for the gas industry, which has meant we\u2019ve ended up with a whole lot of businesses closed down. We\u2019ve ended up with a whole lot of jobs lost. That is the responsibility of the Opposition in this particular case. We need to keep the lights on, but we also need to keep businesses, we also need to keep jobs. That\u2019s really important. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELet\u2019s talk about offshore wind, because then I think we might get some agreement there. The offshore wind\u2014we know there\u2019s a lot of investment in onshore wind as well, but offshore wind, in theory, has a much higher level of generation. If the boilerplate number says it\u2019s 100 megawatts, you\u2019re likely to get I think it\u2019s about 55 megawatts compared to something in the high 40s or the mid-40s for onshore wind. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill is about setting a framework for offshore renewable energy. As we\u2019ve had pointed out, it\u2019s not just wind, but the majority of that probably will be wind, at least at the moment. The key issue in this bill is security of tenure\u2014security of tenure. You\u2019re not going to invest tens of millions of dollars\u2014and it is tens of millions of dollars in doing feasibility, or billions of dollars, probably, or at least hundreds of millions or billions of dollars\u2014in actually building a wind farm offshore unless you\u2019ve got security of tenure. This was probably the key issue that we, as a select committee, considered because there was an issue there which said, basically, that mining could come in over the top of an existing consent or an existing licence for an offshore renewable wind operation. That clearly was not going to be something\u2014that would have turned every investor off, so you had to deal with that. That was a thing which we actually said, as a select committee, \u201CShould we actually deal with that now?\u201D, but we actually had to deal with not just the bill in front of us but other bits of legislation as well. We said that back to the Ministers: \u201CDo you want to deal with that or do you want us to deal with that?\u201D That\u2019s why we\u2019ve got the Amendment Paper here on the Table at the moment to deal with that issue, which basically says you cannot have those two things in the same place at once; they are incompatible\u2014we\u2019ve already heard that. It\u2019s important that we make sure that there is, as I said, that security of tenure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe had the idea, in the submissions, of a spatial plan. We\u2019re very familiar with a spatial plan when it comes to the terrestrial environment. But they also said that\u2019s necessary in the offshore environment as well. It might be it\u2019s fishing, it might be it\u2019s wind farms, it might be it\u2019s mining, whatever it might be. Sometimes they cannot coexist, and so it\u2019s important for us to think about that thing. That was beyond the scope of our ability to respond to, but it is something which we said should be given consideration to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other bit was\u2014because there are some areas which are really, really important; have really good wind resource. The one that particularly is focused on at moment is the South Taranaki Bight. It\u2019s really important that if you\u2019ve got that licence, that you actually use it. You don\u2019t sit on it for years and years and years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022380a9ac6b1a3502413c9f10e426dd6d6\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I don\u2019t have a licence, Mr Foster.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002248ce26e54d83406399b875df20400dec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022573839f4c301be47f99ace0e883b5e78\u0022\u003EANDY FOSTER\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, sorry. Well, Madam Speaker, I know you love the Taranaki\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c0527c33e067dd22115728f368e076ed\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I do, but I don\u2019t have a licence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002248ce26e54d83406399b875df20400dec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022301ff264c4a0e81aef221c31606dba39\u0022\u003EANDY FOSTER\u003C/span\u003E: You might have a licence, but possibly not. But anyway, my point is we want to make sure that the licence holders actually use the licences that they\u2019ve got\u2014so it\u2019s a use it or lose it approach as well. There are a lot of technicalities which we considered in the bill around fishing policing, small-scale generation, which is also being talked about as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI just wanted to respond to couple of last things. Revenue stabilising that Scott Willis has talked about. There are issues about how the energy market works, but I do wonder whether, if you energy-stabilise part of the market, you might then say it actually raises costs overall\u2014so probably it is going to have to do that. I\u2019ll leave it there. I think that this is a very good day for New Zealand. It\u2019s a good piece of legislation, it\u2019s a good bill, and I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b052ad72d608119fbe9046b6858425d7\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: This is a split call. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022 data-id=\u0022e04d6764dc039c48ac33a017f9245fd5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e04d6764dc039c48ac33a017f9245fd5\u0022\u003EDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader\u2014Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori) (20:02)\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003ET\u0113n\u0101 koe e te P\u012Bka.\u003C/span\u003E I have this really daunting view where the rest of Aotearoa, particularly those in South Taranaki, are looking at Wellington thinking \u201CAbout time you caught up.\u201D While people in the House are patting themselves on the back, a lot of the people where I come from, Taranaki, have been engaging with companies, have already gone out and explored, they\u2019ve already got a whole lot of knowledge, had already set up good m\u0101tauranga and good entities such as Te Ara Ake\u2014which the Government has defunded\u2014in expectation of some Government finally catching up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFor years, Taranaki iwi have been telling Governments\u2014not just National-led; Labour-led ones as well\u2014that there is no offshore renewable energy that would work while sea bed mining was on your agenda. Neither Labour- or National-led Governments would prohibit seabed mining, and so we\u2019re here years later\u201415 years later\u2014after they\u2019ve been spelling out the obvious. Well done to Wellington for finally catching up on what the rest of Taranaki has known for decades: we have a finite supply of fossil fuels and we\u2019re watching the Government\u2014I\u2019ve almost got whiplash. I really don\u2019t know which way to look. We\u2019re patting ourselves on the back for finally catching up with a renewable energy agenda, but still you spend billions of dollars on liquefied natural gas (LNG) because, you know, that just makes perfect sense. Really what we should have been doing is get this across the line, and make sure that we listen to those who are living there and are most affected.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThese are some of the things that iwi said to any Government that\u2019s going to listen. They came forward and said, \u201CDo it properly.\u201D They called for Te Tiriti to be recognised because they\u2019re the ones that have more of the hands-on relationship than Government ever does, even though they think they control everything. They called for genuine partnership instead of consultation after decisions. They called for a regulatory system where iwi are not simply informed; we are part of making decisions from beginning to end because they live there beyond the productivity of the life of the project. They also made sure that they wanted to have a framework and a model that would ensure we could look after the communities that are most affected by all these entities coming into their moana. I really hope that there is room for us to be able to address the fact that we have communities that give and absolutely lift their weight in this sector and are still paying horrendous prices for energy. Those were some of the things of their experience that they\u2019ve had.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EYes, it\u2019s a great day for Government to finally have caught up. But the reality is if we listened more to the experts that are living there, that are on the ground, that had these relationships for decades after decades, we would have been able to land this a lot smarter, a lot better across all parties. There are jobs to be created\u2014the electrifying of Aotearoa could bring 58,000-plus jobs in the last report I read last week. Now, in order to do that, we need to get over ourselves and we need to figure out how we do that quickly, efficiently, and holistically. I haven\u2019t heard any of that in any of these speeches. What I have heard is the ridiculousness\u2014I\u2019m sorry\u2014of Labour pretending that they were anti - seabed mining, when they weren\u2019t, and the Government denying that they are so pro - fossil fuels. Your whole catchphrase from one over here is \u201CDrill, baby, drill\u201D. So I hope\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d8609c612411686d517d0f9b09b28\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c3bcae1c00f2d3b2c827770d7a137eb8\u0022\u003EDavid MacLeod\u003C/span\u003E: Coal!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002235eb32f48e3b8c8719e81cff3c49f603\u0022\u003EDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER\u003C/span\u003E: And coal\u2014and coal. So I hope between the fossil fuels, the LNGs, and everything else that you\u2019re doing, there\u2019s some money that\u2019s going to be put aside so that we can actually help this happen successfully and help it happen in a way that it is a grand day for Aotearoa and it\u2019s not just tick or box\u2014tick\u2014tick boxing. Late in the night. That we\u2019re not just ticking a box\u2014I see it so much that I forget how to say it\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b90e529d2c55b38147b086ae8bd78d9f\u0022\u003EHon Matt Doocey\u003C/span\u003E: Box-ticking.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221c702c95e75a842234109c977fb4fd1c\u0022\u003EDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014that we\u2019re actually\u2014thank you, box-ticking, appreciate it. Appreciate it, Matt.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWhat I\u2019m hoping: that we continue on with this legislation and invest in what transition will look like. Transition so we can get people ready to learn and they can train and we can transition jobs away from fossil fuels, we can transition infrastructure away from fossil fuels, and do renewable energy in Aotearoa well\u2014show the rest of the world how to do it well. And stop talking about Taranaki without Taranaki. That\u2019s a really big deal for me because, year after year, I\u2019ve had to sit and watch Governments angst and say and make all these promises, and actually also watch firms leave here; private investors leave here. Let\u2019s think about the holistic view of how we can do this and use this regulatory regime\u2014what it\u2019s been called\u2014well, and do something that makes our mokopuna proud and the whole nation proud but also make sure looks after all New Zealand households. Kia ora r\u0101.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u00223d85f5ea2b80edb905e1ebfafa2c7f38\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223d85f5ea2b80edb905e1ebfafa2c7f38\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (20:07)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. There\u2019s something of a kumbaya moment. I don\u2019t want to overstate it because obviously it\u2019s not perfect, but one thing I think is fascinating is that, on this issue, you see there is a pathway forward for us as a nation because one thing we all pretty much agree on is more renewable energy is a good thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, was it were that we sat down with that agreement and developed a national energy strategy that we could all agree on and this sort of legislation would be exactly part of it. That is where I think what industry are calling for, what the public are calling for, what everyone is calling for: for us to take that beauty as representatives of the nation, as parliamentarians, to find the common ground and find the way forward on this critical issue of how we provide our energy needs now and for the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI just want to comment that the concept of being agnostic regarding energy\u2014as the Minister for Energy speaks of\u2014unfortunately has the effect of denying climate change. Because to be agnostic about the impacts of different kinds of energy systems is to deny that some are markedly more damaging than others. It is also to be agnostic about the finitude of fossil fuels. Certain sources of energy don\u2019t have an endless life; they have a finite life. Wind is one of those eternal energy sources. The wind will always blow. It may be intermittent, but you know it\u2019s going to blow and keep blowing. Likewise, the sun will always shine\u2014well, at least far longer than we are likely to be around for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe opportunities in those infinite fuel sources are huge and we have means\u2014extraordinary means\u2014to capture the energy of the wind, to capture the energy of the sun. There is the way forward to us decarbonising. I asked a question very early on in the committee of the whole House of the Minister of whether it was, in his view, a national priority that we rapidly decarbonise. He replied that electrification was a priority. Well, that electrification must be based on renewable expansion, not on burning gas to generate electricity or burning coal to generate electricity. That is where we also have a way forward to energy sovereignty and security, because, if we are generating energy by which our society and our economy is powered, we are not subject to the vicissitudes of overseas conflicts, of overseas fuel price spikes. If we\u2019re generating our own energy and electricity from our own renewable resources, we are all that more secure in terms of both the price and the supply and the sovereignty of the energy system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill takes us a step in the right direction. I hope it does send a message to industry. It\u2019s a terrible problem that we\u2019ve lost already three companies. This is something that has cross-party support; the offshore wind industry and the offshore energy industry has a future in this country. It is predicated on, and I appreciate, the wording around the Treaty obligations in the legislation as they stand. I think the wording that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer proposed is significantly stronger, and that\u2019s the sort of amendment we would make, the upholding of Treaty obligations. Any activity in this space must be done with not only the consent but also the active participation of local iwi and hap\u016B in their rohe and in their waters.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe \u201Ceverything soup\u201D strategy around energy is not a strategy. We have to pick the trajectory we want to go on. Tonight, in this Parliament, we are showing that we are capable of doing that. The more we can sit down, as it is reported it was done so well on the committee that worked on this bill, the more we can sit down and find the common ground on the energy systems that are going to power our future, the more we can give certainty to the public, to industry, and indeed to the children who are going to inherit a climate-changed world if we in this generation don\u2019t do something about decarbonising. Thank you, Madam Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022 data-id=\u002284f0a366cdeb30fb00e76c2bf303bc0b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002284f0a366cdeb30fb00e76c2bf303bc0b\u0022\u003EDr CARLOS CHEUNG (National\u2014Mt Roskill) (20:12)\u003C/span\u003E: This Government is fixing the basics and building the future. This bill unlocks one of New Zealand\u2019s greatest untapped renewable energy resources: offshore wind. It creates the framework needed to attract investment, grow clean electricity generation, and deliver on our commitment to double renewable energy by 2050. This Government is backing practical solutions for affordable and reliable power. We can\u2019t change which way the wind blows, but we can make sure we power New Zealand\u2019s future. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022d2887423da20157256e1645bddb3be22\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d2887423da20157256e1645bddb3be22\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (20:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on the third reading of the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to start by agreeing with a colleague and then disagreeing with a different colleague. We\u2019ve just heard from Steve Abel, from the Greens, about the importance of decarbonising. That is so important. I want to say that I completely agree with him that we need to do that, and using offshore renewable energy can be one of the ways to do that, but we shouldn\u2019t be doing, as he said, everything just all at once. We need to make our choices, and those choices should be no to fossil fuels\u2014no to foreign fossil fuels. We need to decarbonise, and this is a way to do it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnother colleague in the House was speaking before, Andy Foster, and he said, \u201CThat Labour Government, they did nothing for gas.\u201D I\u2019m going to agree with Andy Foster on that. On that point, I agree with him, because, of course, we had a Climate Emergency Response Fund, and a GIDI Fund, and were working very hard\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290f442a79aea4ce0aeae083763135935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bd3c7c97cb203cf30eb78643dae5da23\u0022\u003ECarl Bates\u003C/span\u003E: Tell that to the workers on Heads Road in Whanganui\u2014disgusting, what you guys did.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002268b9c421fb48ddce6fc0fa707fbd2e42\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014to decarbonise and stop that reliance on gas, which is a foreign fossil fuel.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290f442a79aea4ce0aeae083763135935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220cc6ba329b95a83c0f4333eb1646557f\u0022\u003ECarl Bates\u003C/span\u003E: That was disgusting\u2014taking jobs away from people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aece76efa78f29209d8f703730338b5d\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Now, I\u2019ve been told that this is disgusting. Wowzers. This is from a National Party that campaigned on meeting the Paris Agreement and targets, and now it\u2019s terrible that we weren\u2019t supporting gas! Maybe that is because this Government is spending so much time and energy subsidising big fossil fuel companies with a liquefied natural gas terminal that\u2019s just going to embed that use of foreign fossil fuels and do the opposite of what this bill is trying to do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat is this bill doing? This bill is about generating our own energy in our own country\u2014or somewhere near our country; it depends on what you call our country\u2014out there in the offshore environment, and that is going to be able to be used to electrify New Zealand and to decarbonise New Zealand. Those two things go together and are really important. What the bill does\u2014well, at clause 13 there can be an application round for feasibility rounds, and these feasibility rounds are at the discretion of the Minister. These bills rely a lot on regulations\u2014secondary legislation. We heard from the Minister for Energy, in his speech, that he\u2019s going to get on with it\u2014that this is important. After this bill was reported back in June last year, in July this year, in real time, we\u2019re coming back to it in urgency, so there\u2019s some irony there, but better late than never.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe know, then, that the Ministers can set up their regulations, and they can also choose, in their own time frames, with quite a lot of discretion, what areas they want to open up for feasibility permits. They do that on a geographical basis. I would implore the Government to please use marine spatial planning when making these decisions and think about what is best for those marine environments. That would be a very useful thing to do. Also, obviously, it will be good if the Government gets on and does this work and opens up for these feasibility permits. Once the Ministers have done that piece of work, and it\u2019s a significant piece of work, applicants, companies\u2014they have to be entities, and it\u2019s specified in the bill what sort of entity they should be\u2014can then apply for a feasibility permit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is a two-stage process, and the first stage is the feasibility permit. This permit doesn\u2019t have as many conditions attached to it as the next one, and we didn\u2019t have really clear answers from the Minister about how invasive a feasibility permit might be\u2014what sort of work would be needed to do the feasibility\u2014but we do know that there are provisions in the legislation for a feasibility permit to also have other permissions under other pieces of legislations to deal with environmental factors. Once you have that feasibility permit, you can also enter the fast track.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThese feasibility permits last for seven years. I\u2019ve just mentioned the fast track there, and I think it is important, and I\u2019ll come back to that in a minute. After you have your feasibility permit, which can last for seven years, you can apply for a commercial permit. You need to go in that step order, and these commercial permits can last for 40 years, but there\u2019s been some issues in some of the world with seabed banking. I\u2019m more familiar with the Resource Management Act and the land banking that we hear about in urban areas. Apparently, this can happen in offshore as well, so there is a mechanism for the Minister to revoke that commercial permit if not enough work has gone into building the infrastructure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOf course it is also important to note that this offshore renewable energy is not just wind; it can be other factors that are listed in the bill. I, of course, and probably everybody else who first thinks about this, will be thinking about wind, because that is what we can see when we\u2019re flying to other parts of the world or we\u2019ve watched some Instagram or some YouTube\u2014they pop up, and so we\u2019re quite used to that, but it is not just wind. It\u2019s also important to know that the Minister can declare a safety zone, and we had quite a lot of discussion about the safety zone in the committee stage. That was useful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, we\u2019ve also known\u2014I\u2019m talking about wind specifically here\u2014that these large offshore wind turbines are incompatible with seabed mining. We\u2019ve heard that from a whole lot of the industry. When this Government introduced the fast track and allowed an application that had been turned down by the Supreme Court to have another go through the fast track, we saw those wind generation companies leave New Zealand. They were like, \u201CNah. If you\u2019re going to have seabed mining here, we can\u2019t be doing this big wind generation at the same time.\u201D It is a great shame that this Government, which is here telling us they are all about electrification and doing the basics, something like that, made a system that did exactly\u2014through their fast track, they have done exactly the opposite of the purpose of this bill, which is to give greater certainty for developers to invest in offshore renewable energy developments. By one action, led by Shane Jones, they did one thing that had this consequential reaction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat issue was raised in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, and the select committee report notes that there were some suggestions that you could just do some amendments, so that if there was a feasibility permit or a commercial permit\u2014that I\u2019ve already talked about\u2014in an area, then you just block applications under the Crown Minerals Act. That was a suggestion in the exclusive economic zone Act. The Government members didn\u2019t go with that. However, we did see Ministers go back and work on this with an amendment that we have supported today, and that is that Ministers\u2014two Ministers: the Minister in charge of that Crown Minerals Act, and also the Minister in charge of this, what will soon be an Act\u2014can, if they want to, designate an area and that area imposes restrictions on seabed mining. That is a good thing. It could have gone further, but it is a good thing to deal with that compatibility issue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe are supporting this bill. As my friend Megan Woods said, it is much better to be talking about the Straits of Cook or of Foveaux rather than Hormuz. Thank you, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b7cff05e64f346e68983b2fdbfba3ad8\u0022 data-id=\u00221cff96ee517e60dca6073ec73593ff4e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b7cff05e64f346e68983b2fdbfba3ad8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221cff96ee517e60dca6073ec73593ff4e\u0022\u003EDAN BIDOIS (National\u2014Northcote) (20:22)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it\u2019s a historic day in this Parliament, and I can see we\u2019re getting whipped up across the House in excitement about the passage of this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThis bill is all about energy security. It\u2019s all about jobs and incomes in places like the great Taranaki, and it\u2019s all about meeting our decarbonisation goals as a country. It\u2019s been a real privilege to be a part of this process, to get this legislation to the House, to this stage. It\u2019s all part of our plan to fix the basics and build the future. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022 data-id=\u00221863580b90393a6f8bf8929e35a7117f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221863580b90393a6f8bf8929e35a7117f\u0022\u003EDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (20:23)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It\u2019s my pleasure to take an unexpected call on the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill, which we do support. It is absolutely a star. I\u2019d like to begin with a summary of the contributions that we have had so far, because they\u2019ve covered some great points that do warrant some recapping. I didn\u2019t sit on the select committee to hear the submissions, but I\u2019d like to thank the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, and I think just the volume and the quality of the contributions that are coming out today has really highlighted the rigour that the select committee applied when considering this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Minister, the Hon Simeon Brown, highlighted that growing the economy, and the energy production that underpins the way we can grow the economy, is going to unlock growth for us as a nation. That\u2019s very important. It was echoed the Hon Megan Woods, and what stood out for me in her contribution was that New Zealand is the Saudi Arabia for wind. It\u2019s overdue\u2014and concerning, actually\u2014that it took so long to get this bill to this point. That uncertainty can quite often scare investors. Having a unified approach that we can all agree on across the House can provide that certainty, so we don\u2019t get a situation like we did with the ferries and things like that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EScott Willis highlighted his experience in the Wind Energy Association\u2014and then the House entered a period of intense debate, so I couldn\u2019t actually hear everything that was being traversed there. At the end of it, he did highlight that it was a long time coming, and he mentioned something about a Tui billboard ad. I suppose we just want to have the second part of that, making sure it\u2019s right. Never mind the year, just make sure what we\u2019re doing here is right: it\u2019s right for the nation and right for the country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELaura McClure actually brought it back home, back down to everyday communities. This is all about being able to keep the lights on, keep people warm, and then also making sure that we can unlock our potential. Ultimately, that makes the power cost a lot lower for the consumer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAndy Foster highlighted, again, the time it has taken to get to this point, and then offshore wind having a higher level of generation, which is right, because you get a good return for every dollar spent, comparable to other forms of power generation\u2014also, highlighting the idea of a spatial plan, offshore spatial plan or marine spatial plan, for offshore development, which is very interesting. It would have been good to be in the select committee when that was being discussed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EDebbie Ngarewa-Packer actually highlighted, locally, bringing in the iwi and local communities to form their relationship with the Government, so we can help get what our communities need and keep the community the main focus of any decision we make.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen, Steve Abel actually mentioned that this is a \u201CKumbaya\u201D moment\u2014the pathway forward and the need for a national energy strategy, which, ultimately, would be what the people of New Zealand would expect. Ultimately, a coherent strategy will pave the way for energy prices to come down, which is what we all want as a nation. And yet we get to pick the trajectory that we do go on, and we can do that from this House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ECarlos Cheung provided a very short call, did the National Party slogans, and that\u2019s great. He didn\u2019t actually quote his\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222ccee7cd911e8bcc5bc82e746c370d39\u0022\u003EHon Matt Doocey\u003C/span\u003E: At least he said his own words.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229a738b20e21e1c4419aefcb545678102\u0022\u003EDAN ROSEWARNE\u003C/span\u003E: Hey, this is a debate, and I\u2019m just recapping everything that people are saying. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, Mr Doocey.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ef7863135d05785470be92871b98f8d8\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: Why don\u2019t you take a contribution over there?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227e35c16f7eebd070dc87b531049ac45c\u0022\u003EDAN ROSEWARNE\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, take a call. Take a call. Finally, Rachel Brooking just really highlighted the importance for our country to decarbonise and to say no to fossil fuels. We did have a climate response fund which was actually sending us off on a good course. Also, she was just highlighting that this bill is about generating our own energy, not relying on overseas imports and making us susceptible to a lot of those other pressures globally. Thank you, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bc8b4aae3d79c65a2e1c5a674553c16a\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: I think we might issue you with some scorecards for your next speech, Mr Rosewarne.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b27d8609c612411686d517d0f9b09b28\u0022 data-id=\u0022202b1faf5e0823382cdc0151ac6ec137\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d8609c612411686d517d0f9b09b28\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022202b1faf5e0823382cdc0151ac6ec137\u0022\u003EDAVID MacLEOD (National\u2014New Plymouth) (20:28)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill is about controlling who, what, where, and how people should use our offshore environment for renewable energy. It\u2019s long overdue to be able to get going in this space; it\u2019s an untapped potential. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022 data-id=\u002270d0c32ee1927cd7238be099485fd33b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002270d0c32ee1927cd7238be099485fd33b\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (20:29)\u003C/span\u003E: This bill has had a very, very long process to get to this point. The work under it, for this type of work, for setting up a regime to ensure that we could properly control offshore renewable energy generation, started off way, way back in 2022, under the previous Government. Work was under way, working out what needed to be done. The policy process was under way, and eventually we had an election. The incoming Government kind of sidelined the work for a while, but eventually we did get the bill into the House. This bill came into the House, I think, in 2024\u2014a long time ago. Then it popped out of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee in June last year, and it has taken until now\u2014it has taken until now\u2014to have the committee stage and the third reading. And, rather ironically, having spent a year getting to this stage, we are now passing it through its final stages under urgency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ESo it\u2019s been a very long, long process. And for all the claims over on that side of the House that they are getting under way with the work that needs doing, it\u2019s taken them a perilously long time to do it. It is, nevertheless\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290f442a79aea4ce0aeae083763135935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002232eca5b105e2c14691d0287a67005323\u0022\u003ECarl Bates\u003C/span\u003E: Did you get it done? No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a9a1be85880e5875858b380abfbfd30d\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL\u003C/span\u003E: You know, a man who didn\u2019t declare his 25 rental properties should just be quiet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is a good bill. This is legislation that is needed, so we do support this legislation. There might have been the odd thing along the way that we might have done slightly differently around various clauses and tiny bits of policy. But, overall, this is a good bill and one where we do very much support it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere are a number of reasons for supporting it. First of all, I want to be very clear that we support the Minister\u2019s amendment, which came through just recently to ensure that there are exclusive zones that where offshore renewable energy is being built, then no other activities may take place. There\u2019s good reason for that. Now, despite the claims from over here, Labour did start up a process around seabed mining because we knew that seabed mining was problematic. It was problematic precisely because it would interfere\u2014well, all sorts of reasons, but one of the reasons is that it does interfere with other activities in the same area. In order to have good, effective, efficient investment in offshore renewable energy, the people engaging in those activities need not to have to deal with other activities in the same space. So that exclusivity, the way it\u2019s been set up, that\u2019s a really good change, and we have supported it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut let\u2019s remember that the threat of seabed mining being raced through\u2014despite having been turned down by Resource Management Act processes, despite having been turned down in our highest court, it was then being raced through under the fast-track legislation. Let\u2019s remember that that fast-track legislation, that threat of seabed mining via the fast-track legislation, actually scared off renewable energy projects\u2014it scared them off. It meant that people like BlueFloat and Sumitomo took their money elsewhere, as they ought to if they could not carry out the projects they wanted to carry out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo it\u2019s a real shame that that coalition Government enabled that particular piece of fast-track permitting, which eventually was disallowed, to go into the fast-track legislation and to put a real barrier in the way of offshore renewable energy. However, that\u2019s been sorted now\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bce52ac7b0188484337d140ac7442afe\u0022\u003EDebbie Ngarewa-Packer\u003C/span\u003E: Labour let it in.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002262417aff21acfd316809817b71289659\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL\u003C/span\u003E: I do want to remind Debbie Ngarewa-Packer that we did have a process under way. It might not have been your process, but it was a process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI also want to speak about why it is very important, in some ways, that we make sure that that offshore seabed mining didn\u2019t happen off Taranaki. It\u2019s because the area of the South Taranaki Bight is fabulous for wind energy. It\u2019s not just that it\u2019s fabulous for wind energy there, but it turns out that in Taranaki, there is a really highly skilled workforce, an engineering workforce, that was available\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d8609c612411686d517d0f9b09b28\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022341cf91f1ff295a218b281861f51d29a\u0022\u003EDavid MacLeod\u003C/span\u003E: 1,700 are gone.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226fd607a1a612921632d2147bcd532472\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, be quiet over there, \u201CTemu Shane\u201D. Those jobs\u2014people who are skilled, who could move straight into the renewable energy sector.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s really interesting, even just visiting Taranaki and visiting something like the Te Rewa Rewa Bridge, the East End playground\u2014you can see that the engineers have been at work. There are jobs available for those engineers, for those workers, for the electricians, for the tradies, for all the businesses that would be supported by all the engineers and tradies and sparkies. That work is available through renewable energy projects.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, as it turns out, oil and gas is a sunset industry. The jobs in that sector were disappearing already. Here is a beautiful project, offshore wind energy, that is perfect for jobs in the new economy, in a decarbonised economy. In fact, there are jobs going begging at the moment, where we can get people into work through renewable energy processes, into sustainable work, that helps us to achieve our 2050 net zero goal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo there\u2019s all sorts of reasons for supporting this legislation, and it helps us to achieve net zero by 2050. It opens up jobs in the renewable energy sector, in areas that need it. It provides the energy we need. The former Minister of Energy, I think, was fond of saying that there have been times recently when New Zealand was running on 98 percent renewable energy. It was not quite correct: our electricity system was running on 98\u00A0percent renewable energy. Of course, that\u2019s quite a bit of the energy we consume in this country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut we also consume a lot of fossil fuel energy, and in order for us to have a sustainable energy system, in order for us to have energy security, one of the ways to do that is to do it through renewable energy that is produced here in New Zealand. So instead of being dependent on fossil fuels, we need to do something like electrifying our transport fleet to make sure that we cut out the use of fossil fuels as much as possible. But in order to do that, we need electricity, and we need much more of it. So this type of offshore renewable energy is a fantastic project in that regard, too: it helps us with our energy security in the longer term. The more we can produce our energy here in New Zealand, and the more we can produce it from renewable sources, the better we are doing in terms of energy security, in terms of meeting our Paris goals in 2050. Those are excellent reasons for supporting this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo, having said all that, we do think this is a really good piece of legislation. And if I\u2019m thinking about it, to me it represents the triumph of renewables over fossil fuels, the triumph of energy generated onshore rather than imported from elsewhere, the triumph of ensuring that we have our own energy security so that we are not vulnerable to whatever else is going on in the world. These are excellent reasons to support this bill, and that is, in part, why we have supported it all the way along.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA lot of work was done in the select committee, and a lot of work clearly done since the select committee stage, in order to ensure that the projects could go ahead reasonably well without being interfered with by other activities. A lot of work has been done all around this House, by both major parties and by other parties in this House, to ensure that this legislation has gotten into place and that we can go ahead and we can find ways to use the incredible wind resources that we have in this country\u2014the incredible tide resources, the incredible offshore energy sources. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002290f442a79aea4ce0aeae083763135935\u0022 data-id=\u002261cc724d2e1dcb7d467a470ddfc50faf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290f442a79aea4ce0aeae083763135935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002261cc724d2e1dcb7d467a470ddfc50faf\u0022\u003ECARL BATES (National\u2014Whanganui) (20:39)\u003C/span\u003E: Establishing a legislative framework for offshore renewable energy is critical to the development of offshore wind farms off the South Taranaki coast. The bill is great news for the wonderful Whanganui electorate, which includes a large part of the Taranaki; for jobs; and for growth in our region. I won\u2019t be long-winded about it. Let\u2019s get this done. It\u2019s part of fixing the basics and building the future. I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022686c7efc98c1c9bd6d3081bc56c7b936\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c5d36e621ab2e3d43333149b0a58665f\u0022\u003EHealthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00225200118956d5236be34d77a3167c3437\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a7a7a722dc9b1f18b0ac56543c6e95af\u0022\u003EPart 1 Amendments to principal Act, and Schedule 1\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002263322a3f70a43477f28fc248ee94bce4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the House is in committee on the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill. Members, we start with Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 33\u2014\u201CAmendments to principal Act\u201D\u2014and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u0022d9f85d470a05e5137d4fbeff8839e23b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d9f85d470a05e5137d4fbeff8839e23b\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (20:41)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to members for the opportunity to speak briefly at the beginning of the committee of the whole House stage of the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill has been through a select committee process as part of this Government\u2019s plan to ensure that all New Zealanders receive the timely, quality access to healthcare that they need. It makes changes to the legislation, which have been well canvassed through the select committee. I look forward to engaging with members now as we go through the committee stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere is one Amendment Paper that I have tabled, relating to clause 29, new section\u00A065A, which is in relation to collective bargaining. This seeks to provide that the Minister of Health may give directions to Health New Zealand requiring it to delegate all of its collective bargaining functions to the Public Service Commissioner. This Amendment Paper replaces that power with the power for the Minister to make directions about how the Public Service Commissioner is to have oversight of or to be involved in collective bargaining conducted by Health New Zealand. It also adds a requirement for the Minister to consult the Minister for the Public Service before making a direction under new section 65A.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe intention of that Amendment Paper is simply to clarify the role the Public Service Commissioner could play and the way in which the Minister may make directions in relation to collective bargaining by Health New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00220ecd92c0e20e25afef9f29e4cc05d65c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220ecd92c0e20e25afef9f29e4cc05d65c\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:42)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019m sure we have plenty of questions for the Minister on this particular bill, also noting that I was not part of the Health Committee. While there was a select committee, this is the first chance we have to have this engagement with the Minister on this particular bill, so I\u2019d be really grateful to hear from the Minister on some of these aspects.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI know that other members may have questions around clause 4, but I\u2019m actually going to start with clause 5. One of the things that jumped out at me for section 3 amended, particularly in clause 5(2), is this new addition to the purpose of this Act. Now, I have no issues with this new addition, but one thing that did occur to me when I was looking at this new section 3(d), \u201Censure that patients get timely access to quality services\u201D, was that it doesn\u2019t specify that all patients should get timely access to quality services. The ambiguity here is a little bit concerning to me, so I just want to have the Minister on record say that this new additional purpose that has been added to this refers to all patients getting timely access to quality services; not some, either in certain regions or in certain parts or in certain demographics.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do have an amendment for this particular part, just to insert the simple word \u201Cor\u201D. I want to check if the Minister would be interested in accepting or if, potentially, what I\u2019m referring to is already currently within the ministerial intent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022 data-id=\u0022a49ee910353e076b75a66433ecc83480\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a49ee910353e076b75a66433ecc83480\u0022\u003EDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader\u2014Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori) (20:44)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019d like to go back to clause 4, and also, we have something to add to clause 5. And I have proposed an amendment. I\u2019m not sure if the Minister is aware of the whakapapa of \u201CPae Ora\u201D. I\u2019d like to propose the restoration of the mana of the reo of \u201CPae Ora\u201D and replace \u201CHealthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill\u201D with \u201CPae Ora (Healthy Futures) Amendment Bill\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThis ensures that we remind everyone that we are a nation that has tangata whenua and there is whakapapa and kaupapa to the depth of these names and what they stand for. I\u2019m sure that the Minister would agree that we want a health system and legislation that is inclusive. The last thing we need to be doing right now is making it seem as though we\u2019re homogenising our legislation, homogenising our health system, our health kaupapa.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022 data-id=\u00229bab063427c51f1758703d4270aefed1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229bab063427c51f1758703d4270aefed1\u0022\u003EHon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (20:45)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m just supporting Debbie Ngarewa-Packer there. I have an amendment to that k\u014Drero also, in terms of the deletion of clause 4. I want to know from the Minister: who did he talk to about changing the name, and why is the name and the reo so offensive to this coalition Government? What is the problem there?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EYesterday, I brought this up during question time, and I was clear to Minister Potaka: \u201CWhy are you using M\u0101ori names now in terms of organisations?\u201D I called that out, and the Speaker was a bit upset. I\u2019ve said that because this coalition Government\u2019s made it very clear that they\u2019re not happy with M\u0101ori names being at the front of organisations. So I\u2019m going to give this, and then I was reprimanded by the Speaker, but he\u2019s not\u2014with respect\u2014understanding where I\u2019m coming from: that there\u2019s been a drive to get rid of te reo M\u0101ori names, and this is a shining example of it. We want to preserve the mana of te reo M\u0101ori and the original intention of the Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESubordinating \u201CPae Ora\u201D beneath an English title was described by submitters as a symbolic downgrade of M\u0101ori concepts within the health system. Given that\u2019s the case, what drives the Minister and this coalition Government to want to change such a beautiful name as \u201CPae Ora\u201D and instil and inject English first? I\u2019m not understanding where this Minister\u2019s coming from and where this coalition Government is coming from, particularly given when the Minister for M\u0101ori Development in every k\u014Drero he said yesterday was calling organisations by their M\u0101ori name first and foremost. Can I ask the Minister why he agrees with this? Who did he consult, apart from Winston Peters? Was there anyone else?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002211e9e1f818754d97b60bba4b18e5dc03\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002266765b666cb9c4c12634e096755760cf\u0022\u003EHon Mark Patterson\u003C/span\u003E: Who else does he need to consult? That\u2019s enough!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ebe9f0045577e452dc8123da9e6b6871\u0022\u003EHon WILLIE JACKSON\u003C/span\u003E: Was it Mark Patterson? Who was the brilliant consultant on this? Why is this coalition Government so offended by te reo M\u0101ori? A very easy question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022 data-id=\u002252a333e25d057daeaaa0334bf5e1a151\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002252a333e25d057daeaaa0334bf5e1a151\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (20:48)\u003C/span\u003E: I also have questions for the Minister about two elements of clause 4\u2014the change to the title of the Act. The first is to ask what Government resources have been spent on efforts to change the title of the Act and why this is a priority, relative to other uses of legislative time and Public Service resources?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn addition, this is the second time that this Government has amended the Act. In the same urgency motion, we will amend it again for a third time. Why is it that the Government is coming back to amend the title now, when they also amended the title previously? Why is this a priority to the Government?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do share my colleagues\u2019 concerns that there is a petty belittling of te reo M\u0101ori going on here\u2014a deliberate shifting it two words along in the bill just to remind M\u0101ori that they\u2019re second in line under this Government. It seems to me to be small-minded and not an appropriate use of the House\u2019s time. Couldn\u2019t he have just found something else to do?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second question I have for the Minister is related to the concepts my colleagues have raised. They are much more capable of explaining te reo M\u0101ori than me, but I want to ask the Minister: what is the difference in meaning of \u201Chealthy futures\u201D versus \u201Cpae ora\u201D, and why has he named this bill \u201CHealthy Futures\u201D? To me, it seems like quite a clumsy translation. If I was starting from English, I wouldn\u2019t name a bill \u201CHealthy Futures\u201D. I ask the Minister to explain why this centrepiece of health legislation, the legislation that governs the whole running of our health system\u2014why he would give it such an awkward name in English? Let\u2019s not forget: the direction of this Government is short term; it\u2019s not long-term futures. In fact, all the things about the future are being taken out of the Act, and things that could help us have a healthy future, like tobacco control, this Government has dismantled. Why has the Government decided to call this \u201CHealthy Futures\u201D when it\u2019s really, mostly focused on short-term management of the media cycle and not on health at all?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00224a829549a7fa8aac68f46dccfd51da2a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224a829549a7fa8aac68f46dccfd51da2a\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:51)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to, I guess, signal to you, Mr Chair\u2014particularly in light of the recent conversation and guidance by the Speaker\u2014that we are being encouraged to have a healthy debate. I\u2019m just noting that the Minister of Health, even though quite a few members have now gotten up to ask questions of the Minister, both in terms of the intent with clause 4, the history and the whakapapa of \u201CPae Ora\u201D\u2014I think it\u2019s important for the Minister to actually engage in good faith with those kinds of questions. I think, for New Zealanders, they are interested in why we\u2019re having a switch in names. It is no different from what we\u2019re seeing regarding our passports, and I\u2019m still waiting on the Minister to respond to my question on clause\u00A05.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhile the Minister is processing all of those questions, I will move on to clause 6 for the time being, noting again that other people have a lot more to contribute regarding the history and to contextualise this in the broader context of our health sector. I\u2019m looking specifically from the angle of statutory interpretation. When we\u2019re looking at clause\u00A06, section\u00A04 amended, in terms of interpretations\u2014and this has to do with clause\u00A06(2), which is around \u201Cinfrastructure\u201D and this new aspect that we will discuss more, later. I\u2019m interested here in terms of the definition for \u201Cinfrastructure\u201D that has been, presumably, inserted by the select committee. I want to check with the Minister if buildings, facilities, and land that are or may be controlled by Health New Zealand\u2014whether this idea of buildings and facilities would also include fixtures. It is an important aspect when we\u2019re looking at fixtures, within the broader context of infrastructure and facilities, because it does have a financial impact on day-to-day operations and operating expenses, as well as capital expenditure, for Health New Zealand in this case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAgain, both of my questions are more for clarification. If the Minister could indicate if that is part of the ministerial intent, that would be greatly appreciated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u00222c8176140409cb3f64777266cb78bab4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222c8176140409cb3f64777266cb78bab4\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (20:54)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank members for their questions. In relation to clause 5, section 3 amended, adding \u201Call\u201D before \u201Cpatients\u201D in the purpose clause will not make any legal difference\u2014singular equals plural in the Legislation Act, is what I\u2019ve been advised.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to the name of the legislation, our coalition agreement with New Zealand First is in relation to English first in the Public Service.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to clause 6, the Government\u2019s intention is to ensure that infrastructure is one of the key areas that we expect the Health New Zealand board to be focused on, and that is a broad definition of \u201Cinfrastructure\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022 data-id=\u00226caa33a5e67f3f5716e100472d006acb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226caa33a5e67f3f5716e100472d006acb\u0022\u003EDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader\u2014Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori) (20:54)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you for the explanation, Minister. I guess I can only express the disappointment that our reo continuously gets traded off in coalition agreements, and hopefully we can become a nation that stops seeing that happen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the things I\u2019d like to do is bring up clause\u00A05. Just as matter of interest, we celebrated M\u0101ui P\u014Dmare\u2019s anniversary last weekend, and in it, I was reminded that as a M\u0101ori politician he was the kingmaker to help one of them\u2014to help the Reform Party, who is now the National Party\u2014get into Government. He was really hot about trying to address disparity and poverty and inequity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn clause 5, the purpose of this bill, I have put up a proposed amendment to amend section 3 to include \u201C(d) to achieve equitable health outcomes for M\u0101ori and all population groups\u201D, and \u201C(e) to uphold and give full effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi in all aspects of health services: design, delivery, and governance\u201D. The rationale is that we want to ensure that equity and Te Tiriti are core components of this bill and not optional considerations that we\u2019ve often seen traded off recently, in the last three years, through coalition agreements. They\u2019re critical aspects of trying to target issues, so that when a Government is so actuary-focused on future liabilities, we\u2019re actually addressing the inequities as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA Government will never fully be able to achieve funding and investing in future liabilities if it doesn\u2019t address inequities now, and that\u2019s a constant battle that I think National-led Governments have chosen to not understand. Again, if we can address amendments that make sure an equity focus is something and Te Tiriti is not optional, we\u2019re getting somewhere as a nation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u00223b1e8c3ee095319599b4f27a33e3511c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223b1e8c3ee095319599b4f27a33e3511c\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (20:57)\u003C/span\u003E: In relation to the member\u2019s question, section 3 of the Act includes \u201Cto achieve equity in health outcomes amongst New Zealand\u2019s population groups, including by striving to eliminate health disparities, in particular for M\u0101ori\u201D. We believe the intent of that is already achieving.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a1ea5bf702e206621975a44e77da3eb0\u0022\u003EDebbie Ngarewa-Packer\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. I\u2019m struggling to hear the Minister replying, so he might need to bring that mic forward.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002263ce7aa77214578e84e08c285b0119fc\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister might like to repeat, since you were answering the\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022935c60f4788b829d81d65b059851a101\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: I might just move the microphone down. In terms of the member\u2019s point\u2014I think it\u2019s her second tabled amendment\u2014the purpose section of the Act already addresses that point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022 data-id=\u0022f0e04fbd5a2387c970c6e09c9bb4fa13\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f0e04fbd5a2387c970c6e09c9bb4fa13\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert) (20:58)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. The first comment I wanted to make\u2014or question\u2014is actually about clause 5, and it\u2019s the issue of leaving out the word \u201Chealth\u201D in services. What\u2019s the intention of removing the word \u201Chealth\u201D in terms of what patients get? What else is there that\u2019s required? I wasn\u2019t on this select committee, but I think it\u2019s something people would want to understand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe next thing I would like to ask about is clause 6, and that\u2019s about the health principles and their removal, but also the removal of the charter. I\u2019ve had a look at both of those things. The principles are pretty much common ground for New Zealanders: to be equitable, to engage with communities. I can see, if you are changing the M\u0101ori Health Authority, that you might not say \u201Csupport M\u0101ori Health Authority\u201D; you might put something else in, but that\u2019s not what\u2019s happening here\u2014we\u2019re removing them all. \u201CProvide quality choice\u201D, \u201Cpromote wellbeing\u201D\u2014why would we remove those things, which are such common ground, from legislation when we\u2019ve got so much else to do? When there are so many things going wrong, why would we do that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen, there\u2019s the issue of the charter itself. I looked at the charter as well, and the charter seems to be based on some really good managerial principles, really\u2014things like caring for the carers is on the charter, so looking after our health workforce; valuing that workforce; and collaborative services. Now, that\u2019s something that makes a workforce productive\u2014all of those things. There\u2019s a lot of empirical data to say all those things make workforces much healthier and much more productive. Not only that, they\u2019re good for the workers in them, and they\u2019re good for the patients, I would assume. So why would we remove those things? Genuinely, why?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u00229495297eed90294be40ba76f055cbdf0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229495297eed90294be40ba76f055cbdf0\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (21:00)\u003C/span\u003E: As I\u2019ve said in my first and second reading speeches on this bill, the health sector principles are a list of ambiguous and overlapping requirements that all statutory decision makers have to be \u201Cguided by\u201D whenever they perform a function or exercise of power or duty under the Act. They include at least 21 different matters that must be considered, which can result in unnecessarily complex and slow decision-making and unclear priorities. And the New Zealand Health Charter, which I note the member\u2019s read, doesn\u2019t mention the word \u201Cpatients\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022 data-id=\u00220e5d2e8b69d17b7fafc544447b2f9228\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220e5d2e8b69d17b7fafc544447b2f9228\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (21:01)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, that doesn\u2019t address all of the questions about the repeal of the health sector principles in clause\u2014well, it starts under clause 7. Those principles are not designed to do what the Minister implied there, because the Minister has ample instruments to seek priorities in the health system: the Government position statement on health, the Budget, the letter of the expectations, not to mention day-to-day interaction with the agencies. But, absent those instruments , decisions have to be taken throughout the health system, and these principles are a guidance as to how those decisions should be taken. Those instruments don\u2019t have the ability to guide the 80,000-plus people making decisions in our health system every day. I think it\u2019s quite helpful to have these principles recorded for people who are acting under delegation from the Minister and the Crown entity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Minister stated a particular position that we disagree with, on M\u0101ori healthcare, but there are a lot of things in these sections that mention M\u0101ori, alongside others. It is worthwhile asking why the Minister has repealed these provisions for M\u0101ori, and also for all others. There are provisions around equity and access and levels of service provided in order to achieve equitable outcomes. Now, the Minister makes a lot of fuss about health outcomes, and I\u2019m sure we\u2019ll hear more about that later in the debate, but it\u2019s interesting that he chooses not to prioritise equitable outcomes. This is all being stripped out of the bill. The principles required the Minister of the agency to engage with M\u0101ori and all other population groups.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe know that this is valuable, because, increasingly, people see their interaction through the health system through the prism of their identity, among other things. You\u2019ll find, if you talk to groups\u2014whether that\u2019s M\u0101ori or rural people or the Rainbow community or migrants\u2014they all have different experiences, but they have some commonality as well. Engaging with those groups would help health services meet the needs of those people. It\u2019s not a small matter if you feel slighted in your interactions, if your trust in Government services is degraded because of how you\u2019re treated, your access to service is compromised. That\u2019s not OK.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe health system principles include the requirement for offering choice\u2014\u201Cchoice in services\u201D. Well, that\u2019s great, isn\u2019t it? I would have thought that\u2019s the sort of thing the party of the right who believes in free markets might have liked to uphold. I certainly, as a feminist, want to see women have choice in the healthcare they receive. Why is that being repealed from the Act? Along with it\u2014and we know this is a bugbear of the Minister\u2014out goes provisions around cultural safety. Well, I couldn\u2019t think of anything that is more close to how you practise medicine and other clinical professions effectively. They\u2019re making sure that you\u2019re meeting their needs where they are, and that\u2019s what cultural safety is all about, yet that\u2019s coming out of the Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe principle of having a health workforce that can do the things we need them to do\u2014that\u2019s gone. Gosh, I mean that\u2019s a pretty utilitarian thing to have in an Act, but this is another principle they want to take out. Clinical leadership: gone. I suppose that\u2019s explained by the Minister\u2019s recent attacks on clinical independence in the Medical Council. \u201CProviding services that are tailored to a person\u2019s needs\u201D\u2014well, what else is clinical care than looking after \u201Cthat\u201D person; not a generic widget in a factory line but \u201Cthat\u201D person. It seems like this is an effort to try and take the essence of healthcare away.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s more to say about this. It says, \u201Cpromoting people\u2019s health and wellbeing\u201D, and I think this is particularly important. It is not just a matter of saying that the health system only deals with the treatment of disease. One of the areas that this is most important is mental health. Mental health has been shut out of the health system. Those services have been underrecognised and underdeveloped because we don\u2019t recognise that wellbeing is part of healthcare. It\u2019s really important to keep this in as a health sector principle, but that\u2019s being taken out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u201CPromotion and preventive measures to improve health\u201D, that\u2019s gone\u2014so the health system should just feel free, under this Government, to be the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff; to keep on costing more and making sure that we\u2019re not investing early in preventing disease. I mean, that seems like a terrible way to run a health system and guarantees that it\u2019s not fiscally sustainable in the long term.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt also says that this \u201Cremoves the requirement for collaboration between agencies in order to make sure that we achieve progress on the social determinants of health\u201D. Now, that seems terrible as well, because unless we act on things like housing or the built environment, healthcare will continue to struggle; because, actually, those factors determine 80 percent of healthcare. This seems like an unusual thing to remove from the bill, something that\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cb987f9fc443b98d867fe8073815bba0\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s ideological!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b893b82cf48e25284db8fff5f6c93d36\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, it is ideological. It\u2019s also illiberal, which is in line with many of this Government\u2019s changes in the health sector. This clause also repeals the Health Charter, and that charter\u2014which the Minister will probably want to resort to a single talking point on this issue, because he can\u2019t think on his feet\u2014that chapter talks about how Health New Zealand should value its employees.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHealth workers do an awful lot for our people. They have to work long hours, bring considerable skill, at times of pressure, into situations that can be incredibly distressing and life or death for the people concerned. One of the things that the charter does is recognise their value, seek to prioritise that their workplace should be safe and one in which they are recognised for who they are, and drive out what is a really negative culture\u2014it has been part of my professional working life in healthcare\u2014which is bullying, which is a real problem in hierarchical professions. This document states that it\u2019s not OK. It is a thing that the Minister could choose to support in order to show that he wants to form a contract with healthcare workers to show that they are valued; and yet that\u2019s out too.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo me, it seems like this bill seeks to rip out some of the essence of healthcare, seeks to reduce it to a set of factory outputs\u2014not outcomes, outputs\u2014to remove the very nature of caring for an individual as they are, whether that\u2019s their individual circumstances, their complex needs, or their culture; to marginalise the workforce; and to do so in a way that justifies a relentless focus on short-termism and Budget cuts. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225bae39efa95a3d294d5058b352ba7a32\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll just say, before I call the Minister, we\u2019ve had some good contextual material now, which will set us up for the question and answers and collaborations that will no doubt follow as part of this debate, and I\u2019d like to facilitate some questions and answers where they\u2019re possible.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u0022d4ab9646024c9da14b1c6ab671754dca\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d4ab9646024c9da14b1c6ab671754dca\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (21:10)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. A couple of points in response to that speech in relation to the health sector principles and charter. Firstly, I think the member the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall kind of answered her question at the beginning of her contribution when she said there are a number of opportunities for Government to set direction, whether that\u2019s through the Government policy statement or whether that\u2019s through the letter of expectations, and there\u2019s a number of opportunities for the Government to do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAlso, section 3 of the Act is very clear in that the purpose of this Act is to protect, promote, and improve the health of all New Zealanders, and to achieve equity and health outcomes among New Zealand\u2019s population groups, including by striving to eliminate health disparities, in particular for M\u0101ori. The reality of the legislation is that it already sets a framework in place by removing what is incredibly\u2014as the departmental comment said, it imposes \u201Cvery broad and ambiguous requirements on decision-makers in the health sector. Many of these requirements conflict with others and could be read as providing justification for a very broad range of activities. Alongside this, the obligation in section 7(2) to be \u2018guided\u2019 by the principles, \u2018as far as reasonably practical\u2019 and \u2018to the extent applicable\u2019, is very general. When taken together with the very large number of requirements set out in the principles, the effect of the framework is highly uncertain, and is likely to result in a lack of focus to the health sector, and not the outcomes that many submitters say the health sector principles deliver.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022d5bd3101c2fc2a61ce82e9f77c1819d1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d5bd3101c2fc2a61ce82e9f77c1819d1\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (21:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for that, Minister, because it does segue nicely into my question, which is precisely on replacement section 3, amended by clause 5. Then the Minister kind of pulled in sections\u00A03(a) and (b); and I do want to discuss section 3(b), which is \u201Cachieve equity in health outcomes among New Zealand\u2019s population groups\u201D. I want to check with the Minister, following on from the context provided by the very knowledgeable Hon Dr\u00A0Ayesha Verrall on this topic\u2014I think it gave me a lot of thoughts around checking with the Minister what he would consider that equitable outcome could potentially look like now, through a truncation of some of the other areas into focusing on that purpose clause.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe example I want to check with the Minister is: it is my understanding that, only a few years ago, they realised the impact of skin tones and melanin on medical imaging in diagnosis, which has led to misdiagnosis and also a delayed diagnosis for anyone with pigmentation\u2014whether you\u2019re M\u0101ori, Pasifika, or any sort of Asian or African population or migrants of colour populations. How, then, would the Minister address that to provide equity for those people? Are we going to be looking at additional resources in terms of training? Are we going to be looking at additional, I guess, equipment that will be used to be able to upgrade? I\u2019ve noticed that there have been some latest developments from Johns Hopkins University on this particular area, so I want to check with the Minister: what does that equitable outcome tangibly look like? I\u2019m thinking of another example that we have heard, that my colleague Debbie Ngarewa-Packer has mentioned previously, around life expectancy for M\u0101ori. How are we going to address that to ensure it is equitable?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhich then brings me to my second question. I want to go on to clause 8, and this is an amendment by my colleague H\u016Bhana Lyndon. Te Tiriti o Waitangi sets that baseline to ensure that it\u2019s equitable for all in Aotearoa, but one of the things I see that is concerning to me now is in replacement section 6, amended by clause 8. I\u2019ll give you an example. Clause 8(3) requires the board of Health New Zealand to take into account any advice it receives from the Hauora M\u0101ori Advisory Committee, not to give effect. They could be advised by the Hauora M\u0101ori Advisory Committee but completely chuck it out and not have to do anything with it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis amendment by my colleague H\u016Bhana Lyndon is to add an additional clause, clause\u00A06. This is Amendment Paper 638, for your reference, Mr Chair. It shifts the language from minimal recognition to explicit active protection for Te Tiriti o Waitangi. By extension, all of the things we mentioned before that will have that equitable outcome. I would assume that, if the Minister is interested in equitable outcomes, the Minister would consider this particular amendment by my colleague.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u00223b54bee8c41c76222e1cf9c4dd083207\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223b54bee8c41c76222e1cf9c4dd083207\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (21:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Just speaking to the member\u2019s question regarding replacement section 6, amended by clause 8\u2014that is, a new section after section 6(d) is being inserted requiring the board of Health New Zealand to take into account any advice it receives from the Hauora M\u0101ori Advisory Committee. It relates to the policy decision to enable the Hauora M\u0101ori Advisory Committee to advise the board. Under the original legislation, the Hauora M\u0101ori Advisory Committee did not have that role. It now has that role.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022 data-id=\u0022ca187d10860e9edcd96b196a214e9357\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ca187d10860e9edcd96b196a214e9357\u0022\u003EHon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (21:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019m just following up on some of the k\u014Drero tonight. I also just wanted to make it clear that I wasn\u2019t happy with the Minister\u2019s response in terms of the name. I don\u2019t think it was clear at all in terms of any respect shown to te reo M\u0101ori, with regard to clause 4.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m coming to clause 5 here. Just following up on my colleague\u2019s k\u014Drero with regard to equitable health outcomes for M\u0101ori, I want to ask the Minister: the obligations to M\u0101ori, clearly, in terms of how M\u0101ori see it, have been removed\u2014why have those obligations been removed? That\u2019s just a clear question for the Minister. If the Minister could explain why there is no reference or effect in terms of we\u2019re giving effect to the principles of the Treaty. M\u0101ori in particular have looked at the areas of the three Ps, in terms of \u201Cprotectionism\u201D, \u201Cpartnership\u201D, and \u201Cparticipation\u201D. Where can the Minister point that out in terms of this clause?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve got an amendment up, in terms of that, which is clear about M\u0101ori having equitable health outcomes. Are we able to give effect to the principles of the Treaty? Has that ever crossed the Minister\u2019s mind? It has been something that M\u0101ori have been adamant about, in terms of the health system, that has not delivered for M\u0101ori. M\u0101ori are dying seven years earlier than their European brothers and sisters. What are we going to do about that? Are we going to put a process in place, or are we going to continue down the track that we\u2019ve been going?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe problem we have here with clause 2, and with the whole bill, is that the obligations to the partnership have been removed. I ask the Minister, what was the process in terms of removing those Treaty obligations with regard to this bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022 data-id=\u0022dc17fdfc6c91671232e83db89de6bae5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dc17fdfc6c91671232e83db89de6bae5\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (21:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019ve also got some very specific questions around clause 8(4), which in the Act requires for iwi-M\u0101ori partnership boards to have a meaningful role in the planning and design of local services, whereas the amended text is for iwi-M\u0101ori partnership boards to engage with local M\u0101ori communities. I wonder what it is that led to this change, Minister, and why the word \u201Cmeaningful\u201D was removed. Is that because the Minister is seeking for iwi-M\u0101ori partnership boards to have a superficial, unimportant, perfunctory, token, minor, or irrelevant role in planning services?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u002243e7ac40453ad9636e473919ae967d5f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002243e7ac40453ad9636e473919ae967d5f\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (21:19)\u003C/span\u003E: The bill clarifies the role and functions of iwi-M\u0101ori partnership boards (IMPBs). They are to engage with and represent local perspectives of M\u0101ori communities and health outcomes based on their needs and aspirations and communicate the results and insights from that engagement to the Hauora M\u0101ori Advisory Committee. The Hauora M\u0101ori Advisory Committee will use that advice to inform its advice to Health New Zealand and the Minister. Health New Zealand must continue to support IMPBs, including by providing information and financial support. It\u2019s really important to note that one of the things the changes to the Act in section 6 are doing is giving a direct role for the Hauora M\u0101ori Advisory Committee to provide advice to the board of Health New Zealand, something that was not in the Act previously.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022 data-id=\u00223850c393d78f2b41f469afa24a785a22\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223850c393d78f2b41f469afa24a785a22\u0022\u003EDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader\u2014Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori) (21:20)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I\u2019ve got a couple of questions on top of the amendments. One of the things, Minister, that\u2019s really hard to grasp in these legislative changes is that what we had was a manifestation of years and years of M\u0101ori health experts, and they were genuinely apolitical M\u0101ori health experts, and that\u2019s not what we\u2019re seeing around a lot of what the Minister of Health is promoting at the moment. There have been numerous Wai claims\u20142575\u2014that actually highlighted the extent of racism and discrimination that existed within the current health system. In less than eight years after that Wai claim, and the acceptance of the recommendations, we are now finding ourselves in a really defensive position of trying to understand why the Minister has done things such as\u2014and if you\u2019ll bear with me please, Chair\u2014done things like in clause 9 removed a section, which included the principles of equity\u2014section 7\u2014cultural safety, and responsiveness to M\u0101ori.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt makes no sense, and if I can carry on to the equity principles after section 13 where there has been removal of a provision that gives back the fairness and balance to the health sector principles. Clause 14\u2014I am failing to understand why the Minister would look at changing things such as clause 14, which had a provision that prepared a health plan to consult with the Hauora M\u0101ori Advisory Committee and the iwi-M\u0101ori partnership boards who report back to their communities, so that connection of having that whole holistic success model has been removed. Clause 15\u2014the removal of the kaupapa M\u0101ori investment engagement\u2014and again, making sure that the iwi-M\u0101ori partnership boards were successful on kaupapa M\u0101ori investment priorities and being able to be culturally appropriate. Clause 16\u2014in the same theme, it\u2019s a theme that runs through every change, so it\u2019s really hard not to see that what existed hasn\u2019t been whitewashed. I can see why health academics are setting up and standing at big kaupapa, like M\u0101ui P\u014Dmare, and saying, I\u2019m a M\u0101ori health expert, I\u2019m a M\u0101ori doctor; I\u2019m too scared to say the word \u201Ce\u201D and the word \u201Cm\u201D\u2014the \u201Ce\u201D meaning equity and \u201Cm\u201D meaning M\u0101ori.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat\u2019s happened to us where we\u2019re having now to come to this process to sit there and say, again, clause 16\u2014assistance for Te Tiriti understanding. Now, we have had all cultural M\u0101ori safety removed. That then creates the ignorance and the non-compliance, and the issue we had in 1919 when M\u0101ori suffered more from the Spanish influenza than any other culture, any other people in Aotearoa, because of their social determinants, because they lived poorly, lived in overcrowded houses and poor housing, and collectively. I\u2019m struggling to believe that we\u2019re normalising this. Again, trying to understand the Minister\u2019s view on why we have got section 29, and it\u2019s in my amendments where I\u2019m asking to restore where we have the significance of the inclusion of local M\u0101ori leadership in health governance. If you look at it from clause 8 all the way to clause 19\u2014I\u2019ve got more\u2014there is a systemic removal of every reference to kaupapa or to actual things that had been designed legislatively to protect the most vulnerable, to address what the Wai claim in 2016 came up with, to address the urgency. And now what we\u2019re seeing is a pile-up of Waitangi Tribunal claims and urgency claims against this very Minister. It makes no sense in 2026 why we\u2019re refusing to accept systems that were designed by experts, not politicians, and now, while we\u2019ve politicised those very things that have a huge detrimental impact on my people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u00223186eafc5e07715feb92ce02900a84f0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223186eafc5e07715feb92ce02900a84f0\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (21:25)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for her questions in relation to many of those questions. I\u2019ve already discussed the reasons why we are removing the health sector principles in the fact that they are a list of ambiguous and overlapping requirements that all statutory decision-makers have to be guided by where they perform a function or exercise a power of duty under the Act. They include at least 21 different matters that must be considered, which can result in unnecessarily complex and slow decision-making and unclear priorities. Health sector principles in charter are being repealed in favour of a system based on clear and focused targets. The Government\u2019s policy is that this is the best approach for improving health system delivery that is focused on patients, and as I note in section 3 of the Act, the purpose of the Act is to achieve equity in health outcomes amongst New Zealand\u2019s population groups, including by striving to eliminate health disparities, in particular for M\u0101ori.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227f0e4f5260501b187274be44dde7b363\u0022\u003EDebbie Ngarewa-Packer\u003C/span\u003E: There\u2019s just one question\u2014through the Chair. There\u2019s not a reply to what\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222979b68e41e4ec26eca8e3465255721b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll give you a subsequent follow-up question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022 data-id=\u00229409ce74217aa1c83a87a32705168438\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229409ce74217aa1c83a87a32705168438\u0022\u003EDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader\u2014Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori) (21:26)\u003C/span\u003E: There\u2019s one question I had throughout the whole thing. There were M\u0101ori health experts who advised on everything that happened. At no stage has the Minister of Health advised who are the M\u0101ori experts that you have that can counter the depth of the expertise of Mason Durie, the depth of the expertise of Paparangi Reid, of Elana Curtis, the depth of their expertise that actually navigated this country through some pretty heavy kaupapa, including during COVID. At no stage has the Minister disclosed the depth of those experts that he has to counter these Wai claims.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u0022b66dd735ffd869702709d608b86e7c13\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002424\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b66dd735ffd869702709d608b86e7c13\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (21:27)\u003C/span\u003E: As I said, one of the changes that\u2019s being made is to ensure that the Hauora M\u0101ori Advisory Committee has an expanded role, which is not only to advise me but also to advise the board of Health New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fd2c9c3aa7974099bfcaac8ea7452994\u0022 data-id=\u0022c71c5e1c3d1c4ca6117cdb719c554f79\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fd2c9c3aa7974099bfcaac8ea7452994\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c71c5e1c3d1c4ca6117cdb719c554f79\u0022\u003EHon JENNY SALESA (Labour\u2014Panmure-\u014Ct\u0101huhu) (21:27)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair, for this opportunity to ask the Minister of Health a few questions about clause 13. Now, clause 13\u2014this new clause\u2014replaces the former section 13, and I want just to read from the new clause just to make sure that I am talking about this particular clause and not my own interpretation. This is about the objectives of Health New Zealand and the replacement clause 13(a) states that it is \u201Cto design, arrange, and deliver appropriate, effective, and timely services to achieve the purpose of this Act\u201D; and subsection (2) says \u201CIn section 13(c), after \u2018individuals\u2019, insert, \u2018(including, to avoid doubt, private healthcare providers)\u2019.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy question is about that particular insertion of \u201Cprivate healthcare providers\u201D, because I believe this is a clear example of privatisation creep into Aotearoa New Zealand\u2019s public health system, because it inserts into Health New Zealand\u2019s statutory objectives an explicit reference to working with private healthcare providers, even though our current existing public health system already allows for contracting where it is needed. There is an ideological move that is being done by this particular new legislation because it normalises private delivery inside and within the purpose of the public health system itself.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy question is: why is the Minister writing privatisation language into objectives of the Health New Zealand legislation at all, when evidence from overseas shows that heavily privatised systems, especially in the United States, costs more, excludes more people, and produces worse equity outcomes than universal public health systems? This matters, Minister, because universal public health systems are designed with access to health services according to need, while heavily privatised systems ration access across to insurance status and people\u2019s ability to pay. For our tangata whenua M\u0101ori, for Pacific, for our ethnic communities, for disabled people, for low-income people, as well as rural communities, this difference is not abstract. It shapes whether or not people receive preventive care early or present later to hospitals sicker, and with more costly needs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002428\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnother question for the Minister: what evidence does the Minister have that this bill\u2019s specific objectives for Health New Zealand to collaborate with private healthcare providers will not divert public funding away from public provision, particularly in areas of unmet need? Another question: can the Minister guarantee that this clause will not be used to justify contracting out public health services to private providers without the same accountability and equity obligations that apply to Health New Zealand itself? And why was the Disabled Persons Assembly New Zealand\u2019s specific concern about privatisation by stealth not addressed in the Health Committee\u2019s report?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u002234c07b63286ad5e6351523cd81aefbf2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002234c07b63286ad5e6351523cd81aefbf2\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (21:30)\u003C/span\u003E: The bill amends the objectives and functions of Health New Zealand so it is clear it is expected to collaborate with private sector health providers. Health New Zealand is already allowed to work with private healthcare providers; however, making this requirement explicit reflects the importance the Government places on using all approaches available to ensure that patients receive timely, quality healthcare. One example has been the Elective Boost, which is seeing a significant reduction in the wait-lists and wait times for people needing elective surgeries by making sure that we\u2019re maximising service delivery to get on top of the big wait-lists left behind by the previous Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThis is a change that is supporting that delivery, which patients expect. Ultimately, those services, as they\u2019re outsourced, continue to be paid for. Those patients receive those through the public health system but they are contracted out to private providers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u002258a966bf00065396135d577d096bb682\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002258a966bf00065396135d577d096bb682\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (21:31)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I think there are quite a few outstanding questions, and particularly from myself and the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall. I want to check, because I think one of the things that the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall mentioned that is really pertinent in here is whether we\u2019re looking at equitable outcomes or output. The outcome versus output conundrum is a really important one here, because one has, to put it in the terms of this bill, a clear future aspect to it in terms of the population, whereas output can simply be indicated through KPIs and measures, and it could be quantitative as opposed to qualitative. So I think outcome versus output is a really important clarification, if the Minister wouldn\u2019t mind addressing that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI had another question regarding what that equitable outcome looks like for M\u0101ori communities, for Pasifika, and for migrants of colour as well. I mentioned an example of where current systems or current equipment may not be done in a way that allows for that equitable outcome. So what is the Minister intending on doing with this updated bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do want to move on to clause 11, noting that others may still have questions for earlier sections. When we\u2019re looking at political neutrality, clause 11 appears, on the surface, to be a reasonable ask. But I do want to check a few aspects of this, because what we have seen as well is while we have the Public Service trying to\u2014as well as the judiciary, in many cases\u2014maintain a degree of political neutrality, the chilling effect is that they are also being silenced because there is not the same level of accountability from potential political attacks. So when they are needed to maintain political neutrality, in this case, would, then, from the Minister\u2019s perspective, there also be an aspect of politicians, and particularly the executive, not launching attacks on their own ministry? The other thing is: is there any sort of guarantee, when we\u2019re looking at this, that while the Public Service maintains political neutrality, they would also be able to offer free and frank advice to the Minister, and the Minister would take that on board based on the expertise of Health New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat we have also seen in other areas, like, let\u2019s say, the Ministry of Education, for example, is we have seen the Ministry of Education offering that free and frank advice. It hasn\u2019t been, for example, taken out by the Minister, which then has resulted in urgent hearings with the Waitangi Tribunal. These are some of the things I would like to tease out in terms of what the Minister\u2019s expectations are for both Health New Zealand but also for Ministers when it comes to political neutrality.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u0022aa65e9596400f0bfb81b22affec184c2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002435\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022aa65e9596400f0bfb81b22affec184c2\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (21:34)\u003C/span\u003E: In relation to new section 11A relating to political neutrality, the bill clarifies that Health New Zealand, including the board, its employees, and individuals working as contractors or as secondees, must uphold the Public Service principles of political neutrality in the Public Service Act 2020, and follow the Public Service Code of Conduct. These obligations have applied to Health New Zealand and those working in it since the Crown entity was created.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIt is important to be clear that for Health New Zealand, staff are, first and foremost, public servants who serve the Government of the day. They serve the Government of the day and hold themselves to the highest standard and work to meet the Government\u2019s priorities. The code of good faith in the public health sector, at Schedule 1B of the Employment Relations Act, and the collective agreement of the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists enable employees to engage in public debate on matters within their expertise and experience, if they do so in a personal capacity or on behalf of the union. The bill does not change that in any way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022 data-id=\u0022d68acf375be80ab694df6b11c1bb0481\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d68acf375be80ab694df6b11c1bb0481\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (21:36)\u003C/span\u003E: I have further specific questions on new section 11A. There were multiple submissions at select committee on the impact of 11A, and concern about the chilling effect of the legislation on professionals advocating on behalf of their patients. I challenge the Minister\u2019s use of the word \u201Cclarify\u201D. It was not like prior to this, New Zealanders in the health system were wandering around, wondering, \u201CI wonder if the Public Service neutrality provisions apply to me.\u201D They were not. The fact is, it was of no one\u2019s concern whatsoever except, potentially, this Government\u2019s.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat has happened is that provision of Public Service neutrality\u2014which is a very important and appropriate provision for the core Public Service; it\u2019s certainly important for people who directly advise the Minister not to show that they favour one side or another of politics, because they have to serve both. But we are talking about not only the 80,000 employees that Health New Zealand has, but the probably approximately 200,000 people who contract to Health New Zealand. We are very, very far from our proximity to the Minister, and even the ministry, by this point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do want to ask the Minister: on what basis does Public Service neutrality apply to the entire workforce of Health New Zealand and its contractors? Certainly, there have been concerns raised about the ability of clinicians to advocate on behalf of their patients. That often brings you into the realm some might consider politics\u2014you know, speaking out about understaffing, speaking out about poor pandemic preparedness, about systems that aren\u2019t serving people, about the lack of standards in some areas; all of those. It\u2019s important that clinicians can be a voice for their patients in those situations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002440\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI know that\u2019s uncomfortable. As a former Minister, I know it is uncomfortable having an assertive and highly expert sector who takes their role in advocacy seriously. But that\u2019s a liberal democracy. Part of being in a liberal democracy is disseminated power. It is expertise. It is multiple sources of expertise that aren\u2019t all controlled by the Government. So what is it? Why is it that this Government has sought to silence healthcare workers, to say that they\u2019re part of the bureaucracy when they might be pushing a mop in a hospital corridor or nursing the night shift? They\u2019re not public servants\u2014they\u2019re doing a public service, but why do they need to be covered by obligations of political neutrality, provided they\u2019re not taking signs to work or something? This is a gross example of overreach, intolerance of other sources of power, and intolerance of differences of opinion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s not dissimilar from the very good points that my colleague Jenny Salesa made about privatisation in replacement section 13, inserted by clause 13\u2014another highly ideologically motivated amendment to an Act that is just about the running of our health system. We own barely a laboratory in this country, in our public health system; we don\u2019t own any aged care or pharmacy or general practice. Possibly a third, if not half, of all healthcare expenditure goes on contracting out. What on earth is the problem that we are fixing by telling Health New Zealand to fund private services?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u002200a081af242075d9ae585057874871f8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002200a081af242075d9ae585057874871f8\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (21:40)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. If the members were to read new section 11A, inserted by clause 11, it\u2019s very clear as to who it applies to. It applies to \u201CHealth New Zealand as a Crown agent and to groups and individuals in Health New Zealand, including its employees, board members, the chief executive, and individuals working as contractors or secondees\u201D. It\u2019s very clear in terms of the legislation. In relation to the points made by the member, I encourage her to read the section.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022 data-id=\u00227859ed5e4c2e55637651b1634ef2fe85\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227859ed5e4c2e55637651b1634ef2fe85\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert) (21:41)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chair, thank you. I\u2019ve got very different questions on, first of all section 10, amended by clause 10, about the overview of the Minister\u2019s role. That\u2019s being repealed, and I just wanted to know why, basically. Why would you repeal the rigour in section 10, which says, at paragraph (d), that it endorses the Health Charter? I have asked you about that charter previously. Why would you not want the Minister\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022419f64ccd8f7120010b0e2bfaacb8883\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Refer to the Chair please, not directly to the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022816f44d6daee046e323d345a859684e2\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022edb527c4f30774e0bc563fdfcb2fbc6c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Speak via the Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002447\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b0a55f1c10b063b9eeedbc09256a096f\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, Mr Chair. I\u2019ve asked the Minister before about the Health Charter and why it would be removed. But why would the Minister not look at some sort of addition to that charter and remain responsible for leadership in that way? The question is really about what leadership the Minister envisages having in this area that the charter actually covered. The charter covered the kinds of managerial tools that have worked in healthy workplaces all around the world. It was integrally linked, and I totally reject what the Minister said about how that charter and those principles did not actually talk about patients, because they were all about making sure that the workforce was attuned to the patients. What is the Minister\u2019s leadership in this area if this gets removed?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen I\u2019d like to ask a question about new section 11A, inserted by clause 11, and what I want to know there is not about the beginning of the section but the bits that are actually crossed out. You can see that there\u2019s been a movement out of paragraph (b)(i) and (ii). Both of those things, when I read them, look like they\u2019re obligations of Health New Zealand. Those were obligations they had to uphold political neutrality itself. Why would the Minister actually want to remove the obligation of the organisation itself to do that? Why would he also get rid of the second one, which was standards of integrity? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002449\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat really concerns me, because it seems as if, while the Minister\u2019s trying to tie down every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Harriet who is working in health and not allow them any leeway to have a personal opinion or a political opinion, or do anything beyond what their job is\u2014it ties them up\u2014there doesn\u2019t seem to be any correlation here in terms of the Health New Zealand obligation to those very principles that are being espoused. I\u2019d really like an answer to that. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u0022ff71825d381a90592eab946f6bf7671f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002450\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ff71825d381a90592eab946f6bf7671f\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (21:44)\u003C/span\u003E: In relation to the question around clause 10, that\u2019s a consequential amendment in relation to the New Zealand Health Charter. Of course, the New Zealand Health Charter doesn\u2019t mention the word \u201Cpatients\u201D; it only mentions the word \u201Cunions\u201D 11 times, which is unsurprising for the former Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn relation to the question in relation to clause 11, the Health Committee has made some recommendations in relation to changes to that clause, and I encourage the member to read the select committee report. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022f4511149004de1e3086b4858e78cb60c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002452\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f4511149004de1e3086b4858e78cb60c\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (21:44)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you to the Minister for responding to, I guess, one of my questions, but still not some of the questions. I do want to check, because I think, on one of the questions from the Hon Jenny Salesa, we\u2019re still waiting for a response regarding clause 13.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA follow-up question regarding clause 13\u2014because I think this idea of private health providers is actually an important question to ask. We also see frequently that if we\u2019re seeing contractors who happen to be from the private sector, it\u2019s sometimes much harder as parliamentarians to also scrutinise some of the expenditures during the select committee process or during scrutiny or annual review weeks. One of the things I want to check is whether the Minister has an expectation that if there is a private healthcare provider, any sort of funding that goes towards that will be transparent as well, so, that way, the New Zealand public is able to know where there tax dollars are going to, even in the private sector. Often, that is obfuscated in the whole \u201CWell, that is commercially sensitive.\u201D kind of smokescreen. Even as parliamentarians, it\u2019s hard for us to get any information out of officials around that. I do want to check with the Minister if that is also the Minister\u2019s understanding regarding public funding that is being used privately.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002454\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to move a little bit further around clause 18. Clause 18 is quite a substantial section, and this in particular is relating to the fact that we have this new infrastructure committee that is a part of this. Now, I want to start by saying that\u2014sorry, before I move on to 18, there is something I want to check with the Minister on replacement section 12, inserted by clause 12. This is the board of Health New Zealand. This is a substantial change from the existing clause. Currently it\u2019s \u201Conly if the Minister is satisfied\u201D, but now the wording has changed when we\u2019re looking at boards. We\u2019ll come on to the infrastructure committee later. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002455\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen we\u2019re looking at the board of Health New Zealand, a lot of the older criteria has been removed, and I wondered, why has the Minister has removed some of the criteria around, for example, understanding of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and cultural competence? I think more concerningly, it says, \u201CThe Minister must appoint only people who, in the Minister\u2019s opinion.\u201D That\u2019s incredibly subjective. Could we get some guidance from the Minister on what that Minister\u2019s opinion entails? It says, \u201Cappropriate knowledge, skills, and experience\u201D, but what about the examples mentioned before? We have no way of knowing if those people with their experience would actually achieve the purpose of this Act\u2014specifically on equitable outcomes\u2014when equity is not a specific aspect that\u2019s mentioned here in clause 12. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to check with the Minister, what is the point of a subjective opinion when it comes to appointment? Why has cultural competency been removed when it comes to clause 12, which I believe we haven\u2019t touched on yet? Finally, if the Minister expects Health New Zealand to be independent, how would a ministerial and not an independent appointment contribute to that political neutrality? Mr Chair, just a note that I will have follow-up questions around clause 18.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u00223e33d71c8b8f797958fa72de3783ecb7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223e33d71c8b8f797958fa72de3783ecb7\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (21:49)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. In relation to the member\u2019s questions around the inclusion of the clause around working with private healthcare providers, this is something which has been traversed earlier in the debate, and the issue is that there is a range\u2014and I think the Opposition\u2019s spokesperson for health mentioned\u2014of existing arrangements between Health New Zealand and our private providers, whether that\u2019s private hospitals or whether that\u2019s GPs or aged-care providers who provide capacity. A lot of this is, though, provided in a very short-term approach, and there\u2019s an opportunity to have much longer-term arrangements which actually ensure that patients ultimately get seen faster and get the treatment that they need in a timely manner.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn relation to the question from Lawrence Xu-Nan regarding the ministerial appointments for the board, this aligns this Act with many other pieces of legislation, such as the Crown Entities Act, the water services authority Act, and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022 data-id=\u00229a8db93c86960c4d03bcca2e29f41a1c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229a8db93c86960c4d03bcca2e29f41a1c\u0022\u003EHon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (21:50)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. It\u2019s good to see the Prime Minister here. He might want to take a call to have a bit of a k\u014Drero about why the Minister thinks that he is the only person who should be able to appoint someone with the necessary skills. I\u2019ve put an amendment up, though, with regards to what the Minister was talking about, and what I\u2019ve got there is clause 12, amendment 10\u2014after \u201Cskills\u201D maybe put in \u201Cexpertise in terms of the Treaty of Waitangi and tikanga M\u0101ori\u201D, and insert a provision into the amendment that obligates the Minister to include expertise in the Treaty of Waitangi in the criteria for board appointments. I\u2019m not sure what would be so wrong about that type of amendment. I\u2019m talking about amendment 10, clause 12.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m wanting to come to the areas, again, in terms of equitable outcomes for M\u0101ori, which I know the Prime Minister\u2019s very interested in because he always talked about targets and targets are good. There\u2019s no argument on this side. We need targets, obviously, in terms of shorter waiting times and in terms of better immunisation rates. The question is: why can\u2019t we have targets in terms of M\u0101ori? That\u2019s one of the questions that many of our experts are asking. Dr Lance O\u2019Sullivan, yesterday, was saying that he thinks that the system is \u201Cdangerous\u201D for M\u0101ori right now\u2014\u201Cdangerous\u201D. That was just put out there yesterday. Why is it so hard that the Minister would not consider targets for M\u0101ori? Why has that all been wiped from the legislation and we\u2019re not prioritising that side of things, particularly given the life span of M\u0101ori, that the vulnerability of M\u0101ori, and what\u2019s happening in the cancer side?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s why I put an amendment up for the Minister to consider, which comes in at clause 13: \u201Cand it\u2019s a duty to achieve equitable outcomes for M\u0101ori in performing its functions. Health New Zealand must take all reasonable steps to achieve equitable health outcomes for M\u0101ori. Health New Zealand must, when designing, arranging, and delivering services, address the determinants of health that contribute to equitable outcomes for M\u0101ori.\u201D I ask the Minister to consider that because, surely, there must be some obligation from this Government in terms of targeting M\u0101ori, given the terrible health outcomes that we have at the moment, and, surely, that would fulfil some of the obligations that this Government wants to achieve in terms of M\u0101ori.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022 data-id=\u0022a3475b1ef8062d0bfa9446664f2abebe\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a3475b1ef8062d0bfa9446664f2abebe\u0022\u003EDr CARLOS CHEUNG (National\u2014Mt Roskill) (21:53)\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=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022 data-id=\u00229558e3ee3a879cc0dd59062abbbb7544\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002463\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229558e3ee3a879cc0dd59062abbbb7544\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (21:53)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I do want to turn to my amendments, but before I do, I\u2019ll ask a brief question on infrastructure, which is: why is there the requirement for political neutrality at Health New Zealand, yet there is a clear direction from the Government to appoint political appointees to both the capital committee and to the board of Health New Zealand? If the Minister could explain that direction from the Government, that would be helpful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs my colleague Mr Jackson said, we\u2019re not opposed to targets, but we do want them to be representative of a well-functioning health system. Speaking to my amendments at clause 23, I have a number of measurements, which, were they to be adopted by the committee, would lead to improvements in our health system. One of the things that I am very concerned by is that the current targets that are in the bill are not representative. They don\u2019t capture all the things that matter to New Zealanders about their healthcare. In particular, cancer survival rates, which are something we all know this country needs to do better on, are not included in the targets. They\u2019ll measure how fast you have your first treatment, which is important, but not whether you live or die. I think that is a real oversight because, until we have visibility on that, we will continue to have poorly joined up services, and we\u2019ll continue to under invest in in medicines, because we don\u2019t track that. I know the Minister is fond of his phrase\u2014he loves phrases\u2014\u201CYou can\u2019t improve what you don\u2019t measure.\u201D Cancer survival seems to be one of the most important things there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnother really important issue which frankly doesn\u2019t get the advocacy that it deserves is reduced cardiovascular mortality rates. Now, in New Zealand, working-age people in their 50s and 60s die or get serious disability due to heart attack and stroke. There was a report, last year, showing how much we underinvest in those specialist services for cardiovascular disease. There are simple things\u2014I mean, I\u2019m not talking about fancy stuff\u2014science from the 1950s and 1960s, about how to prevent cardiovascular disease. Yet, for a large part of our population\u2014particularly working-age M\u0101ori and Pacific people\u2014we haven\u2019t done that. If we measured reduced cardiovascular mortality rates, we would do a lot of simple things to make our health system run better and keep our people healthy, so, colleagues, I\u2019d love it if you voted for my amendment to include reduced cardiovascular mortality rates. If we measured that, we\u2019d realise that we need to prioritise smokefree, that we need to do something about alcohol and junk food, and that we need to make sure that access to general practice and medicines in your community for free is a priority that we really should take. Until we do that, this issue lies buried.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also want to speak to a really heart-rending issue, which is the rate of perinatal and maternal mortality. Now, can\u2019t we all agree that that is a target that we should measure? That is incredibly important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022297bc572c27f45308dffb067ca3e7915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002219a37d3806379a269276772bdbdf98b9\u0022\u003EDr Hamish Campbell\u003C/span\u003E: Where\u2019s that in the bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223c8d168fc56d12463be5f2a7fa58ac7f\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL\u003C/span\u003E: Did I hear someone, over the other side, who might be my colleague on the Health Committee say they have measured that? No, what the Government has done is they have stopped the Health Quality and Safety Commission from writing the annual perinatal and maternal mortality reports, so we don\u2019t know where we are at, and we don\u2019t know what to do about terrible situations where mothers don\u2019t get sufficient care and where babies are born early or with disability, because we\u2019re not monitoring the system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019d also like to point out another really important part of our health system, which is really important to older New Zealanders. It\u2019s an invisible service if you\u2019re young, but it is so important. It\u2019s in-home care. In-home care services are what helps an older person maintain their independence, and there is a real problem with that care not being delivered. If a service that you depend on to stay healthy doesn\u2019t come, then you can\u2019t be independent. That happens far too often, and Age Concern and Grey Power raise this regularly, and these services get raised regularly, and yet there\u2019s no accountability for the fact that they\u2019re often not delivered. They are so important. They\u2019re not just important to the person who receives them, but, often, the family member who is otherwise a support can\u2019t stay in work, because people can\u2019t get dependable services for their older relatives. This seems to me to be a critical service, and I\u2019m sure there\u2019d be a lot of people out in the community who would love to see this Parliament adopt a health target for the delivery of timely in-home care services.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002470\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, I know almost all members of the committee want to see youth vaping reduced. Well, we could do something about that. We could have a target, and I know that my colleague Carlos Cheung cares about this a great deal\u2014almost as much as he cares about catching the Prime Minister\u2019s attention. But we could measure youth vaping rates, and that would be\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cf6d34e1f7abce5549cc3eff46e0b84e\u0022\u003EHon Members: \u003C/span\u003ESnarky!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f38b77a54ae95b774d2180d7a490d447\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL\u003C/span\u003E: You\u2019ve got to pay attention, guys.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf we did that and had a systematic target, then we would do things like, for example, we would fund youth vaping quit services. Did you know that, Prime Minister? We don\u2019t have a single youth vaping quit service in New Zealand. If your kid is stuck on the vapes, there isn\u2019t a service to help them get better. Maybe that investment would become more prominent if we had a health target. We could also have a target\u2014and this is another amendment I\u2019ve proposed\u2014to improve access to mental health and addiction services for youth and rangatahi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is not that there is a problem with targets\u2014they do drive accountability\u2014but they should be representative of the breadth of services New Zealanders need and expect out of their health system. The health system is not just a factory production line which people are shunted along and given access to a one-size-fits-all service. It is far more complex than that. We need the ability to represent the breadth of services that New Zealanders need in these targets, and if they\u2019re to be included in legislation, then we should be prepared to have a bipartisan approach to determining what those services are.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt does worry me that the Minister is deciding to include targets which are his Government\u2019s priorities in this bill. Those are the sorts of things that could be determined through the GPS, the Government position statement, on health. But by choosing to entrench these ones, he\u2019s entrenching a particular, small, narrow, conservative view of the health system. On this side of the House, we are proponents of accountability and a high-performing health system because we care deeply about people, but we do not endorse the view that the Minister\u2019s five targets are all there is to healthcare.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI would like to see colleagues vote for those proposals, because otherwise we\u2019d see that very important things\u2014like perinatal mortality, youth vaping, services for older people, cardiovascular disease, and cancer\u2014continue to be neglected in our health system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u00221c51e370bde6271ae1cb35872cc9a577\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221c51e370bde6271ae1cb35872cc9a577\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (22:02)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for her questions, and it\u2019s amazing to see the Labour Party finally agree that health targets are important after the first thing the last Labour Government did was to remove health targets and immediately see performance of the health system decline substantially. It\u2019s been interesting hearing the debate tonight and hearing the members of the Opposition talk about the need for equity. I look at the results of what they achieved when they were in Government, and one of the most appalling results was that two-year-old childhood immunisation rates for M\u0101ori went down appallingly. For all the talk from members opposite, their actions speak much louder than their words. That is why this Government is embedding in the Act key health targets around cancer management care, the immunisation of children, the admission to and discharge and transfer of patients from emergency departments, specialist assessments, elective treatment, and access to primary care\u2014fixing the basics, building a healthier future for New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI would also note, in terms of the member\u2019s amendments, there is no preclusion from additional health targets being put in place if that is what is requested by any Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022 data-id=\u0022b652d51330cd5e157a528617a3c076d4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b652d51330cd5e157a528617a3c076d4\u0022\u003EDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader\u2014Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori) (22:03)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. It\u2019s really great to see that the Minister has continuously memorised the immunisation stats. What we\u2019re not seeing is improvement in the emergency department waiting times. What we\u2019re not seeing is improvement in the health workers\u2019 care and support. What we\u2019re not seeing is improvement in rural health services. What we\u2019re not seeing is support for improvement in elderly care. What we\u2019re not seeing is the lowering of cancer screening. What we\u2019re not seeing is support for type 2 diabetes. I think it\u2019s really important that we just be real about what we\u2019re dealing with here as a nation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m glad to hear the Minister talk about accountabilities. Some of the amendments and questions that we have are, again, captured in clause 26, amending section 52 of the Act, specifically making sure that we put accountability back into the system. We absolutely support that some of the data and equity aspects have been lost and never captured for targets, but we also need to make sure that we have a system where we come back in a year after putting this legislation in place and measure performance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe keep hearing, as M\u0101ori, who have had years of experts smarter than any of us here in this House who told us this is what we needed to do to address inequities\u2014but we\u2019re not hearing how we\u2019re going to be accountable and how we\u2019re going to measure that. In a year\u2019s time, one of the amendments that we\u2019ve put in is to make sure that we come back and we have a performance measurement of how this bill has improved lives. Otherwise, it\u2019s just a talk fest of watching this one to this one and this one to this one, when real people are hurting and being affected.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the things, Minister, that I would like to draw to your attention is, again, in clauses 26 to 27. We\u2019ve asked to remove clause 26 and retain 27 on the aspect that we keep that independent auditing and keep that transparency specifically for M\u0101ori health equity. If this is going to be such a reformative or transformative piece of legislation, I\u2019m sure the Minister would also support that we have an annual review, a triennial review, and we consistently see if this is doing what it set out to achieve.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 28\u2014we\u2019ve asked to retain sections 56 to 58, because the charter embedded values which represented the progress of us as a nation. It represented the fact that we know what our history is, we know where inequities come from, and we\u2019re dealing with it, just the same way we\u2019re dealing with our future liabilities. Again\u2014I can\u2019t harp on about this enough\u2014we will never get the balance and progress in this country if we keep forgetting about the inequities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002484\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESome of these, the rationale behind them is wanting us to continuously see cultural safety across the health workers. That\u2019s a really important aspect that most of the health workforce, to be honest\u2014it\u2019s a really important, specific aspect that has come out of multiple audits that we\u2019ve received at select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAgain, in clause 31, I\u2019d like to draw the Minister\u2019s attention to the fact that we amend section 89 so that we continue to make progress. Again, you\u2019re asking all of New Zealand to take a leap of faith in this new committee or advisory board that you\u2019re saying knows more than 50 years of experts\u2014credible people, such as T\u0101 Mason Durie\u2014and telling us that this is going to work for the nation. If that is, and if you\u2019re backing your horse, you\u2019re backing your bill, then the amendments that are insisting that we have transparency of performance and data and auditing measures done independently is something this Minister should not only support but should encourage, and be able to provide to us in a year\u2019s time how well this bill is going to do for us.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022 data-id=\u0022b697a1983039cbe9baf3a65f6c98b1e9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b697a1983039cbe9baf3a65f6c98b1e9\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (22:08)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I do want to speak to the Minister\u2019s amendment of clause 29. The amendment requires that when Health New Zealand, New Zealand\u2019s largest employer, bargains for a collective agreement, it must consult with the Public Service Commissioner. I have a number of questions about this. At the highest level, I wonder what benefit this change gives to the Crown entity in carrying out its functions. The Crown entity was given these functions so it could focus on them\u2014it\u2019s not all being run out of the ministry\u2014yet the involvement of the Public Service Commission seems a substantial compromise on the Crown entity arrangement. I\u2019d like to understand if the Minister has a justification for this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHealth New Zealand\u201470 percent of its bills are staffing, and so control over staffing costs and how staffing is managed is one of the biggest things that should be within the Crown entity\u2019s purview, and yet the Public Service Commissioner is being brought into that. I wonder what the benefit of that would be. The health workforce is different. It is a highly professionalised workforce that doesn\u2019t have high rates of employment in other sectors and that has a lot of aspects which are unique to it to itself. The Public Service Commission is a small agency that cannot be involved in every bargaining that a big agency like Health New Zealand does. How is the Public Service Commission, in that situation, able to provide timely input into what are big and complex issues, without holding up settlements? We saw several settlements held up by work between the Public Service Commission and Health New Zealand in the last year.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, I\u2019d like to understand how the Minister\u2019s amendment allows Health New Zealand to engage in good faith with unions, because it seems like the Public Service Commission is to have some involvement or direction of the bargaining, but it is not actually at the table, and\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E]. Oh, Mr Chair, it does seem like order in the House is struggling somewhat. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220285a92fd07ab4daeadd8268b4d8c028\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, if people could keep the chat down on this side, that would be useful for the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002207084cf7e1169e9f5b073e26744aad46\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL\u003C/span\u003E: Well\u2014and so, it seems to me that the Minister has not made a case for the importance of this change. It is a significant change. It\u2019s unusual compared to other Crown entities. Can he provide a justification for this decision?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u0022bdf66520b63806830cba7240eba20b43\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bdf66520b63806830cba7240eba20b43\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (22:11)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the members for their questions. There were some questions in relation to the New Zealand Health Plan and reporting of progress. I would note that the Act requires the health plan to set up how New Zealand will achieve the Act\u2019s purpose, which includes equity. The Act already requires the health plan to set out how Health New Zealand will deliver services. This could include workforce safety, cultural safety, etc.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to Debbie Ngarewa-Packer\u2019s Amendment Paper 12 and the proposal to delete clause 12, the changes that are being recommended here are not unlike what you see in other major Crown entity planning documents in relation to those clauses. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to the issue of the collective bargaining, the tabled amendment to the bill provides greater certainty about how powers will work. Rather than delegating collective bargaining to the Public Service Commissioner, a direction may require Health New Zealand to consult with the commissioner on changes or approval in relation to elements of the bargaining process and allow the commission to participate in the bargaining process. These powers will enable greater coordination and consistency across significant areas of public sector employment, and the Public Service Commissioner has a very important role in supporting agencies with education\u2014in this case, health\u2014to support them as they go through those processes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022062b3bfdb52460d9f45bea5084e3dd10\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: There\u2019s probably still some more questions here. I\u2019ll go to Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u002229f441c72b02702d0797b4bec6609935\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002229f441c72b02702d0797b4bec6609935\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (22:13)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I just indicated previously that I do have questions around the infrastructure committee in clause 18, and I note that my colleagues who are a lot more attuned to, I guess, the broader complexities of the health sector have additional contributions around targets and health plans, etc.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002496\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to check with the Minister\u2014just a couple of questions on the infrastructure committee. Noting that there was an existing infrastructure committee, and that was one of the announcements the Minister made last year, and I see some appointments on there already: without an empowering provision, how has the existing committee been established? If there is already an existing infrastructure committee, why, again, do we need to bring this back to the House to give power to the establishment of an infrastructure committee, or is that more of an ad hoc one? That is my first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002497\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EUnlike some of the other things we\u2019re looking at in terms of the infrastructure committee, there is actually not a lot of information, other than providing\u2014so, if you\u2019re looking at a new section 20, the establishment of the infrastructure committee: new section 21 is the delegation to the infrastructure committee, it says, to \u201Csome of all its function [in relation] to providing and planning for infrastructure to deliver services.\u201D. I know that we mentioned previously in terms of the definition for infrastructure, but even that is very light when it comes to the actual scope of an infrastructure committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002498\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI wanted to check if the Minister wouldn\u2019t mind giving some additional context as to what are they intending to do; how are they expected to work? Who are they expected to work with? So, for example, if you\u2019re looking at physical infrastructure, are we expecting there to be some sort of collaboration with, previously, I guess, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, but now the Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT)? Are they working with MCERT on anything? Are they working with local government? Are they working within the existing boundaries of their localities within Health New Zealand? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo, yeah\u2014some context around the infrastructure committee would be very much helpful in this case. Again, I feel like compared to what we see in other areas where a new committee or a new structure has been implemented, there\u2019s usually either a lot more detail within the legislation itself, or at least within the schedule, when it comes to transition measures. We\u2019re not seeing a lot here. Any additional advice would be appreciated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u002271e5b934297c15c65efc16c238d44337\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002500\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002271e5b934297c15c65efc16c238d44337\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (22:16)\u003C/span\u003E: Clause 20 of the bill says that the Board of Health New Zealand must establish an infrastructure committee. That is distinct from the ministerial advisory group that has been set up to advise on infrastructure. This effectively becomes a committee of the board. The purpose of the committee is to perform some or all of Health New Zealand\u2019s functions of providing and planning for infrastructure to deliver services in accordance with the delegation under section 21. Section 21 then outlines that the board of Health New Zealand must delegate to the infrastructure committee some or all of its functions in respect of providing and planning for infrastructure to deliver services.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002501\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe intent behind these clauses is to ensure that Health New Zealand has robust governance processes in place when it comes to the planning and delivery of infrastructure. It is a major infrastructure provider; there\u2019s currently around $7.5 billion of infrastructure in the pipeline, either being delivered or planned. That\u2019s the funded infrastructure pipeline. It\u2019s a significant pipeline, and we want to see strong governance put in place. By establishing an infrastructure committee\u2014a committee of the board\u2014to enable that, that will support Health New Zealand in the efforts that it has in regards to the delivery of health infrastructure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022 data-id=\u0022ff1eea79b9970ec1cd3a6ba638033e32\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002502\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ff1eea79b9970ec1cd3a6ba638033e32\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert) (22:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I was really interested in the decision to choose these particular targets to enshrine in primary legislation. They\u2019re a real pick \u2018n\u2019 mix, and they sort of look like somebody\u2019s hot takes. They don\u2019t look like things that\u2014while they\u2019re really important, things like child immunisation and cancer management\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ed03cfe6a2a037553992947a052ef940\u0022\u003EHon Simeon Brown\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I wouldn\u2019t call child immunisation a \u201Chot take\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224f1a03f584d2cdf27358608239c57349\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, perhaps if I ask my question and then you answer, because I simply could not hear that answer, Minister. Unless you would like to just answer that, and then I\u2019ll stand up again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u00224d157eb8ef28dbae8af7acf35f040f35\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002505\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224d157eb8ef28dbae8af7acf35f040f35\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (22:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, happy to answer your question. I just think it\u2019s appalling that the member opposite calls childhood immunisation a \u201Chot take\u201D. I think immunising our children is one of the key priorities that we have as a Government and something that we\u2019re incredibly focused on. To call it a hot take, I think, is appalling and distressful. But it also speaks to the reality under the previous Government, where they allowed childhood immunisation rates to collapse in this country, particularly impacting on our M\u0101ori communities, which they should be appalled by.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227c6813d2197bb075c855bd207b1b40c8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll allow a back and forth, but please wait until I call you. And can I ask you to not directly talk to the Minister, but to talk via the Chair?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022 data-id=\u0022b426d65bce54295a7d9ffab51f639630\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002507\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b426d65bce54295a7d9ffab51f639630\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert) (22:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. Thank you, Mr Chair. Rather than make this an absolute political situation, I\u2019ve tried in my questions to ask something that needed to be asked for the sake of the New Zealand public. My point over the question was that this is actually a very random list. It is not a list of consistent things. It\u2019s not child immunisation, adult immunisation, or all sorts of other things that are there. It\u2019s a list of things where I have no idea how it was that the Minister came to this list. Why was this the list? Because none of these things follow from the other or is consistent. There\u2019s no process around choosing these, from what I can see, that\u2019s transparent. So what was the process around choosing this list? Because this is going into primary legislation and it will be there until another Government repeals it. It can be added to, but it\u2019s there forever, and it\u2019s not a list that tells its own story in terms of its rational choice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002508\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to genuinely know what it is that the Minister did to pick these things up, because they look like things that might be important now, but perhaps\u2014let\u2019s hope\u2014we solve cancer management and then it wouldn\u2019t necessarily be the priority it is today. Perhaps we\u2019ll solve child immunisation problems and we\u2019ll be looking at other targets at that point, but it will still be in the primary legislation. In fact, other things that might be extremely important of the moment will not be in primary legislation and will therefore be able to be avoided. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002509\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, what I would have expected, if it was a smart piece of legislation, would be that somebody would have created a criteria and a process for choosing what goes into that list. We would see the list flex as the problems change, as hopefully they get solved\u2014that\u2019s what I\u2019d expect. But, in fact, what I\u2019ve seen is a random list of things that seem to have been in the paper or seem to have been of concern at the moment to the Minister, even if it was genuine concern at the time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002510\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d52c571cdb246f6abf50a39de1a66f7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221834e9f7852f7a5f61708e351f282af1\u0022\u003EGlen Bennett\u003C/span\u003E: Long-time limp.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002511\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002277bbca3875b365f99aec68d92943fa45\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE\u003C/span\u003E: Absolutely. I am also extremely concerned about things like immunisation rates, but I would like to know how is it that the Minister chose this, and why did they choose this method of locking these particular things in, when they\u2019re not even one type of thing? We have something like elective treatment; we have access to primary. Now, I think access to primary services is extremely important. It\u2019s not that I\u2019m belittling them; I\u2019m belittling the process of choosing a random group of things. It is not actually a kingdom; it is a democracy, and we have processes and we don\u2019t need one person deciding what they are. So was that what happened? Did the Minister just simply choose the list because of what was important to him or was it something else? Did he get advice from his officials, who said, \u201CThis is actually what we need to enshrine in our law and this should never go from it because that should be the basis, and then we\u2019ll add to it?\u201D Is that what happened? I would like the Minister to answer that question instead of taking cheap shots.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u00224a1b3492d5c8196f308ba678822a8bfd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002512\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224a1b3492d5c8196f308ba678822a8bfd\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (22:22)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I just think it\u2019s appalling that the member opposite can stand up and say that immunisation of our children is just something on a random list, when, ultimately, we remember what happened under the previous Government. They removed our health targets and we saw the care of all of those targets going backwards. We saw immunisation of our children going backwards; we saw our emergency departments go backwards; we saw special assessments go backwards; we saw elective treatment go backwards; we saw access to primary care go backwards; and, ultimately, these are core targets which matter to New Zealanders, that matter to patients.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002513\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThis is about ensuring that we have a very clear focus in our health system and a very clear focus. This is something where the Labour Party should reflect on their past six years where they simply\u2014the first thing they did when they came into Government in 2017 was remove the health targets, and we saw, over those next six years, our health system deteriorate, wait-lists balloon, access to primary care get harder, our immunisation rate for our children get worse. This Government is intent on fixing the basics, building the future, and we\u2019re putting these in legislation so that it\u2019s clear about what the priorities are for our health system: focus on putting patients first, and focus on improved results and accountability of the health system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022 data-id=\u002258ab16248ff1d25a45208cc180cb8681\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002514\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002258ab16248ff1d25a45208cc180cb8681\u0022\u003ESUZE REDMAYNE (Junior Whip\u2014National) (22:24)\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=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022 data-id=\u0022ee4c4a7b1ccd7ba9c7b015cfca5c96de\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002515\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ee4c4a7b1ccd7ba9c7b015cfca5c96de\u0022\u003EHon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (22:24)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. That was disgraceful presentation there from the Minister. We\u2019ve been courteous all night and we get insulted by the Minister. We just want our some of our questions answered and some of our amendments are spoken about, and all this Minister can do is talk about the previous Government. I was very proud of the previous health Minister. I thought she did a tremendous job.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002516\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220ab5e4a0afa68545c9ae46df04637e23\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: She didn\u2019t steal Wairarapa\u2019s money.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002517\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a689bc44757e17784d02ea1341468b3c\u0022\u003EHon WILLIE JACKSON\u003C/span\u003E: No, she did a terrific job. I was very proud of the strength we showed in terms of supporting M\u0101ori. This, what we\u2019re looking at tonight, is just basically taking apart everything that we put in place. We had so much community support. We took up the challenges from our leaders. We had a M\u0101ori health leaders just yesterday\u2014just yesterday, and I don\u2019t know where the Minister\u2019s been\u2014saying how dangerous this health system is: Dr Lance O\u2019Sullivan coming out and dealing to this Government. They don\u2019t want to hear from experts; they just want to hear from their invisible advisory committee. When we asked the Minister, \u201CWho are you speaking to? Who are you consulting with?\u201D, nobody knows who the hell he\u2019s talking about. We don\u2019t know who he\u2019s talking about. He ignores some of the most brilliant brains in te ao M\u0101ori.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EOur spokesperson, our former Minister, the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall, tonight, has come up with some brilliant k\u014Drero in regards to iwi partnership boards, for example. That\u2019s why we\u2019ve put up some very positive amendments, which I\u2019ll go through now, just for the Minister\u2019s interest. I want to just go through a few that I\u2019ve put up. My tabled amendment No. 5, is about the functions of Health New Zealand. In it, in terms of my amendment, we want to delete clause 14(3). The rationale is because it preserves local M\u0101ori input into planning and delivery, rather than rather than concentrating engagement at the national level only. What\u2019s wrong with M\u0101ori having some input and a local level?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002519\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ba1401d8b1ea1f6e793f4b32a5e93fbb\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: They had a hug and then they left.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002520\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f3dc127d0df41741f39dfce41be0bb44\u0022\u003EHon WILLIE JACKSON\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s right. My tabled amendment No. 6, clause 17: \u201CSection 16A repealed (Engaging with and reporting to M\u0101ori)\u201D\u2014if you have a look at the amendments, Mr Chair, I\u2019m asking to delete clause 17. The effect is to retain section 16 of the principal Act, which is engaging with and reporting to M\u0101ori. The rationale is it maintains a direct statutory duty for Health New Zealand to engage with and report to M\u0101ori communities, preserving local accountability.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002521\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen, we come to the former Minister\u2019s k\u014Drero in regards to iwi-M\u0101ori partnership boards. In replacement section 30, inserted by clause 19, after paragraph 30(b), we are asking that we insert a monitor, and evaluate the performance of the health system in relation to the health needs, aspirations, and outcomes of local M\u0101ori communities, and advise Health New Zealand on the planning, commissioning, and delivery of services for local M\u0101ori communities, including kaupapa M\u0101ori services, and report to M\u0101ori communities on the matters. The effect is that it restores substantive monitoring, evaluation, and advisory commissioning functions to iwi-M\u0101ori partnership boards. The rationale is it reinstates the board as a tangible vehicle for \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Emana motuhake\u003C/span\u003E and local accountability rather than channels that only feed insights to a national committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002522\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOur people have been very, very clear about the health system, and that\u2019s why we\u2019ve come up with some really productive and constructive amendments tonight that we would like the House to consider. But it is worrying for te ao M\u0101ori in terms of so many initiatives and so much kaupapa M\u0101ori being watered down by this Minister and by this Government. I ask the question again: why is the Minister so intent on watering down kaupapa M\u0101ori services? Who are his advisers? Is this Government still committed to partnership or is it just about what the Minister thinks. Kia ora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u002204e27a5aa46556a6681e466e298efd72\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002523\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002204e27a5aa46556a6681e466e298efd72\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (22:29)\u003C/span\u003E: Many of the questions the member has just spoken have already been addressed in relation to the Hauora M\u0101ori Advisory Committee (HMAC), which is now being given the role of not just advising the Minister but also advising the board. The changes to the legislation clearly clarify the roles of the iwi M\u0101ori partnership boards and their role in advising HMAC, which also has now the role, as I said, of advising me and the Health New Zealand board.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022ba399b8b6dedba7d40aa25bf1d4a20f8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002524\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ba399b8b6dedba7d40aa25bf1d4a20f8\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (22:30)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I just have a final bit on Part 1, and this is to do with a new section, which is clause 29, but with a specific focus on the Minister\u2019s Amendment Paper 562, because, again, this Amendment Paper is something that hasn\u2019t gone through select committee; it\u2019s just come into the House recently.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002525\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to check with the Minister\u2014we\u2019re seeing it more frequently, but it\u2019s quite unusual for the Public Service Commissioner to take part, as I\u2019ve been told, in the collective bargaining process. Usually, the agency deals with a relevant union directly. I guess I want to check with the Minister: what is the rationale behind, under Amendment Paper 562, this expanded scope, particularly when we\u2019re looking at clause 29, inserting new section 65A(d), which is \u201Cto allow the Public Service Commissioner to participate in the collective bargaining process\u201D? Again, this is something I feel is\u2014it\u2019s not something I\u2019ve seen previously until very recently, this idea that the Public Service Commissioner is involved in that. The first question to the Minister is if the Minister wouldn\u2019t mind expanding on the rationale behind that involvement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second part of this\u2014understanding that, presumably, this part is to do with the Minister taking up more of a sort of back-step role and then having Health New Zealand and the Public Service taking on a more active role in collective bargaining. But I also want to check with the Minister, as the bargaining process is happening, what would then be the role of the Minister in communicating some of that to the public, or expectations for the Minister?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002527\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThose are my two questions, specifically on Amendment Paper 562, on clause 29, regarding collective bargaining.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u002283221a17b9fc1d4006c2fc40df8f2bed\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002528\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002283221a17b9fc1d4006c2fc40df8f2bed\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (22:32)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve answered a number of questions in relation to this Amendment Paper. It seeks to provide the Minister with the ability to make directions about how the Public Service is to have oversight of, or to be involved in, collective bargaining conducted by Health New Zealand. Health New Zealand is a major employer within the Government, and it\u2019s important that the Public Service Commission has a role in supporting Health New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002227d19573a8ba4d8283b17374978c8ea2\u0022 data-id=\u002241e282f0eea98579b70e6e841f290e78\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002529\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227d19573a8ba4d8283b17374978c8ea2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002241e282f0eea98579b70e6e841f290e78\u0022\u003EGRANT McCALLUM (National\u2014Northland) (22:32)\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002530\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002531\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002533\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002535\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002536\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226132d5a2e7b9d2dd98c78f04023dc43d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 562 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002537\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002538\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002539\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002540\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002542\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f80a111428a581f53888e9ed706b739\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that H\u016Bhana Lyndon\u2019s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 637 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002544\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002545\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002546\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002547\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002548\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002549\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002550\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002242b6bb8c817a4e74a600ed037ca687ee\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Willie Jackson\u2019s and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer\u2019s tabled amendments deleting clause 4 are out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s tabled amendments to clauses 4 and 5, removing brackets around the words \u201Cpae ora\u201D, are out of order as not offering a serious alternative form of words.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 5(2) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002553\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Hon Willie Jackson\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 5(2), section 3, to insert new paragraphs (e) and (f) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002554\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002555\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002557\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002559\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224b5e3963b62aee6124cd14a3507c22bd\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Debbie Ngarewa-Packer\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 5(2) is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMembers, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer\u2019s tabled amendments to clauses 8, 13, 14, 15, 26, and 31 lend themselves to being grouped. I will put a single question on them unless members indicate that they wish to vote differently on a specific amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer\u2019s tabled amendments to clauses 8, 13, 14, 15, 26, and 31 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002563\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002564\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002567\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002568\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002569\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a085588ed7bf70d18a4790cd3b433487\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that H\u016Bhana Lyndon\u2019s amendment inserting clause 8(6), set out on Amendment Paper 638, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002570\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002571\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002572\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002573\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002574\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002575\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002254e5c3aa3ca7943dac66a4f75abd668e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that H\u016Bhana Lyndon\u2019s amendment deleting clause 9, set out on Amendment Paper 639, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002577\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002578\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002583\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db37c9b47fa380082a7884b44f20f14d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Willie Jackson\u2019s and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer\u2019s tabled amendments deleting clause 9 are out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002584\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that H\u016Bhana Lyndon\u2019s amendment to clause 12, new section 12(3), set out on Amendment Paper 640, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002585\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002586\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002587\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002589\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228f6d857d2f10932ea85fd8cb7398d790\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 12 replacing new section 12(3) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002592\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002593\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002597\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228fadf499a41463c36a8243b8a58147a5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the Hon Willie Jackson\u2019s tabled amendments deleting clauses 12, 14(3), 17, and 28 lend themselves to being grouped. I will put a single question on them unless members indicate that they wish to vote differently on a specific amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002599\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Hon Willie Jackson\u2019s tabled amendments deleting clauses 12, 14(3), 17, and 28 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002600\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002601\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002605\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b3dd3b5d361acc20e0b8dc7f158e55c0\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Willie Jackson\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 12 to insert \u201Cexpertise in Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi) and tikanga M\u0101ori\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002607\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002608\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002612\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002613\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228703d50c7a8bc98bc269e953d0a54ff0\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the Hon Willie Jackson\u2019s tabled amendments inserting new clause 13A and amending clause 19 lend themselves to being grouped. I will put a single question on them unless members indicate that they wish to vote differently on a specific amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002614\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Hon Willie Jackson\u2019s tabled amendments inserting new clause 13A inserting new section 13A, and amending clause 19 new section 30 to insert new paragraphs (c) to (e) agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002615\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002616\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002617\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002618\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002619\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002620\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002621\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022689eb9c824e64f68dca0526cce955143\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that H\u016Bhana Lyndon\u2019s amendment replacing clause 15 set out on Amendment Paper 641 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002622\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002623\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002624\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002627\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002628\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225973b645fe9735e338cd1e370422a83e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer\u2019s tabled amendments deleting clauses 16, 27, and 32 lend themselves to being grouped. I will put a single question on them unless members indicate that they wish to vote differently on a specific amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002629\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer\u2019s tabled amendments deleting clauses 16, 27, and 32 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002630\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002631\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002632\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002633\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002634\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002635\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002636\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022333af8514e4c9cc5dbacb7ae0cc6a7c9\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s tabled amendments deleting clause 17 are out of order as being the same as a previous amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002637\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that H\u016Bhana Lyndon\u2019s amendment deleting clause 19 set out on Amendment Paper 642 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002638\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002639\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002640\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002641\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002642\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002643\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002644\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a7a1f19897715b244edd1f38e506919c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Debbie Ngarewa-Packer\u2019s tabled amendment to delete clause 19 is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002645\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMembers, there are six amendments in the name of the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall to clause 23, new section 36A to insert new targets. To test the will of the committee, I will put the question on three of those amendments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002646\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 23 inserting new section 36A(g) regarding \u201Cimproved access to mental health and addiction services for youth and rangatahi M\u0101ori\u201D be agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002647\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002648\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002649\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002650\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002651\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002652\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224e89620e59e34a6482aa53bba75ffeb4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 23 inserting new section 36A(g) regarding \u201Ccancer survival rates\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002654\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002655\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002656\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002657\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002658\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002659\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002660\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a10b0de5615a771a5f74ba5b53b470f3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 23, inserting new section 36A(g) regarding \u201Creduced perinatal and maternal mortality rates\u201D, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002661\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002662\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002663\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002664\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002665\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002666\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002667\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f3f5bbfc97b4d5f31b44c3e067d760bf\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the will of the committee having been tested, Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u2019s remaining three tabled amendments to clause 23 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002668\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EDebbie Ngarewa-Packer\u2019s and Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s tabled amendments deleting clause 28 are out of order as being the same as a previous amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002669\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002670\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002671\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002672\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002673\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002674\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 1 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002675\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d680577157bce04db68bd400eb41dc0c\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f05d760819a22f82bb1a1fa1c0ffd31e\u0022\u003EPart 2 Consequential amendments, and Schedules 1A and 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002677\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022308894b21148dee83d18de792c72840d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 33A to 34, \u201CConsequential amendments\u201D, and Schedules 1A and 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022e1d285571bbf1cc1852f23f112e5b158\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e1d285571bbf1cc1852f23f112e5b158\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (22:52)\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to seek your clarity\u2014I didn\u2019t want to interrupt halfway through the vote\u2014on the last batch of amendments by the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall, understanding that we\u2019re looking at a new, more expedient use of committee time when it comes to amendments. I\u2019ve been looking at her amendments; I want to seek the guidance from you, Mr Chair, on how three out of those six are testing the will of the committee when the other three remaining actually have nothing to do with the three that are tested. For example, I understand when we\u2019re testing cancer survival rates, perinatal and maternal mortality rate\u2014which is probably, even from a layperson\u2019s perspective, more on the tertiary health side\u2014when we are looking at timely provision in home care services that\u2019s very much a community-geared sector altogether, even by the standard of Vote Health. It\u2019s even a completely different Appropriation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002679\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI do want to check if the committee could get some clarity just for our side in the future because, again, noting that this is a bill that the Opposition does not support and we also did not support the bill through select committee, as well as not supporting the amendments. Just through this urgency period, if the Chair wouldn\u2019t mind providing additional guidance so that way we have a better understanding of what the Chair is looking for, as a part of this new process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002680\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223e9ffb22c86751a161828b3129df28fc\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you for that point of order. If I can refer members to Standing Orders 315(4), and there it reads: \u201CWhere amendments are proposed that, in the opinion of the chairperson, are the same in substance, the chairperson may select amendments on which to put a question, in order to test the will of the committee.\u201D In this circumstance, it was about the insertion of targets so it was the target part which leant itself to being the same issue of substance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002231ea7f54311786b7bb309eed2c097f2e\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to that point of order, I understand from a target perspective, but then is it an assumption that if the committee will not accept three targets, they wouldn\u2019t consider any additions to target regardless of how different they are and the fact they cover different parts of the health sector? That\u2019s fine if that\u2019s the case; it\u2019s just so that way we can have that clarity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022 data-id=\u00229a007855b0f8ce1fee90045eb2ee2f86\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002682\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229a007855b0f8ce1fee90045eb2ee2f86\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (22:55)\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order. If I can help the House: as my colleague\u2019s pointed out, the House has voted for specific targets and it\u2019s voted against other targets, so therefore each target needs to be considered individually. Just by being a target doesn\u2019t mean we vote on it one particular way. My colleague has already well made the point that they are materially different parts of the health system that are being measured.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002683\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220157c4c2ff05cd15c10bea8e49aca01e\u0022\u003EHon Louise Upston\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002684\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224ba3ff280ef67825d4fcd04dbb46470e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order, and then I\u2019m going to make a ruling.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002685\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229a4b768906229d415cf64e4b42fdffc7\u0022\u003EHon Louise Upston\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chair, you have made your comments clear in terms of testing the will of the committee, and I commend you for doing so.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022 data-id=\u0022b08df82ea05bc344a3c7fb492d279ddb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002686\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b08df82ea05bc344a3c7fb492d279ddb\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono) (22:55)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll just take some advice. The principle on which we\u2019re operating on\u2014because I know that we\u2019re moving into new territory here in terms of the way that we\u2019ve approached both tonight and yesterday as well\u2014is what we have done here is tested the will of the committee in terms of those targets. I do take your point\u2014we have voted so time\u2019s not going backwards, folks\u2014around difference in terms of those targets, and we will be more mindful of that in the future. We\u2019re going to move ahead now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002687\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002247cdb8d4257a32271ba94be175e27b39\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, sir.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002688\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222cfea0fa4348b8023e42cfe9f781eb29\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order\u2014is this a new point of order? Go for it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022 data-id=\u0022c0fa24edce4382b2b332227352b8df35\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002689\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c0fa24edce4382b2b332227352b8df35\u0022\u003EHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (22:57)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, it is. Just in response to that statement that you made there, Mr Chair, and not relitigating your comments there but there was something there that I would like you to clarify, please: you said that we\u2019re entering new ground. When the Speaker made his statement yesterday in the House , there was an exchange of points of order between myself and the Speaker and then Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan also contributed to that. Those points of order were to seek an important point of clarity, that the Speaker\u2019s statement was not a ruling; it was not a new direction to the House, rather a clarification of what already existed so, for our full understanding of what you\u2019ve just said to the House, if you wouldn\u2019t mind please explaining what you meant by entering new territory, please.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022 data-id=\u0022ba52af785d3a997f5ddfe454054c356b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002690\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ba52af785d3a997f5ddfe454054c356b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono) (22:57)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, what I meant by that is that we are taking guidance. These were grouped in a particular way; we did test the will of the committee and it was found that because of that, we did need to move forward. What I meant was in terms of the territory moving forward is that if, on reflection, we need to be a bit more considered in terms of groupings, that will be done. I mean, we can only move forward. I guess the point has been made that there needs to be a focus more on engagements from the Minister and there has been engagement from the Minister, and also conduct from members as well, for us to get a more fulsome debate; for there to be a more fulsome debate because that is the expectation of the public that are watching us at home, as opposed to us spending quite some time on voting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002691\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThat is the intention and that is the guidance that we are trying to trying to move forward here, so I\u2019m going to move on to Part 2. This is a debate on clauses 33A to 34, \u201CConsequential amendments\u201D and Schedules 1A and 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u0022a934295ab73ed5db500ca7708a61f64f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002692\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a934295ab73ed5db500ca7708a61f64f\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (22:59)\u003C/span\u003E: Part 2 contains consequential amendments to other legislation. These are either changes to the name of the healthy futures order or purely technical drafting changes. As I mentioned in the earlier debate, the change to the name of the Act is following the coalition agreement with New Zealand First. The amendments proposed in my Amendment Paper are changes to the name of the Act, and the scope of this debate is therefore in my view quite limited in terms of those issues.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b7cff05e64f346e68983b2fdbfba3ad8\u0022 data-id=\u0022eda3ef078df5419d891c32b3a893a4d4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002693\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b7cff05e64f346e68983b2fdbfba3ad8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022eda3ef078df5419d891c32b3a893a4d4\u0022\u003EDAN BIDOIS (National\u2014Northcote) (22:59)\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002694\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225b20faab337304ad7baf6743b3febf35\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Just a note for the member: to call for a closure motion at the beginning of a debate is disorderly, OK\u2014just so that people know.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022042daad5066656229b79bc20f776129f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002695\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022042daad5066656229b79bc20f776129f\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (22:59)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I think I\u2019m more interested because Part 2 has an additional section that\u2019s been added to it that I can\u2019t seem to find within the commentary from the Health Committee, unless I\u2019m missing something.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002696\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe amendments to the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Alcohol Levy Order is something that\u2019s not part of the original bill and has been added. I just want to check the Minister\u2019s clarification with Schedule 1A: other than referencing the previous title, what additional changes are there? That\u2019s my first question. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002697\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second question is, noting that, in terms of the consequential amendments, this is something that looks like it\u2019s been added on, are there or is the Minister aware of any other bills that potentially have not been captured in the title change? I also note that in the Minister\u2019s Amendment Paper 562, Schedule 2, which is, I would assume\u2014let me just double check, so I can get the clause number correct\u2014section 34, which is also part of Part 2, also identified one, two, three more areas where the title is changed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002698\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think this partially goes to the original question by the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall, which is: what is the cost of that name change and how many more\u2014because now it seems like there\u2019s one, two, three, four more that have been identified as a part of this. What happens if more get identified once this bill goes through Royal assent?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u0022198d7142417974fd8bcedc7505c95654\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002699\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022198d7142417974fd8bcedc7505c95654\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (23:01)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just briefly picking up on a remark that the Minister made at the beginning of this Part 2, he noted that the name change was in relationship to a coalition agreement with New Zealand First. Could I ask the Minister whether he sought any advice on whether people\u2019s material outcomes would change in any way or form due to this name change?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022e8c80b5aab0d9e1fde04676cf54a1892\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002700\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e8c80b5aab0d9e1fde04676cf54a1892\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (23:02)\u003C/span\u003E: Just very quickly, because I see that the Minister is receiving some advice: as the Minister receives advice, just seeking if it\u2019s OK with you, Madam Chair, that we can allow the Minister to respond to questions if we move on to the next section?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u0022697a422b7a2328a8731b92cfcf450033\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002701\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022697a422b7a2328a8731b92cfcf450033\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (23:02)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the members for these questions. As I said at the start, these are consequential amendments primarily relating to the name of the legislation, which follows the coalition agreement with New Zealand First, and the amendments in the Amendment Paper that I\u2019ve tabled relate to some name changes, as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002702\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002703\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002704\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002705\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002706\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002707\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ff672da923c21ec364091fe6330a816b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: H\u016Bhana Lyndon\u2019s amendments to Part 2, set out on Amendment Paper 637, are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002709\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002710\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002711\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002712\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002713\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002714\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 2 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002715\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cb0bf29376f8f80f744883629c021c2d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Moving on to Schedule 1. H\u016Bhana Lyndon\u2019s amendments to Schedule 1, set out on Amendment Paper 637, are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002716\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s tabled amendment to Schedule 1, removing brackets around the words \u201CPae Ora\u201D, is out of order as not offering a serious alternative form of words.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002717\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s tabled amendment to Schedule 1, replacing \u201C18 months\u201D with \u201C24 months\u201D in clause 50, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002718\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002719\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002720\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002722\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002724\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002725\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002726\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002727\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002728\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002729\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002730\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227e1fc35c27c786815309c2ddce656721\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Schedule 1A: H\u016Bhana Lyndon\u2019s amendment deleting Schedule 1A, set out on Amendment Paper 637, is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002731\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Schedule 1A be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002732\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002733\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002734\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002735\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002736\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 1A agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002737\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d019c20b36c61be58c6c57da8e3afcc4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Schedule 2. The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Schedule 2, set out on Amendment Paper 562, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002738\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002739\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002740\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002741\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002742\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002743\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002744\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bf3d0cd0f77567374ccd89a3b4370b56\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: H\u016Bhana Lyndon\u2019s amendment replacing Schedule 2, set out on Amendment Paper 637, is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002745\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s tabled amendment to Schedule 2, removing brackets around the words \u201CPae Ora\u201D, is out of order as not offering a serious alternative form of words. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002746\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002747\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002748\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002749\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002750\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002751\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 2 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002752\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022bee45978b27d0607f57d0f3b58ab4ceb\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002753\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f474769de9e1cfb8e6afe8f3f4311ed1\u0022\u003EClauses 1 to 3\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002754\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f822206cb2f00556d84e3edddc6aef3a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to clauses 1 to 3. This is the debate on clauses 1 to 3, \u201CTitle\u201D, \u201CCommencement\u201D, and \u201CPrincipal Act\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u002243ca6173fbdacbdaf42d94c67cd5ed57\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002755\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002243ca6173fbdacbdaf42d94c67cd5ed57\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (23:10)\u003C/span\u003E: As has been traversed throughout this debate in regards to the title of the Act, this is in relation to the New Zealand First - National coalition agreement in relation to the naming of legislation. This Act is being amended as part of this bill to reflect the coalition agreement, and it states that the Act comes into force the day after Royal assent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022 data-id=\u002290fbbd1a6c2bd57b2429a50eb46ce7f4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002756\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002290fbbd1a6c2bd57b2429a50eb46ce7f4\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (23:11)\u003C/span\u003E: The debate, so far, has traversed a number of issues that point to a deterioration in the consensus around key elements of healthcare in New Zealand, and a move towards an ideological approach from the Government to silence sources of opposition within professions in the health system, to remove equity for M\u0101ori in order to focus the health system on a narrow set of outputs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002757\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill is passing, under urgency, just a few months from a general election. My question is: why is the commencement date the day after the Royal assent, when, really, such a controversial piece of legislation\u2014this is its second amendment of the legislation, and there is another one planned on the same Order Paper\u2014should be coming into effect after the general election? It\u2019s evident that the bill aims to set a long-term direction for the health system that the Opposition, and the highest polling party in New Zealand, is not comfortable with.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002758\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo the only decent thing for the Government to do would be to let this go to voters, because if you talk to New Zealanders, you will know that they are not interested in this petty war against M\u0101ori that is being prosecuted through this bill; they would like to see a health system that recognised them as people. They would want to see that values are pursued through the health system, such as focusing on prevention, on clinical governance of services, on making sure that the staff are well looked after. But this Government has not listened to the submissions made at select committee around values that are common in our community, and are reflected in our healthcare professions and workforce. So the date of commencement should be deferred to six months further in the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022 data-id=\u002242b6d775cf6622aa4e25362b7bdfe675\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002759\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002242b6d775cf6622aa4e25362b7bdfe675\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON (Green) (23:13)\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EKia ora, Madam Chair. E mihi atu ana ki a t\u0101tou i t\u0113nei p\u014D.  \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002760\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThank you, Madam Chair. Greetings to us all tonight.\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002761\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI absolutely support the question around commencement, and want to also query the change in the name. When we see the degrading of the use of te reo M\u0101ori within this House, and now we see the change in this name from Pae Ora (Healthy Future) to Healthy Futures (Pae Ora), \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Eko te p\u0101tai k\u0113, n\u0101 wai? [] M\u014D te aha? He mea kore whakarongo ki te reo o te M\u0101ori ki roto i ng\u0101 tono, an\u014D mai i ng\u0101 ratonga hauora me ng\u0101 matanga reo.\u003C/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThe question, instead, is who did it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002762\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EWhat for? It is a matter of not listening to the M\u0101ori voice within the submissions, and, also, from health services and language experts.\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002763\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s the p\u0101tai that comes deep from within me\u2014why are we seeing this petty meddling of the use of te reo when the vision of Pae Ora was a gift? It was a gift from health leadership to the kaupapa and giving effect to Wai 2575. Pae Ora is where the mauri sits for this legislation, as a t\u016B\u0101papa for healthy families, communities, and healthy individuals. The \u201Chealthy futures\u201D component of it was the whakatinanatanga of it, but Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) was the vision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002764\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo my question to the Minister is: why? Why are we seeing this petty undermining of the use of te reo M\u0101ori within this legislation, knowing that we heard from submitters that this was a koha\u2014a koha\u2014to our Government of the day to capture the vision and the heartbeat of where we were heading for a health system that provided equity for all?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022 data-id=\u00221a1f31effef6f4689f39cf3106c7609d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002765\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221a1f31effef6f4689f39cf3106c7609d\u0022\u003EHon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (23:15)\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003ETino tautoko i te k\u014Drero a H\u016Bhana Lyndon. Kei te tika tana k\u014Drero. Kei te takahi i runga i t\u014D t\u0101tou reo M\u0101ori. E m\u014Dhio m\u0101tou ki te whakaaro o te Minita o te tari M\u0101ori. Kei te tautoko ia i t\u014D t\u0101tou reo M\u0101ori. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002766\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EVery much in support of H\u016Bhana Lyndon\u2019s statement. Her statement is true. It is trampling on our M\u0101ori language. We are aware of the opinion of the Minister of the M\u0101ori department\u003C/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003E. He supports our M\u0101ori language.\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002767\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy k\u014Drero is\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002768\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229d5b13d601794bb282d99453116ad395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002222f3e41bec0328bc5317ab89fc9c69f5\u0022\u003EHon Tama Potaka\u003C/span\u003E: You just build those houses!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002769\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f63d440099976515ad60f2af27b49589\u0022\u003EHon WILLIE JACKSON\u003C/span\u003E: How can the Minister for M\u0101ori Development sit by and support this type of legislation? I said in the House yesterday, and the Speaker took offence: why was the Minister speaking M\u0101ori when he was talking about M\u0101ori organisations, when New Zealand First don\u2019t want that? But the Minister keeps talking about these organisations and using M\u0101ori names, and quite clearly, this Government has buckled to Winston Peters and New Zealand First, and said, \u201COh, all right, we\u2019ll give up the language and we\u2019ll give up our fight for the reo.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002770\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Minister and this Government are in charge of trying to get 1 million M\u0101ori language speakers. That\u2019s a responsibility of this Minister over here. Here we are changing the title. Why is this Minister buckling? Why doesn\u2019t this Minister show some courage? I mean, Minister Potaka shows selective courage in the House. He stands by Winston Peters and he says all these M\u0101ori names, and then when I challenge it, I get told off by the Speaker. I can\u2019t work that out\u2014I can\u2019t work that out. All I\u2019m saying is why is Tama Potaka using M\u0101ori names for M\u0101ori organisations when we\u2019ve got this Minister here who shows no courage in terms of keeping the M\u0101ori name for our Pae Ora kaupapa? It is an insult to te ao M\u0101ori, it is an insult to M\u0101ori language strategies, and it is an insult to the Minister for M\u0101ori Development that you would change this name. It is so sad to see the way this kaupapa has been turned upside down, the way our M\u0101ori organisations have been insulted by this Government. It\u2019s been so sad seeing so much of our M\u0101ori initiative being watered down.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002771\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo I ask the Minister: why did you do this? Why is our reo being belittled, being reduced, and has the Minister for M\u0101ori Development said anything? He\u2019s saying to our people out there that we\u2019ll get 1 million speakers. How can we get 1 million speakers when we have an organisation that gets its name changed because it offends Winston Peters, because Winston Peters is upset, because there\u2019s just too much te reo M\u0101ori? It is a shocking, shocking decision from this Government, a once-proud National Party that in Government would never have buckled to this sort of rubbish. No wonder Chris Finlayson is insulting the party, no wonder Chris Finlayson is saying that M\u0101ori-Crown relations are at an all-time low\u2014an all-time low\u2014so much so that the Minister\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002772\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d8b95b6044740a28d2250c5fde7b8c51\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Jackson, can you come back to this bill. You\u2019ve got a bit wide.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002773\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002208bb5855b7603559cffa283269a72296\u0022\u003EHon WILLIE JACKSON\u003C/span\u003E: I was always coming back to this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002774\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d52c571cdb246f6abf50a39de1a66f7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ec8cff1c3dda8c44d3a32d9248e2976f\u0022\u003EGlen Bennett\u003C/span\u003E: About the name?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002775\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002221ca95702a28934e8f71e4c389d5db70\u0022\u003EHon WILLIE JACKSON\u003C/span\u003E: The name! The name is terrible\u2014what a terrible name. Thanks for that reminder. What is the name of this bill, actually? It\u2019s called the\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002776\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b7cff05e64f346e68983b2fdbfba3ad8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228352677a06b0b0fb8e3c66b62257d195\u0022\u003EDan Bidois\u003C/span\u003E: You don\u2019t know?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002777\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ae59a954083203c4fc1fa2a159c422b0\u0022\u003EHon WILLIE JACKSON\u003C/span\u003E: No, it\u2019s some stupid P\u0101keh\u0101 name\u2014yeah, that\u2019s right, that\u2019s right: \u201CHealthy Futures\u201D. That\u2019s right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002778\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWhat a terrible, insulting name in terms of te reo M\u0101ori. Madam Chair, you might feel I\u2019m going off the topic here, but M\u0101ori communities, M\u0101ori organisations, Te M\u0101t\u0101wai\u2014which the Minister for M\u0101ori Development, Tama Potaka, is in charge of\u2014are stunned by the Government\u2019s lack of courage with regards to this. I ask the Minister again: why has he buckled to Winston Peters? Why can\u2019t he hold fast to a M\u0101ori language strategy that has been put in place not just by the previous Government\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=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u0022cae15985d3cd3757584ccc5079a5845c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002779\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cae15985d3cd3757584ccc5079a5845c\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (23:20)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. In response to the member\u2019s questions in relation to the title, I\u2019ve already outlined the reason for the change in the name of the title. In relation to the question about the commencement, the bill comes into force the day after the Royal assent. It has been through a select committee process and it is now up to Parliament to progress the piece of legislation, and that is the democratic will of how this place works.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022 data-id=\u002263c7d01cbfba171ae0ab8135715d90c4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002780\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002263c7d01cbfba171ae0ab8135715d90c4\u0022\u003EDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader\u2014Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori) (23:21)\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EKa tautoko au i te wero ki t\u014D t\u0101tou Minita. Ka tupu au ki Taranaki, \u2018e mokopuna o te muru rautapu. K\u0101ore \u2018e w\u2019enua, k\u0101ore \u2018e reo, k\u0101ore \u2018e hauora. N\u014D reira i mua i a koe, ka tukua te mana o Pae Ora ki t\u0101 t\u0101tou kaupapa. N\u014D w\u2019akapapa, n\u014D mana.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002781\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EK\u0101ore te k\u014Drero e p\u0101 ana ki t\u014D t\u0101tou ingoa anake; he mana, he wairua, he mauri kei raro i t\u0113r\u0101 kaupapa. N\u014D reira ka tono au ki a koe, kia maumahara mai. E kore ng\u0101 reo i t\u0113nei taonga, ar\u0101 ko Aotearoa. He iti t\u014Dku reo, engari ka rongo au i t\u0113r\u0101 kaupapa, Pae Ora. M\u014Dku, kua mana i \u014D t\u0101tou wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, iwi, Aotearoa katoa.  \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002782\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EKua wehe ng\u0101 ingoa, kua wehe ng\u0101 wairua o Aotearoa. Koir\u0101 te wero kei a koe.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002783\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EI support the challenge to our Minister. I grew up in Taranaki, a grandchild of the confiscation. No land, no reo, no wellbeing. Therefore, before you, the power of Pae Ora is being passed to this initiative of ours. No genealogy, no authority.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002784\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThe discussion is not merely about a name; there is power, there is soul, there is life under that programme. And so, I ask you to remember that. The voices of this treasure\u2014of Aotearoa\u2014will not be lost. My voice is small, but I feel for that programme, Pae Ora. For me, it empowers our families, hap\u016B, iwi, and all of Aotearoa.  \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002785\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThe names have been disassociated, the souls of Aotearoa have been disassociated. That is the challenge that you face.\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002786\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen you take our reo, you take our mauri, our wairua, and the w\u2019akapapa of that kaupapa. It\u2019s not just a name. It has mana. It\u2019s a mana that you\u2019ve been bestowed to look after as our Minister, as my mokopuna\u2019s Minister, as their mokopuna\u2019s Minister. Nowhere else do we get to hear this. When you make a decision, you stand up and \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Ekati te k\u014Drero, ehara te k\u014Drero e p\u0101 ana ki t\u014D t\u0101tou ingoa anake\u003C/span\u003E [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003Estop talking; the discussion is not solely about our name\u003C/span\u003E]. \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EHe mana, he mana nui ki t\u0113r\u0101 kaupapa.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002787\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThere is mana, a lot of mana in that subject\u003C/span\u003E].\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002788\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225dc1ae04a95cd8f0fb20c3ebd289f7f4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: H\u016Bhana Lyndon\u2019s amendment to clause 1 set out on Amendment Paper 637 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002789\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002790\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002791\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002792\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002793\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002794\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002795\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222ab1cd5818358e75e57b044ab9207317\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing \u201Cthe day after Royal assent\u201D with \u201Ca day set by Order in Council\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002797\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002798\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002799\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002800\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002801\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002802\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002803\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002804\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002805\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002806\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002807\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002808\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002809\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c346445832e6edb2413415ba900f377e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: H\u016Bhana Lyndon\u2019s amendment to clause 3 set out on Amendment Paper 637 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002810\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002811\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002812\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002813\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002815\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 3 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002816\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill to be reported with amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002817\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHouse resumed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002818\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002251daf0e35a4077ba7494bb9eea2efb59\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the report be adopted\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002819\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002820\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EReport adopted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002821\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002297e1da6bf7962a94adc7469fea0a5d6a\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002822\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e44044ed36c45abea4f2af3e2cd86b16\u0022\u003EThird Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u0022c39aaf53a7df54881df7e16c5caa65eb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002823\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c39aaf53a7df54881df7e16c5caa65eb\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (23:28)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill be now read a third time\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002824\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is a privilege to rise for the third reading of the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill. This is a bill New Zealand\u2019s health system needs to bring clarity to its purpose under this Government. It is a key step in delivering the Government\u2019s promise to put patients first and to ensure that every New Zealander can access timely, quality healthcare when and where they need it, from a health system that is accountable for its results.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002825\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealanders might think this is not a controversial idea. The bill is, after all, only asking the health system to do what New Zealanders would reasonably expect it to do. However, when this Government came into office, we inherited an under-performing health system, long wait times, delayed infrastructure projects, distraction, and a clear lack of accountability in our health system. Our Government has been focused on fixing the basics and building the future, and this bill is one part of moving from a system focused on processes, bureaucracy, and a system which would have simply been restructured during the middle of a pandemic, the very worst time to have thought about restructuring a system, to one focused on delivery, clarity, and accountability.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002826\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBefore I get into what the bill does, I want to thank the people who have made it possible. I want to acknowledge the Health Committee and particularly chair Sam Uffindell for his guidance of the committee, and also the many stakeholders, health professionals, and members of the public who made submissions on this important topic. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002827\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere are a number of key changes that this bill does. It focuses the health system on what should be its main purpose: patients receiving timely and quality care. The bill introduces a new statutory purpose for the Act to guarantee that all patients have access to effective and timely health services. Every decision Health New Zealand makes will now be anchored in this purpose. The bill also repeals the health sector principles and charter. New Zealanders do not need a 16-page charter that omits the word \u201Cpatients\u201D but mentions \u201Cunions\u201D 11 times. All I can say about that charter is that I hope the previous Government did not spend too much money developing it. The Government requires the health system to put its efforts into better experiences for patients, shorter wait times for cancer treatment, and of course, meeting our elective surgical wait times. More kids being immunised, shorter wait times in our emergency departments\u2014that is how to make a difference in our health system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002828\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOf course, when this Government came to office, we had had a previous Government in which its first action, when it came to office after the 2017 election, was to remove the health targets, and for the following six years, we saw performance in our health system decline. The number of people waiting for elective surgery ballooned; the number of children fully immunised, absolutely falling down; and of course, the number of M\u0101ori children, that went backwards significantly from about 90 percent down to around 67 percent of two-year-old M\u0101ori children. For all of the arguments from the other side of the House when it comes to equity and M\u0101ori healthcare, they have that responsibility, which they need to be remembered for. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002829\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EUltimately, we are seeing improvements against all of our health targets. We\u2019re seeing year-on-year improvement after years of decline under the previous Government. This bill helps to reinforce that and provide clarity by putting those targets into legislation and removing the lack of accountability, the pieces of the documents which were causing confusion and simply duplication, and refocusing the health system back on what matters. The health sector principles, for example, had been a recipe for confusion, outlining 21 different considerations for every decision maker needing to make a decision\u201421 different considerations that every decision maker at Health New Zealand needed to make. Instead, this bill legislates health targets focused on things that matter to patients. The targets also include a new target around primary care, which, of course, also substantially went backwards\u2014access to primary care\u2014under the previous Government. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002830\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill says Health New Zealand must deliver services efficiently, and also partner with private providers where appropriate to clear backlogs and increase access to services. A clear example of what this Government is doing is, when it comes to elective surgeries, partnering with our private hospitals to get more patients being seen in a faster manner so we can get through the wait-lists, get patients being seen, and actually mean that fewer patients are waiting in pain, and more patients are getting the care that they need. As I have said, no one lies on the operating table angsting about whether Government funding or private capital paid for the ceiling which they are looking at. They want to get fixed, they want to get on with their lives, and that\u2019s what this Government wants for them too. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill also strengthens Health New Zealand\u2019s focus on infrastructure, creates a permanent infrastructure committee appointed by the Minister so that health facilities are planned and delivered on time and within budget. I just saw some pictures from Health New Zealand today with cranes in the sky at the new Dunedin in-patients building; cranes in the sky because after six years under the previous Government of talk, talk, talk, we\u2019ve signed a contract, we have construction under way, and cranes in the sky getting things done. We are building the future of our health infrastructure under this Government. Under that Government, all there was talk, talk, and talk. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002832\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill strengthens governance and accountability, and accountability will no longer be optional but embedded in the legislation. The changes also strengthen the role of the Hauora M\u0101ori Advisory Committee. The bill ensures there is independent specialist advice on M\u0101ori healthcare that the board of Health New Zealand must take into account. That advice will have a national perspective and reflect local priorities through engagement conducted by iwi-M\u0101ori partnership boards. This bill is not about organisational charts, it\u2019s about making sure that we get the health services that New Zealanders need. This Government\u2019s focus on healthcare is clear and straightforward. The Government sets the priorities, Health New Zealand delivers the care, patients feel the benefits, the public sees the results. This is a Government focused on fixing the basics, which Labour broke, and building a future for all New Zealand. That\u2019s what this Government is doing. I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002833\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002248f0e142c0b25e7204ed8b4c6d493eda\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022 data-id=\u00221c9908be4ff187632db4cb4b2a112f81\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002834\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221c9908be4ff187632db4cb4b2a112f81\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (23:35)\u003C/span\u003E: This bill has been in committee of the whole House and this is now my first opportunity to speak more freely on the events of the day, or the week, and so this is my first opportunity to remark on recent events. I want to start my contribution by paying my respects to the person who lost their life in the Waikato emergency department in the early hours of Monday morning.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002835\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m sure all members of the House will join me in extending our condolences to the family who must be hurting right now. This person was seeking care and they should have expected to be looked after. I also know, from attending to many events of a similar nature during my professional work, that these events are distressing for bystanders and also for staff. As a health worker, I also understand that these events are a prism through which we can see the challenges our health system faces. It\u2019s individual stories like these that make up the reality of the health system experiences of New Zealanders. I am pleased Health New Zealand has announced that an investigation is under way, because understanding what happened helps families heal and accountability is also important. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002836\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill that we have debated brings into law an emergency department target that 95 percent of people are seen within six hours. The person in question waited more than nine hours for their care. This target has been in the Government\u2019s position statement on health for at least the last two years and the letter of expectation for two years. I\u2019m not sure what additional strengthening of the target comes from its inclusion in legislation. This direction has been communicated to the health system for some time, and contrary to the Minister of Health\u2019s contribution, it was a priority under the past Government as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002837\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFor two years, in fact, the Government has talked about very little other than targets. The target didn\u2019t get that man care. The target also did not staff the Waikato Hospital emergency department. Ask any doctor or nurse. There is a hiring freeze in Health New Zealand. Look at the Health Workforce Information Programme (HWIP) data. You\u2019ll see that the number of nurses across the last year has only increased 1 percent, when normal would be 3 or 4 percent. Ask doctors or nurses\u2014they\u2019ll tell you that when one of their colleagues leaves because they\u2019ve resigned, they don\u2019t automatically hire into the vacancy. They have to get permission from somewhere else.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002838\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnother thing this bill doesn\u2019t do, which the Government made a lot of bold statements about, is it doesn\u2019t give decision-making power to the front line. The most senior people in Health New Zealand\u2019s hospitals do not have the power to hire doctors and nurses\u2014those decisions are made at a regional level. That is a decision this Government has taken. The fact is that, if you\u2019re aware as the most senior person in a city the size of Hamilton, that you have an understaffing problem in your emergency department, you, as the most senior person in that hospital, can\u2019t act on it without someone else\u2019s permission. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002839\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI note also today\u2019s reporting by Radio New Zealand news that the planned 117 job cuts that were due to be cut in Te Manawa Taki\u2014the Health New Zealand region that includes the Waikato, the central North Island\u2014those have been cancelled just today. The bill doesn\u2019t lock into place the things people need for good care. Though it sets targets, it doesn\u2019t protect front-line clinicians as the Government promised was a priority when it came into office. In fact, just today, we\u2019re finding out that job cuts to front-line clinicians have been paused in the region where this death happened.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002840\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe have said multiple times in this debate that Labour supports targets, that sometimes we think that they should be, in fact, more ambitious and representative of our health system, but let\u2019s not pretend that they do things they don\u2019t. The targets that the Government has implemented, the milestones for them have not been met. I don\u2019t believe they\u2019ve been met for a single one of the targets in a consistent way since they\u2019ve been implemented. We now have almost two years of data.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002841\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe previous speaker made a lot of bold statements about the values of targets, but who are we kidding? It would be deeply cynical if targets were used as a rhetorical device, as a shield, that when things go wrong in the health system\u2014and the reality is that it goes wrong often and people get hurt often\u2014they are just used as an opportunity for a Minister to turn around and say, \u201CWell, I have the expectation that targets be met.\u201D and not take responsibility for the fundamentals of delivering care, not take responsibility for proper staffing of our emergency departments, for making sure our clinicians have the right equipment, for making sure the physical infrastructure is appropriate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002842\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETargets have their place, but let\u2019s not overstate them. Let\u2019s not state that they are the be-all and end-all of making progress and improving our health system. The core to delivering healthcare is the people who deliver it. I was so proud to be one of the New Zealanders who work in our health system for over 20 years. I did the best things I ever did in my life in that job, looking after people at times that were really, really difficult. I never once thought of myself as a public servant, though I did Public Service every day.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002843\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill has put this bizarre concept of Public Service neutrality over the clinicians that work in our hospital. Many submissions to the Health Committee from professionals in our hospitals raised concerns about this bringing a chilling effect, that it\u2019s intended to stop doctors and nurses and other allied health professionals from speaking out when things go wrong in their hospitals. My message to them is it is your professional duty to do so when you see circumstances that are unsafe in public hospitals. Clinicians, whether you\u2019re a medical specialist or a nurse aide, all of you see things in our health system that sometimes go wrong. I do not endorse a culture that means suppressing what they have to say, covering up, making them feel that they can lose their job. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002844\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Minister pointed out that one union\u2019s contract has protections for their members to be able to speak out, but what about the tens of thousands of nurses who work in our health system who might feel gagged by provisions in this bill? Sadly, abominable things happen in healthcare sometimes and they must be spoken about. As politicians, why would we want to see these things suppressed and not surfaced? Why would we want to be in a position where we are saying we want to weaponise targets against these workers and then blame them when things go wrong, rather than accepting that in a democratic country, one of the jobs we do is provide the resources to the health system that it needs to be able to care for people? There is so much effort to silence healthcare workers from their duty to advocate through this effort to draw them into the cloak of Public Service neutrality, which is an absolute joke. Other Crown entities don\u2019t have this requirement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002845\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMany of the provisions in this bill are incredibly divisive. They are an example of an ideological project that has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare, an effort to go into petty belittling of M\u0101ori, of making their language go second in the title of the bill, rather than first, as it was. It is unbelievable to me that we have spent 12 months in one way or another debating that, as if there weren\u2019t more important things to do, like getting on with looking after people. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002846\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo the doctors and nurses, pharmacists, lab technicians, allied health workers of all stripes, our care and support workers who work in our health system, I want to say that we hear your concerns and that speaking up is an important service you provide for New Zealanders. To the people who are accessing care and having challenges accessing care, there are better days ahead.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022 data-id=\u0022bb51620d1b3e6ec6a0fc9caffe2cdfc8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002847\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bb51620d1b3e6ec6a0fc9caffe2cdfc8\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON (Green) (23:45)\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003ET\u0113n\u0101 koe, Madam Chair. T\u0113na an\u014D t\u0101tou katoa. E mihi ana ki ng\u0101 mate o te w\u0101, me te tautoko i ng\u0101 mihi ki te wh\u0101nau e pani nei i t\u0113nei w\u0101 tonu ki roto i te rohe o Waikato. E tino tautoko ana au i ng\u0101 mihi a taku rangatira, a Ayesha Verrall, ki t\u0113r\u0101 wh\u0101nau, otir\u0101 ki ng\u0101 kaimahi o te h\u014Dhipere, r\u0101tou katoa e noho ana ki raro i te kapua p\u014Duri.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002848\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThank you, Madam Chair. Greetings again to all of us. I acknowledge the recently deceased, and support the acknowledgements of the family that is bereft at this time in the Waikato region. I really support the acknowledgements of my noble leader, of Ayesha Verrall, of that family, indeed, of the staff at the hospital, all of those who are now under the dark cloud of grief.\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002849\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt pains me that we\u2019re at this point now for Healthy Futures (Pae Ora). I spoke earlier about the gift and the koha of what Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) was. That gift from T\u0101 Meihana Durie is something that we cannot understate when concepts such as mauri ora\u2014healthy people; wh\u0101nau ora\u2014the health of the wh\u0101nau; and wai ora\u2014healthy environments are now belittled and downgraded in a system that was intended to embody health as a taonga, recognising that wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, iwi M\u0101ori communities can\u2019t be just passive participants in the health system but we all want to be a part of leadership. We want to be contributing. We want to be a part of supporting a sustainable health system where everyone benefits, because there is enough for everyone to succeed if we focus on what\u2019s important. What\u2019s important is the health and wellbeing of today but also the health and wellbeing of our mokopuna for tomorrow. The safeguards that Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) had in place included Te Aka Whai Ora and Te Whatu Ora working as a waka hourua, a double-hulled canoe paddling forward with a shared vision for better health outcomes for all New Zealanders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002850\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s not what we\u2019ve got now. We\u2019ve seen the way that Te Tiriti provisions have been undermined by this Government over and over through legislation and now we see it coming to fruition once again with Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) where there is the demeaning, undermining of iwi-M\u0101ori partnership boards, an outcome of Wai 2575, where the foundations of the report and the recommendations were brought forward in a K\u0101wanatanga trying to be honourable and upholding what the Waitangi Tribunal recommended by creating and establishing iwi-M\u0101ori partnership boards to work hand in hand in strategic commissioning of services for rohe alongside the health services but also alongside local government and other sectors that can come together in one t\u0113pu localities with local wh\u0101nau voice feeding up into the health system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002851\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s all gone, and now we\u2019ve got this elevation of the Hauora M\u0101ori Advisory Committee. They had their first meeting, the Hauora M\u0101ori Advisory Committee and iwi-M\u0101ori partnership boards, on Monday. That\u2019s the first time that they\u2019ve met. The single voice, the sole voice for M\u0101ori now sits within this advisory committee to the Minister and iwi-M\u0101ori partnership boards presented their truth and what they have been doing on the ground to Hauora M\u0101ori Advisory Committee. I hope that this new legislation and new powers that the Hauora M\u0101ori Advisory Committee has will now be resourced to be effective, that they may be powered up to work alongside iwi-M\u0101ori partnership boards to provide genuine feedback and voice of iwi M\u0101ori from within the system, from within wh\u0101nau voice, and that those insights matter and will go somewhere.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002852\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I want to really reflect on the way that we had a system that worked with kaimahi, with unions, and with community to build up this thing called Te Mauri o Rongo. Te Mauri o Rongo, as our New Zealand Health Charter, charted a plan. It set out the way with which we had shared values, principles, and expectations for the way that everyone would work together, but also that you would be a safe kaimahi; that you would be a safe patient or t\u016Broro; that you as a wh\u0101nau, coming into the system, would see a connected, strong, and collaborative health system. Te Mauri o Rongo represented that shared voice, now diminished in the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002853\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI really worry as to how our kaimahi voice can be heard. We already know that there could be potential chilling impacts on the voice of kaimahi as they see things in the system when political neutrality is on top of them\u2014that they are required to be politically neutral. But when \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Eka kite te tangata i t\u0113tahi mea h\u0113, e tika ana me k\u014Drero\u003C/span\u003E [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003Esomeone sees something wrong, it is only right to speak up\u003C/span\u003E].\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002854\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EMe k\u014Drero, me tohe m\u014D te hauora o te iwi, m\u014D te hauora o te t\u016Broro, m\u014D te hauora o te wh\u0101nau.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002855\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EYou should speak up, and should fight for the wellbeing of the people, for the wellbeing of the patient, for the wellbeing of the family.\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThose are the failures of what we\u2019re going to see. This bill doesn\u2019t address the core system issues and challenges. In fact, as submitters have shared, these fundamental changes really undermine the approach in looking at the wider determinants of health. The original Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act tried to bring together an interconnected sector approach where we looked at environmental issues; where we thought about social cohesion and the way that we could bring in different providers to work together and to look at what were the issues in a community, and what were the solutions. The commitment to equity and shared decision making was clear in the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act\u2014but that\u2019s not so clear now. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002857\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs we\u2019ve heard, and as we see time and time again, it\u2019s about the widget, it\u2019s about the target, and it\u2019s about working hard to achieve the target. As we reduce down the focus of our workforce, of our providers, and of our system to now a target focus, it risks really missing the point in the wider hauora of those that come into the system and are looking for support. You\u2019re driving towards achieving something, but you\u2019re missing the conversations that could reveal more\u2014that could support the health and wellbeing not only of the patient, or the t\u016Broro, but also the wider wh\u0101nau and those who are best to deliver the services and support for the wh\u0101nau at place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002858\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThose are the issues that are coming forward. We heard it in the Health Committee\u2014we heard it in the select committee, where unions, kaimahi, hauora M\u0101ori, the sector came forward and said, \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003E\u201CMe t\u016Bpato. Kia t\u016Bpato koutou.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E We have failed to hear those cautions and the amendments that were proposed in the legislation\u2014which were quite reasonable, and yet we continue to be told, \u201Cno\u201D. We continue to be told \u201Cno\u201D because it\u2019s not about what the evidence says; it\u2019s not about what our research is telling us; it\u2019s not about what the health leadership is telling us. It is a political ideology that is fundamentally changing the way that our health system will deliver for our people. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002859\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI query the outcome focus and whether it is more driven towards the stats and making sure that our charts look really good, and we\u2019ve got the good pie graph, and it\u2019s going to look awesome. But actually, are we really seeing, via the stats, the genuine picture of health and wellbeing for community, for our rohe, for the wider region, and then for Aotearoa\u2014let alone populations most at risk, those that are vulnerable, whether you\u2019re takat\u0101pui, whaikaha, w\u0101hine, migrants, refugees, M\u0101ori, Pasifika? Without the statutory strategies, where is the joined-up opportunity for us to see those dedicated supports and goals, and something that the workforce and providers can move towards together? Instead, \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Eka t\u014Dp\u016B\u2014ka t\u014Dp\u016B\u003C/span\u003E\u2014we\u2019re mainstreamed, and we\u2019re given a chapter. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002860\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s the issue. It\u2019s a hard one to stomach. I acknowledge the health leadership that are watching now; I acknowledge those who are on the front line who we\u2019ve met and who continue to share their concerns. Because what is \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Ehuarahi m\u014D te ora o te tangata, te hapori, o te iwi\u003C/span\u003E [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003Epathway for the health of the individual, the community, of the people\u003C/span\u003E]?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002861\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s in the palm of our hands, and as honourable k\u0101wanatanga, that\u2019s the p\u0101tai. How much more can we see in the way that we degrade and undermine a health system that should be there for all?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221a30b7d60a03452cb9b736efc6896cdb\u0022 data-id=\u0022fb3d952f6d40409200be2e00aba57f73\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002862\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a30b7d60a03452cb9b736efc6896cdb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fb3d952f6d40409200be2e00aba57f73\u0022\u003EDr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT) (23:55)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I\u2019m very pleased to take this call to support this bill on behalf of the ACT Party. This bill is to improve the effectiveness and accountability of our public health system. This bill brings the focus on delivery and outcomes, which is so important in our health system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002863\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe previous legislation that this bill replaces\u2014that bill introduced race-based criteria into board appointments and service delivery, and we believe that is wrong, because in the healthcare system, it should be about need, and when it comes to the appointment of board members, it should be about skills and experience. ACT campaigned on these changes because we believe healthcare should be based on need, not race. Every patient deserves timely, quality care, regardless of their ethnicity. That is why we are really pleased to support this bill. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002864\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002221ecfd933cebf6e5b01981ff85254f95\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, it is time for me to leave the chair. The House is suspended until 9 a.m. tomorrow.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002865\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterItalicsCentred\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 11.56 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002866\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a825e5a059b8d6bc3b5f27657fc00869\u0022\u003EUrgency\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002867\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d7496d3025475837d964f1932e7bbda4\u0022\u003EThursday, 2 July 2026\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002868\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a0a3360cd125ee0e1343f5da16707f07\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002869\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c797f91c68cb71fd212878f52f2f33ef\u0022\u003EHealthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002870\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00224b8a50dec76979fd3cfeec8fa58b7d6a\u0022\u003EThird Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002871\u0022\u003EDebate resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002872\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f81aaec89a75df850933dfbb5bfb1399\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Good morning, members. I hope you are all well rested. I think some of you were here when I left last night, I hope you\u2019ve been home. When we finished last night, we were debating the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill. We are up to the third reading, call No. 5, which is a New Zealand First call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d92a09db28c44070bbfdcc9f0e6f3cca\u0022 data-id=\u0022be866073a30e016c76f08651e0055e85\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002873\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d92a09db28c44070bbfdcc9f0e6f3cca\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022be866073a30e016c76f08651e0055e85\u0022\u003EJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) (09:00)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I\u2019m pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill. This is a very common-sense bill because it puts clinical need back at the heart of our health system, and this bill focuses on the health system delivering for patients. It\u2019s the priority that will flow down through this amendment bill. It will introduce statutory health targets, and it will ensure patients receive timely access to quality services. There will be improved fiscal management of physical assets and the reinforcement of political neutrality across the health workforce.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002874\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAlso, I\u2019m pleased to see that the name has been changed to Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill. We have a general coalition commitment with National to put English first. So, for that, I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022 data-id=\u002217f1ade8cd3ee26502b5711237e2e2c8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002875\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002217f1ade8cd3ee26502b5711237e2e2c8\u0022\u003EDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader\u2014Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori) (09:01)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori stands in complete opposition of the gutting of our M\u0101ori health equity, M\u0101ori Te Tiriti - focused achievements that had spent many years, decades, of credible research, starting from, obviously, T\u0101 Mason Durie and the realisation that in order to address a holistic health need in Aotearoa that required a system that didn\u2019t just have a clinical focus, that had a holistic focus on \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Etaha wairua, taha w\u2019\u0101nau, taha hinengaro, taha tinana\u003C/span\u003E [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003Espiritual health, social health, mental health, physical health\u003C/span\u003E].\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002876\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnd it\u2019s taken a lot of years to get the acceptance of what a proper health system in Aotearoa required. So, obviously, we\u2019re gutted at the fact that we\u2019ve gotten so close yet so far\u2014because of the terminology I just heard a minute ago, and that is because of \u201Cpolitical neutrality\u201D. Political neutrality, political appetite, political agendas have gotten in the way, sadly, of what should have been a thorough journey to address the needs that we have as a nation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002877\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is well known, the inequities that M\u0101ori face through no fault of our own. We don\u2019t face those inequities because of race. We face those inequities because of displacement. We face those inequities because of historical muru raupatu. We face those inequities because of a lack of trust and because of a lack of any connection to a health system that is designed for us, without us. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002878\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EImagine if we had the opportunity to establish the M\u0101ori Health Authority\u2014Te Aka Whai Ora, Pae Ora legislation without the hang ups, politically, that we had seen in the last six to nine years. Imagine if we were able to establish a M\u0101ori health commission and we were able to holistically transfer funding and appropriation of funds that was able to address, at scale, the needs that we have. Imagine if we decided to invest $5 billion at least into addressing the inequities that M\u0101ori and Pasifika people are facing. Imagine if we were able to make sure Te Tiriti was entrenched and bound into legislation so we didn\u2019t continuously have this whiplash of debating that continuously goes on in this House about M\u0101ori.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002879\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EM\u0101ui P\u014Dmare said in 1919, in fact in this very House, that during the Spanish influenza, he witnessed the marginalisation, the suffering, the death of many of his people through no fault of their own, but because of poverty, because the social determinants, poor housing, because of the fact that we had, again, a system enforced on us that left M\u0101ori out. We saw some of that during COVID when M\u0101ori had to stand up for themselves because the one-stop shop approach of the public health system at the very beginning, left us behind. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002880\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is with that that I ask our people to remind themselves that in November you have a choice. To all our hauora providers, to all our kaimahi who have been laid off, to all of our academics and our advisers who have been told not to use the word \u201CM\u201D for M\u0101ori or \u201CE\u201D for equities, in November you have a chance to invest in a proper health system by looking at the manifesto of the very parties who are asking you to vote for them. To look at manifestos that would entrench Te Tiriti, that would invest in free dental care, that would invest in free medication delivery, that would invest in M\u0101ori hauora at scale, that would invest in establishing a M\u0101ori health commissioning agency, that can\u2019t see any of these entities that use their political agenda to wipe out the progress and the future of ourselves. To protect data, M\u0101ori data, and ensure accountability, to build workforce and system capability and stop our health workforce from leaving the country, to invest in mental health and addiction services, to focus on prevention.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002881\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe had the opportunity. We lost it because the big parties wouldn\u2019t invest in scale and be bold. That is what we need in this country, to stop using M\u0101ori as what you want when it comes to elections, but not what you will invest in at scale. We have the opportunity in November to repeal and bring back a health system and legislation that we can be proud of here. \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EKia kaha\u003C/span\u003E to our wh\u0101nau out there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u0022adeb490aaf04a6063e171e7151a32bce\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002882\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022adeb490aaf04a6063e171e7151a32bce\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (09:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you so much, Madam Speaker. Like many other contributors, I wanted to start by acknowledging that Pae Ora\u2014Healthy Futures isn\u2019t just a name. It was a new vision for a health system that was gifted to us by T\u0101 Mason Durie, where we had a holistic vision where people, wh\u0101nau, and the environment were treated as components that all led to good health.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002883\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat I\u2019m concerned about in this debate is, and I particularly wanted to pick up on the Minister of Health\u2019s first contributions to outline why I find this particularly problematic, is that we\u2019ve got a bill that as the Minister spoke about claims to be, you know, \u201Cfixing the basics and building the future\u201D. And yet, part of this bill is simply undermining the place of te reo M\u0101ori in the language of legislation. How does that fix the basics? How does that actually improve patient outcomes? I heard so much sloganeering in the Minister\u2019s contribution without actually outlining to us how people\u2019s material realities will be improved as part of this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002884\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s, I think, particularly concerning, because we\u2019ve got a health system that is under humongous strain. We\u2019ve got health workers that are calling out to us that they\u2019re facing unsafe working conditions. And yet, when you look at the provisions of this bill, one of the particularly concerning components is the political neutrality elements of it, which, as submitters and public health experts noted, actually have a massive chilling effect on our health workers being able to raise issues that the Government of the day may not be addressing, or may be doing that maybe undermining their work. And this, I think, particularly raises the question, why is this Government treating health workers as the potential antagonists? What are they so concerned about of health workers actually using their voices to raise issues around health policy changes or whether the status quo is working that they need to put elements in this legislation that would effectively gag them from being able to raise these concerns? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002885\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt concerns me because it means that this Government may be potentially treating the very same health workers that are delivering the targets in this legislations as their enemies. I think this should not ever be the case for any Government. A Government should welcome clinicians and health practitioners being able to raise concerns, being able to speak the truth, being able to go out and talk about the concerns that they have with Government policy or what\u2019s happening on the ground and the experience that they\u2019re seeing. We should not be using the guise of political neutrality to prevent them from being able to actually address this. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002886\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn the Minister\u2019s contributions, he thanked submitters, yet what I am seeing in the select committee report and the lack of adequate changes to this is that submitters were all in all, frankly, ignored, particularly public health experts that submitted on this bill, experts that noted that the downgrading of our Te Tiriti obligations, our downgrading of addressing the determinants of health\u2014whether they\u2019re social or environmental\u2014and the downgrading of even just addressing inequities that, as the previous speaker noted, have been embedded into our health system through historical violence that will not be addressed simply by slapping a bunch of targets into primary legislation. Ultimately, like I said, the people who are in charge of meeting those targets are the very same workers that are currently being undermined in this legislation as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002887\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also want to, frankly, talk about this Government\u2019s issue with unions. The Minister noted in his contribution that unions were named in the legislation multiple times as if it was a bad thing. Well, those unions\u2014particularly in the health sector\u2014have been critical at shining a light on the issues that patients face. Patient safety, ultimately, is a staffing issue as well. If we\u2019ve got healthcare workers in unions highlighting to us that the workers are facing unsafe staffing conditions and those very same workers are unable to meet the needs of their patients, you would want to, if anything, empower that worker voice as well as empowering patient voice within our health system. I do not see this happening under this legislation. I would invite members of the House from the Government side to talk about how this bill materially benefits everyday people, as opposed to just going back to their same old slogans and pretending like switching languages around in a title will do anything but continue undermining M\u0101ori-Crown relations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022297bc572c27f45308dffb067ca3e7915\u0022 data-id=\u0022027ca511b05880e24662d80e05356418\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002888\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022297bc572c27f45308dffb067ca3e7915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022027ca511b05880e24662d80e05356418\u0022\u003EDr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National\u2014Ilam) (09:11)\u003C/span\u003E: Excellent, It\u2019s a great honour to speak in support of the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill in the third reading. We\u2019ve just had the challenge about how this is going to affect everyday life of New Zealanders. We\u2019re introducing health targets so we can get better healthcare for our patients. That is why we\u2019re passing this bill. I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022 data-id=\u0022076bee9e91b3459ff423b189e72277fe\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022076bee9e91b3459ff423b189e72277fe\u0022\u003EHon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (09:12)\u003C/span\u003E: I think it\u2019s an appropriate time to talk about some of the M\u0101ori contribution in terms of health in this country. I was listening to Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, and she was spot on with all of her k\u014Drero, and I\u2019m happy to tautoko that. The challenge in terms of the big parties is about the investment, is about the devolution in terms of funding, and is about supporting kaupapa M\u0101ori initiatives. This bill clearly does not do that\u2014it does not do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002890\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI was thinking about all the wonderful M\u0101ori health advocates through the years, and I was looking back\u2014we\u2019re in campaign time at the moment, so I\u2019m not looking to promote anyone, but, well, I have a young man standing in Ng\u0101i Tahu, Mananui Ramsden, whose auntie was one of our most foremost health advocates, Irihapeti Ramsden, and she did her thesis on cultural safety, which was quite ironic really. She\u2019s seen as one of the greats in terms of M\u0101ori health advocacy, and so relevant with this kaupapa where we are stripping away a lot of the safeguards in terms of tikanga M\u0101ori and in terms of te reo M\u0101ori.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002891\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI felt sad last night but very proud when I was listening to our former Minister Ayesha Verrall, but I felt sad when I was listening to the Minister waffle on like nothing\u2019s happened in terms of kaupapa M\u0101ori, tikanga M\u0101ori and all our advocates through the years who warn of the dangers ahead in terms of the health system. I go back to my uncle, Syd Jackson, who set up Turuki Health Care, which is followed on by Te Puea Winiata, who\u2019s the CEO today, and my cousin Ramari Jackson. That Turuki work has just been tremendous in terms of South Auckland, and I want to salute her, salute my uncle and my cousin. I want to look at Sir Mason Durie, who\u2019s mentioned all the time, quite rightfully so, and set up the frameworks in terms of mana motuhake and tikanga M\u0101ori within the M\u0101ori health system. His work has, again, just been cast to the side with the introduction of this bill. His son-in-law John Tamihere must be mentioned also, although people might look at him in a different way. His work in terms of M\u0101ori health\u2014as you know, Minister Potaka\u2014is undoubted, particularly in West Auckland in terms of Wai Health and the work that the Waipareira Trust has done in that area, which has just been magnificent in terms of lifting up our people. I salute my old mate JT, who has been at the forefront of M\u0101ori health. Riana Manuel, who was leading the M\u0101ori Health Authority, did some terrific work. So many people have been let down by this\u2014Professor Papaarangi Reid, a leading advocate in terms of kaupapa M\u0101ori initiatives and tikanga M\u0101ori initiatives; Dr Rawiri Jansen, who did a lot of work for us; Dr Mataroria Lyndon, H\u016Bhana Lyndon\u2019s brother. We have such a long list of M\u0101ori advocates in the health area. All of them could have walked into this place and did terrific jobs, and just in the last 48 hours, we\u2019ve heard Dr Lance O\u2019Sullivan warn us about the dangers of the health system in terms of M\u0101ori.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002892\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat we can\u2019t get over, on this side of the House, is: what upsets the other side so much in terms of our kaupapa? Why does it come to a point where we actually even have to change the name of this organisation so that Winston Peters or his supporters feel more comfortable? We\u2019ve got to the point, now, where we actually have to take the \u201CPae Ora\u201D name out of the legislation and make it subservient to the English k\u014Drero. It\u2019s so sad and so disappointing for M\u0101ori, who have not been able to fairly access the health system, not been able to achieve equity, and not been able to get support but have worked within the system, as they did with us in our term as we went about attempting to set up the M\u0101ori Health Authority to look after the needs of our people within the system. But, of course, that was quickly disbanded by this Government, who said, \u201CNo. We have the right answer for you.\u201D, and that answer is about M\u0101ori disappearing, M\u0101ori words, M\u0101ori kaupapa, tikanga M\u0101ori\u2014anything to do with M\u0101ori is chucked out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe heard the Minister last night: \u201CDon\u2019t you have an advisory board?\u201D Well, it\u2019s not good enough\u2014it\u2019s just not good enough. The Minister of Health calls it \u201CHealthy Futures\u201D while stripping away the very principles designed to make New Zealand healthier. This bill replaces equity with bureaucracy and compassion with key performance indicators. Patients don\u2019t need another restructuring; they actually just need a doctor sometimes. They actually just need to get in to see the doctor. You can\u2019t hit health targets by deleting the people who are working to reduce health inequity, and that\u2019s what this Government has done here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002894\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe problem with the legislation is that it confuses speed\u2014it\u2019s all about speed; it\u2019s not that we\u2019re not into targets; we\u2019re talking about targeting M\u0101ori; \u201COh, no, we won\u2019t be targeting M\u0101ori.\u201D\u2014with success. Fast isn\u2019t better if the sickest are left behind. We\u2019re removing M\u0101ori voices from decision making while claiming everyone will somehow benefit. A health system without equity isn\u2019t universal; it\u2019s unequal by design. You can\u2019t legislate away health disparities by pretending they don\u2019t exist. The Government says this is all about patients, yet it weakens the mechanisms created to hear the communities with the poorest health outcomes. Health isn\u2019t improved by rewriting legislation; it\u2019s improved by funding nurses, GPs, ambulances, and hospitals, which that Government seems to be so allergic to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002895\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ERemoving principles doesn\u2019t remove problems; it simply removes accountability. When you reduce M\u0101ori participation in health governance, you reduce the health system\u2019s ability to respond to M\u0101ori communities. This is what our people are saying. This is what they\u2019re saying in terms of the partnership boards that I want Minister Potaka to take some notice of: \u201CWe do not just want to be the mihi people. We don\u2019t just want to be the mihi men.\u201D\u2014like Minister Potaka over there\u2014\u201CWe want to contribute. We want to be in the decision-making area.\u201D That\u2019s what iwi partnerships are about. It\u2019s not about \u201CGet up and do your mihi, now shut your mouth!\u201D That\u2019s what this other side wants. We want to be able to contribute. We want to be we want to be the leaders, not the mihi people on the side just doing nothing. This Government is less about improving healthcare and more about rewriting the Government\u2019s ideological dislike of public health into law and pretending that it\u2019s a solution. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002896\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s been a privilege on this side of the House to support our people, to support our communities\u2014and not just M\u0101ori, because we always say that if you strengthen the M\u0101ori sector, then all New Zealanders will benefit. The other side don\u2019t seem to get their heads around that. They seem to be scared. They seem to think that if we\u2019re able to dilute, water down, get rid of M\u0101ori solutions\u2014by M\u0101ori, for M\u0101ori strategies\u2014then they, somehow, will appease and placate New Zealand. But they\u2019re not doing that. I invite them just to have a look at their own polls to get some validity in regards to that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002897\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf equity disappears from the statute book, it doesn\u2019t disappear from the emergency department. We\u2019ve all seen that tragic reality at the Waikato Hospital emergency department this week, and I\u2019m sure the whole House sends their aroha to that wh\u0101nau. An absolute tragedy in crisis that\u2019s happened down there. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002898\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Government keeps promising efficiency, but patients can\u2019t be treated with smart alec press releases from a smart alec Minister who has no idea about what\u2019s happening in our community, has no idea in terms of what M\u0101ori want and what people want. His speech last night was an absolute disgrace. I\u2019m happy to say that he might get applause from his Government mates, but our communities are disgusted with the rubbish coming from this Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002899\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA healthier future requires investment, not simply changing the words in an Act of Parliament. History won\u2019t judge this bill by how many clauses it amended, it will judge it by whether people\u2019s health actually improved. We vote against this bill because it won\u2019t improve public health, it just pretends to. Kia ora, Madam Speaker. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022 data-id=\u00225757d8085d987f14693e3810eae76590\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002900\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225757d8085d987f14693e3810eae76590\u0022\u003EDr CARLOS CHEUNG (National\u2014Mt Roskill) (09:22)\u003C/span\u003E: Clarity is power. The more clear you are about excepting what you want, the more likely you are to achieve it. This Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill provides a clear direction for our health system, ensuring a laser focus on delivering the results New Zealanders expect. Its purpose is simple: to ensure patients receive timely access to quality healthcare. We are here, fixing the basics and building the future. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fd2c9c3aa7974099bfcaac8ea7452994\u0022 data-id=\u0022394aa71479e317de66d4932c819bbd82\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002901\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fd2c9c3aa7974099bfcaac8ea7452994\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022394aa71479e317de66d4932c819bbd82\u0022\u003EHon JENNY SALESA (Labour\u2014Panmure-\u014Ct\u0101huhu) (09:22)\u003C/span\u003E: This Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill introduced by the Minister of Health represents a fundamental dismantling of the equity architecture built into the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act 2022. It does not improve health services. This bill does the opposite. It takes away M\u0101ori governance; it removes statutory equity obligations; it centralises ministerial control, silences health workers, and introduces perverse legislative targets, all while, at the same time, bypassing meaningful consultation with \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Etangata whenua\u003C/span\u003E M\u0101ori.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002902\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill passed second reading earlier on in March of this year, despite the overwhelming public opposition to it: 1,787 submissions were received, the majority of whom objected to this bill. The critics included M\u0101ori advocates, the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, the Mental Health Foundation, disability advocates, Treaty specialists, who all uniformly condemned not only the bill but the direction that it takes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002903\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Minister of Health also did not accept the invitation from the Health Committee for him to provide oral evidence on this bill, which indicates to us in this House that the Government, whose legislation we have before us, does not want to be scrutinised about this bill. The Labour Party strongly objects to the passage of this bill because it undermines M\u0101ori voice. It weakens Treaty commitments. It takes decision making far, far away from the local communities that it affects. It erodes the partnership between the Crown and its Te Tiriti partner in favour of an advisory bureaucracy. It binds future Governments with inflexible targets and it strips the legislation of M\u0101ori identity and wellbeing principles. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002904\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act 2022, which this bill repeals, was enacted following the Health and Disability Systems Review and the Waitangi Tribunal\u2019s Wai 575 Health Services and Outcomes Inquiry. That inquiry found that M\u0101ori health and equities were the direct result of persistent Crown breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. M\u0101ori average life expectancy is seven to eight years less than non-M\u0101ori. The economic burden of existing health inequalities and inequities is estimated at over $863 million per year. The Government\u2019s own regulatory impact statement concedes that the benefits of this bill are assessed as low, and any improvements are likely to be marginal. So why\u2014and I asked the Minister this question last night\u2014is the Minister of Health writing privatisation language into the objectives of the Health New Zealand Act at all, when the evidence from overseas shows that heavily privatised systems, especially in the United States of America, costs more, excludes more people, and it produces worse equity outcomes than universal public health systems like we have here in Aotearoa New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002905\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 13 of the bill actually writes in that our Act should consider privatisation and private providers, and this is privatisation creep coming into our public health system. This matters because universal public health systems are designed with access to health services according to need, while heavily privatised systems ration access according to insurance status and according to people\u2019s and families\u2019 ability to pay. For M\u0101ori people, for Pacific people, for our ethnic communities, disabled people, low-income families, and our rural communities, that difference is not abstract. It shapes whether or not people receive preventive care early or present later to hospital sicker, and it will cost us, as taxpayers, more money.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002906\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe do not commend this bill to the House. Our mokopuna will live with the consequences of the decisions made in this Chamber. They deserve a health system that honours Te Tiriti o Waitangi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227ef423fda7b143b890e93f8018529ebe\u0022 data-id=\u00228da409e412419aa544b2dd9dfae9c6bc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002907\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227ef423fda7b143b890e93f8018529ebe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228da409e412419aa544b2dd9dfae9c6bc\u0022\u003EGREG FLEMING (National\u2014Maungakiekie) (09:27)\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EM\u014Drena e te M\u0101ngai o te Whare. Ko te Pae Ora te kaupapa o t\u0113nei pire. Ko te Pae Ora te rautaki o t\u0113nei pire. Ko te Pae Ora tonu te ingoa o t\u0113nei pire. N\u014D reira ka tuku atu i t\u0113nei pire ki te Whare.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002908\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003E[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EGood morning, Madam Speaker. Pae Ora is the subject of this bill. Pae Ora is the strategy of this bill. Pae Ora remains the name of this bill. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022 data-id=\u0022085b3a25656be4ec97aeea7afd0a48e0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002909\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022085b3a25656be4ec97aeea7afd0a48e0\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert) (09:28)\u003C/span\u003E: Kia ora. I want to talk about this bill in terms of its direction of travel because I think it consolidates the feelings on this side of the House rather well. I absolutely loved hearing the comments made by the Hon Jenny Salesa yesterday because they spoke to my values. I am particularly concerned about this bill because it breaks the trust of a lot of New Zealanders. They\u2019re out there, working for the people who most need our help. It\u2019s not about a moneyed class; it\u2019s about everybody. This bill erodes so many good things, and so I want to talk about some of them, why people should worry about them, and why they should think about where they want to be in New Zealand in the next few years when they\u2019re at the ballot box.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, one of the issues that I have with this bill\u2014and I talked about it yesterday\u2014was a discussion about the targets. The Minister basically attacked me and suggested that I was belittling the targets that he\u2019d set as not appropriate. I wasn\u2019t belittling those targets. Those are all important targets to me, but the bill itself doesn\u2019t show New Zealanders a future where targets will be set actually on the basis of what\u2019s needed at the time. It embeds a few random targets.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002911\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere is no reason why you would put the target about cancer into the legislation but not put a similar target with regard to heart attacks in the legislation. That\u2019s just illogical. What we needed to see if we were going to look at a bill that made sense was a less arrogant approach of a Minister setting what he considered to be his reckons on what was important at this moment. It needed to be structural. It needed to have in it an ability to consult with people about what was the target at the time and to flex as one problem was solved and another was put into the list of targets. That is a good approach to legislation. This is not a kingdom run by a Minister. This is a system that needs to have the resilience of flex in it so that we can solve problems and we can keep solving problems. There are myriads of problems in our health system at present.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002912\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, one of the problems we saw was, yesterday, a terrible tragedy of someone dying in one of our emergency departments. It\u2019s a terrible thing. I just want to take a minute to say to the family that that was something that I will never forget happening. I will always remember it. I know that people on this side of the House will remember the failure that that was, in anyone\u2019s count. I know there will be an investigation done, but there was no way that that was a good result or an acceptable result.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002913\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat will help people in this country who deeply need support from their health system is one that tackles those real problems in a systematic and intelligent way, and that means thinking about things like equity and how we actually get an approach which helps people properly and equally, given their circumstances. That means we do have to concern ourselves with things like the eight years of different life expectancy for M\u0101ori. That\u2019s a complete failure. Each one of those people who dies eight years earlier\u2014that\u2019s a tragedy that should be on the front page, that should be reported by Radio New Zealand. Those are things we need to take account of, because they\u2019re real human beings. They\u2019re real tragedies to their families when those people die early. Our health system, it must address those things.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002914\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat should have actually been one of the things that was considered possible to prioritise in those targets. But, in fact, we get a random selection\u2014we get a completely random selection, which shows an unbelievable level of illogicality, arrogance, and, actually, just ideology. It shows an ideology that says, \u201CI will always know best.\u201D It shows an ideology that refuses to see the tragedy of all the deaths that aren\u2019t reported. All those people\u2014eight years of life taken away from a group of people because that has not been addressed properly. It\u2019s not moral that that hasn\u2019t been addressed. It\u2019s a big deal that it hasn\u2019t, and it needs to be a priority for New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I want to talk about the issue over the charter, because, again, this is something I did make quite a big deal about and I asked questions about of the Minister, and I was given this glib response that the charter that was embedded and has now gone, it didn\u2019t talk about patients. The charter is all about patients.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002916\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ab32b09663ea48b199aa59e4d88f77e4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221464af8552be707e1f367a7cc6df2aab\u0022\u003ETim Costley\u003C/span\u003E: It doesn\u2019t use the word once.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002917\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022655d06ee3adbea4e5442cf8abf68f52b\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE\u003C/span\u003E: Many systems that we need in this situation\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002918\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ab32b09663ea48b199aa59e4d88f77e4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224c1e02ad3b7d71772a579c1cf6644fa3\u0022\u003ETim Costley\u003C/span\u003E: It talks about unions 11 times.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002919\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225efcac2ee5277e43951da6bc14f1a583\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE\u003C/span\u003E: Now, I\u2019m going to answer the question, so rather than heckle, perhaps you could listen and I\u2019ll explain why it is that the charter is important to patients.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002920\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFunctional systems where the health workforce are engaged in a way, in their own value system, in bringing up issues and solving problems\u2014those are all incredibly important to our outcomes in health. People on this side of the House understand it\u2019s got to come from the workforce. It\u2019s incredibly important that the workforce participate. It is arrogant to think it can be top-down. It\u2019s never worked\u2014it\u2019s never worked. It doesn\u2019t work in our largest companies, and therefore they adopt different approaches. They involve workers if they want to make things change well. When it comes to care of people, who is better informed than the person holding their hand? Who is better informed than the workers committed to their care? Those are the people who understand how to make our system better. Those are the people who see the deaths in our workplaces.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002921\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is important, and it is a major difference between the two parties\u2014that one shuns the workforce, is contemptuous of their offering, treats them like they are automatons, and one understands that every workforce has a quality of actual moral engagement. The people who are our nurses and our doctors, they are committed to the wellbeing of their patients, and they need to be involved in solving the failings in that system, so it\u2019s incredibly important they commit to the values of that system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002922\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the things that they committed to, which I suspect was what was actually the decider for the Minister, is they committed to addressing the inequities, they committed to addressing and actually committed to the Treaty of Waitangi, and that would have been a red rag to a bull, wouldn\u2019t it? Imagine addressing the issues and the failings that have caused such systemic issues as the early death, by eight years, of a particular group. Wouldn\u2019t that be just a terrible thing to do? That\u2019s what people on the ground see and that\u2019s what they want to solve. But now we take away their participation in that by removing the charter. It was a well-thought-out charter. I read it. There was nothing wrong with that charter. It was going in the right direction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002923\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow I want to talk about clause 13, the privatisation clause. This commits our health system to looking at contracting out. Now, this may be the Trojan horse of this. While we all look over here at some stuff that\u2019s really important, this is an objective that is put into the legislation that is highly ideological. As the Hon Jenny Salesa said, this hasn\u2019t worked overseas. It\u2019s causing great, great concern in places like America, which has such wealth; people don\u2019t have decent healthcare. Is that the way we want to go? That\u2019s the way that the Government is taking this country. It\u2019s taking it towards poverty, despair, and death\u2014that\u2019s what it\u2019s taking it towards. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002288978fb9592a4911a8e47eae04d164f3\u0022 data-id=\u0022f1d22bac989557c6d847e58945f38337\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002924\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002288978fb9592a4911a8e47eae04d164f3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f1d22bac989557c6d847e58945f38337\u0022\u003EDr VANESSA WEENINK (National\u2014Banks Peninsula) (09:38)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to take a call on the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill. National is taking the health system back to sensible measures of actual performance, because we do know that when those targets were taken away, wait times blew out massively. It was incredibly frustrating, as a GP, to see the inability to get patients into the system when the system was not focused on making sure that patients were being seen. It\u2019s very obvious to me that this is a tool that works very well, as we see waiting times go down. As we are fixing the basics in the system, we\u2019ll build the future. I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002925\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 third time\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002926\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002927\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002928\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002929\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002930\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002931\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002932\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d316acb4feab9b7ba577a11819c84f60\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002933\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00220ff9ffaedff0717e759973c52d1f88d2\u0022\u003ERegulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002934\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e5ff5cfa22e95525fe3caceef3a18f95\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002935\u0022\u003EDebate resumed from 23 July 2025.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002936\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a5189682199c03d005d8264985eae40a\u0022\u003EPart 5 Amendments to Biosecurity Act 1993 and regulations made under that Act, and Schedule 3 and Part 3 of Schedule 4 (continued)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002937\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224fb8818422ee2ef515bed883520555ea\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill. When the committee was last considering the bill, we were debating Part 5. This is the debate on clauses 80 to 123\u2014amendments to the Biosecurity Act 1993 and regulations\u2014and Schedule 3, and Part 3 of Schedule 4.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u00228c6391560a3774a753f334bb514f8cf3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002938\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228c6391560a3774a753f334bb514f8cf3\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (09:41)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to ask the Minister of Agriculture, in consideration of the three Amendment Papers that he has tabled for the committee\u2019s consideration, whether there are any new amendments since the last time the committee considered his bill, or whether he intends to prepare any other amendments that will be introduced in the period today?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u002261108226c8435bc1f7b25804708324de\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002939\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002261108226c8435bc1f7b25804708324de\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (09:42)\u003C/span\u003E: The answer is no and no. It\u2019s just what we\u2019re debating now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022 data-id=\u0022b8a68d5c3dcefbf10546773f4013a0b1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002940\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b8a68d5c3dcefbf10546773f4013a0b1\u0022\u003EHon JO LUXTON (Labour) (09:42)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question with regard to clause 93, section 100I, where it talks about the change that\u2019s made with regard to a time limit of three months after a claimant has been notified of the final assessment of a claim to submit disputes to arbitration. Now, I would just like to question the thinking around why changing it to a three-month time limit? Because if I think about, depending on what the situation may have been, whether it was quite a traumatic situation for somebody\u2014if we think about, say, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EM. bovis\u003C/span\u003E as an example, where someone was denied, perhaps, compensation or something, and they were still quite traumatised by it, that three months to get themselves together to dispute that decision is not that much time. I\u2019m just interested to know why the Minister says that they chose three months as opposed to any other, perhaps six months or further. If the Minister would be so kind as to answer that, that would be great. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002941\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe next question that I have for the Minister is clause 99, section 111. Now, it talks about removing the requirement for an inspector exercising a warrant to be accompanied by a constable. I\u2019m just thinking about certain situations whereby safety could be paramount for those exercising a warrant, and I note that, in the explanation and the rationale for this change, we have a situation where it says, \u201CMPI inspectors are trained in the execution of search warrants.\u201D The reason that, perhaps, they\u2019ve removed the need for having to be accompanied by a constable is because it makes logistical and resourcing difficult for both the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and the New Zealand Police. I\u2019m interested to know that, if there is no longer going to be the requirement for an inspector exercising a warrant to be accompanied by a constable, what is going to be put in place to ensure the safety of those people? Because, potentially, you could be dealing with situations where people are quite upset and a bit volatile, perhaps not thinking rationally, so it\u2019s important for the committee and those watching to understand what safeguards will be in place to ensure the safety of those exercising the warrant.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u0022683a895906b05051b72f73291f66b4f9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002942\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022683a895906b05051b72f73291f66b4f9\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (09:45)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019ll just take the Minister of Agriculture to page 4\u2014I\u2019m at clause 94. I want to ask him about the removal from the original Act of section 100L(7)(b), which used to require levies made under the Biosecurity Act to be confirmed by an Act. This is a change to the way that levy-making powers will apply to the department and is a question about, really, what levies he intends this to apply to, given that the old power would have required Parliament to pass those levies, or at least confirm those levies, and that is an ordinary sort of levy-making power. Levies are more like a taxation power, and in this situation, we are guided by guidance from the legislative design committee. These kinds of levies that are being entirely decided by the department and not either by a Minister or by Order in Council are relatively unusual in our system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002943\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also want to ask him whether he intends them to be subject to disallowance in the normal way and how he intends for Parliament to assert its interest in levies which are charged in this way. It would be helpful if the Minister could give the committee an example of a levy which uses this power and will be changed in this way. I also want to ask him whether he intends for existing levies that were passed by the House in an Act to be able to be modified without an Act. Are there levies, which the House has considered in the past, which he is now extending the power to the department to change in future without Parliament\u2019s sort of secondary check under 100L(7)(b)?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002944\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also want to ask him what the mechanism for presentation is now that secondary legislation is recorded in a different way to when it was in 1993 when the original Act was passed, whether the only presentation is publication on the legislation website, or whether these sorts of levies are, in a standard way, circulated with the industry. Really, the question is: do industry stakeholders who will be levied get the kind of notification that you would expect when a levy is much more like a tax than a fee? The levy-making power here is broad. He hasn\u2019t narrowed it. So how will people know that they are being subject to the levy if it\u2019s not in a sort of primary legislation form, which is what is removing here. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u0022de690e4a4808a80b7939fb732d7b03e8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002945\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022de690e4a4808a80b7939fb732d7b03e8\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (09:48)\u003C/span\u003E: Just to help members, I thought this can be quite interactive. I thank them for their questions, which are helpful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002946\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn respect of the 3-month period, which was asked by the Hon Jo Luxton, this is merely to set a time frame so that the system can work very, very well. Ultimately, where somebody has had a decision made and they want to appeal, they will be aware of this as they go on, and it won\u2019t be a surprise to them. Often they will be quite prepared, but there have been examples where over a very long period of time, they get to come and appeal and, actually, it makes it a bit more of a challenge for the smooth functioning of this part of the Act. Where somebody does want to appeal a decision, they\u2019ll need to submit their appeal, but that\u2019s not the end of the process, because part of it continues to be interactive as they go forward. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002947\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt was supported, broadly, by many of the representatives of the primary sector, who would think that this is fair and balanced, but it doesn\u2019t mean that, actually, it is taking away the ability for people to appeal. It actually just focuses it, and it means that we get a better decision-making process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002948\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs far as the warrants are concerned, where there is a necessity for a warrant to be served, or some form of litigation, the need for a constable often can delay or create cost. The Ministry for Primary Industries will have the ability to judge different circumstances. There\u2019ll be many where they will judge that a constable is not actually necessary and it\u2019s very straightforward, but they will take their responsibility for staff and safety and so on seriously. Where they believe that a constable is required, as they have made an assessment, of course that\u2019s available to them, and so it doesn\u2019t say that one shouldn\u2019t be there; it just means that they don\u2019t have to be there on every single occasion. In some cases, warrants will be very, very uniform and very, very standard, and in others, the level of risk or concern may rise, in which case a decision is made to ensure the safety of all concerned. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002949\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn as far as the last question is concerned\u2014around levies\u2014across the primary sector there are many levies available to us. There is a process of consultation and engagement that works very, very well, but it is the judgment of the Government that having to come back and set levies in primary legislation takes up the time of the House that often can be better used. But that does not mean that the Government or Ministers are not involved in the decision-making process. It is not left to the department to do. They will do the work, and it\u2019s a very similar process to any other regulations that would be set. In the consultation, there are many safeguards that the Minister has to be assured of before a levy is set or can be changed, and, ultimately, I\u2019m advised that this is a regulation, and so the Regulations Review Committee has the involvement and should look at these, and so on. We\u2019re just taking away the change to a levy, where it needs to be set, from the time of the House, but there is still scrutiny both by Government Ministers and, at the same time, by members of Parliament through the Regulations Review Committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u002243bc373ede14363f895df9efa401918f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002950\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002243bc373ede14363f895df9efa401918f\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (09:51)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Good morning, Minister, and I\u2019m happy to have a back and forth, if that makes things easier.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002951\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m on clause 100, \u201CSection 114A amended (Application of articles or substances from aircraft)\u201D, under Part 5. Now, being removed is the requirement that there be a notification in a newspaper circulated in the area, and that seems logical and somewhat archaic in terms of the other options that are available to us now to communicate with people. What it is being replaced with is, in new section 114A(5), that \u201CA public notice must be published in 1 or more of the following ways, \u2026 (a) by \u2026 \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EGazette\u003C/span\u003E: (b) by publication in all major metropolitan daily newspapers\u201D, and I won\u2019t read them all out, but it goes through a number of options. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002952\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI wonder whether there is a risk, Minister, that if there\u2019s not one certain place where the public can go to be notified of when there are applications of articles or substances from aircraft, the least onerous option might be chosen. But it may not be the most effective one for communicating that occurrence to the public, and I ask what advice you may have got on that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002953\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen the other question is this. In terms of consideration of the risks of different substances in new section 114A(5B), it says, \u201C(a) the nature and significance of the matter required to be notified;\u201D, and it says that the chief technical officer must consider those, including \u201C(b) the characteristics and geographical spread of members of the public with an interest in the matter.\u201D Where is the guidance for technical officers making those determinations on which substances are of most concern or interest to the public, presumably because of their risk profile? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002954\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, what are the sorts of substances and articles that are being talked about here? Is there any sort of list of articles and substances? That may relate to my proceeding question, which is: what are the risk profiles of those substances, which ones are more of a problem if there is public exposure or exposure to another landowner\u2019s animals or plants, and how were those things delineated or advised on? Thank you. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u00227b61dd1658ca48864e12a717ae7c2f44\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002955\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227b61dd1658ca48864e12a717ae7c2f44\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (09:54)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaking to that clause 100, this is a matter of public interest, and so it would be useful for the Minister to clarify some of the points that my colleague Steve Abel has raised.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002956\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI want to ask the Minister why he didn\u2019t take the opportunity, really, to update this section more in line with the public engagement process which actually happens with the Government departments. This seems very bald on the face of it, compared to what, say, an organisation like the Department of Conservation does to engage with the public in an area where, say, poison drops are being done in bush. It is very useful for the department to do that\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002957\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229d5b13d601794bb282d99453116ad395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d88253a140af2611475843d703f6cbe4\u0022\u003EHon Tama Potaka\u003C/span\u003E: They do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002958\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022649b7b6efc3e3a85acf35dbfea6ab03b\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014it is very important for our conservation projects, and it is good that I hear the Minister of Conservation advocating for his department when they do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is a critical public service, and yet what\u2019s here in the Minister of Agriculture\u2019s updated amendment to this section doesn\u2019t reflect any of the good work that the department does to let the public know about why this is important, why, say, the dropping of a seed mash in an area will lead to an explosion of a pest population and why they must respond to that. It doesn\u2019t include any of the good engagement the department does with tangata whenua in relation to their land, of which they are kaitiaki. He could easily include, say, an exclusion from liability if those things did not happen, and that would be something that I imagine everyone in this House would be interested in supporting, but, instead, he has set a very old formulation, really, of this rule, which has then been updated just to allow for the gazetting and the way that you might advertise this in the paper. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002960\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is something which is a good story, and we want the department and the kinds of organisations that do this to be able to tell it and to reflect the actual situation on the ground where they do tell these stories. This looks like hiding behind a rule which is far back from the start line of what is actually happening in practice from our primary industries, where they work really hard to make sure that they have public trust and confidence in the system around using aerial drops in this way. So I want to understand what options the Minister considered when he was updating the public consultation and public notification requirements. The situation has change in 2026, and New Zealanders, I think, want to see conservation powers used in this way, boldly and publicly. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u002286e19792dd40e86c99c7e21279d4a352\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002961\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002286e19792dd40e86c99c7e21279d4a352\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (09:56)\u003C/span\u003E: In as far as what\u2019s covered and what needs to be notified or published, that doesn\u2019t change. That\u2019s in another Act, and that\u2019s not the reason for this very small amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002962\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut the last member\u2019s point about the public having an opportunity to be aware of what\u2019s going on, as the Act requires, is the reason for making the change, because, ultimately, the current section 114A(5) says, \u201Cin a newspaper circulating in the area in which the place is situated\u201D. There are very many fewer newspapers in New Zealand now, and so this is merely an update to say that there are a number of ways in which the department may inform people\u2014one or more\u2014and it\u2019s a judgment on the part of the department to make sure that enough information is provided so that people could know. In many provincial parts of New Zealand, there are no longer newspapers, and, indeed, many New Zealanders no longer get their information\u2014their truthful information\u2014from newspapers. There is a range of ways that they will do that, and so this is merely updating that section to say that there are a number of ways now that the communication with people who have an interest should take place. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002963\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESecondly, the House has done something like this on many occasions. There are many pieces of legislation that used to say that you had to post things to people, or you had to fax things to people. At the time that we updated those, we didn\u2019t go into the depths of what information should be provided. In this case, there is no change to the things that trigger the need to provide information to New Zealanders; we are merely saying that there are many ways to do that, including through online means. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022 data-id=\u0022e5f96ddc5511b0ed53349f24af49588e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002964\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e5f96ddc5511b0ed53349f24af49588e\u0022\u003EHon JO LUXTON (Labour) (09:58)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a question for the Minister in response to an answer he gave in response to a previous question of mine around the issuing of warrants. The Minister talked about the Ministry for Primary Industries, and, obviously, they will ask the police or a constable to support them, if they feel that they need that. But I\u2019m interested to know, in the event that they do need that, whether there is any criteria that they are going to use to judge whether or not they are going to need a constable, because people can be quite unpredictable in certain situations. Are they doing monitoring of those people\u2014I mean, what assessment is going to be given and what criteria will they follow to know whether or not they\u2019re likely to need a constable?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u0022c8d402fab069784bd2cfd55140bd5375\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002965\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c8d402fab069784bd2cfd55140bd5375\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (09:59)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I hope that the member is not suggesting that she\u2019s bringing in an Amendment Paper saying that we should be monitoring people. The answer to that is no, of course we\u2019re not, but, ultimately, the department has been doing these things for a very long period of time and they are skilled at it. They have obligations to their staff with regard to health and safety, and they take those seriously. This is merely saying that there will be situations where their experience and the knowledge that they have has shown that the use of a constable is not needed and, therefore, it would be an additional cost or delay, but they will also take their responsibilities seriously in situations where they believe there could be a need for them to have the ability to do that, and I expect that they would.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u0022a855f13e06cce5d63d97376b03419124\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002966\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a855f13e06cce5d63d97376b03419124\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (10:00)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just following up on that, your response to clause 100, \u201CSection 114A amended\u201D\u2014I appreciate that response. Obviously, I agree with the problem of the diminishment of the number of local newspapers being a sad loss for us as a country, but it\u2019s a fact of what\u2019s happened.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002967\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe requirement, in new subsection (5A), that \u201CA public notice must be published in 1 or more of the following ways\u201D: one of those is \u201C(c) by publication, either temporarily or permanently, on the Ministry\u2019s public Internet site\u201D. Shouldn\u2019t that be, Minister, an absolutely given\u2014that, at the bare minimum, it will always be published on the Ministry for Primary Industries\u2019 website? That seems the least onerous and least costly method of certain notification. Again, I think the problem is, given the multitude of methods by which this information can be communicated, there\u2019s a risk that there\u2019s not one certain place that is the total list of all the locations where there are going to be applications from aircraft. Why would you not have a requirement that, as a bare minimum, there has to be publication on the ministry\u2019s internet site, and the other options can be additional to that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u0022c51ec570be166dec00010cb56fab4592\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002968\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c51ec570be166dec00010cb56fab4592\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (10:01)\u003C/span\u003E: I know the member will be surprised to know that probably only he and I are the only two people in the whole country that spend all their time looking at the Ministry for Primary Industries\u2019 website, but, ultimately, there will be a range of areas they would want to do it. You know, if you think about it, rather than being prescriptive, we are saying that the ministry has an obligation to make sure people can be informed. At the moment, it\u2019s only through newspapers. We are giving them a range of tools to be able to do that. It would be my expectation, depending upon the activity, that they would choose more than one\u2014but we are deciding that, rather than being overly prescriptive, we\u2019re saying that they should use their judgment for themselves.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002969\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIndeed, the characteristics and geographical spread of members of the public with an interest in this matter would mean that, in some situations, it could just be a local newspaper, as is the case at the moment; in other situations, it could just be the ministry\u2019s website; or a multitude of those. I think we are able to trust the judgment of the officials and the department to take their responsibilities seriously. It is their desire that people know about this, not that they don\u2019t know, and, therefore, they will take their responsibility seriously.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022 data-id=\u0022e569811920b05df7187d6efa63df006f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002970\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e569811920b05df7187d6efa63df006f\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR (Labour) (10:02)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. It\u2019s the first time I\u2019ve spoken on this piece of legislation and it is a non-contentious one, but there are lots of very important issues in here. Part 5, of course, is relating to biosecurity. It\u2019s been consistently judged the most important area of, I guess, agribusiness concern. We do have to take the opportunity, in pieces of legislation like this, to tidy up the law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002971\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ECan I refer to clause 116; it\u2019s around compensation. There are some provisions here that are laid out: a person must make claim within one year\u2014fair enough; it\u2019s not payable beyond three years. I\u2019d ask the Minister, was consideration given to other areas or other provisions that might eliminate the right to compensation, because I know\u2014from experience, I know farmers who are forced to pay levies to tidy up areas of compensation, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EM. bovis\u003C/span\u003E being one of the obvious ones. How did this happen, who caused it, and what potential liability might lie around it for compensation or some other obligation to pay it back? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002972\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is whether anyone\u2014and I think the current Biosecurity Act does refer in a general sense to someone having contributed to the outbreak or incursion\u2014would possibly not be able to get access to compensation. The question here is, did the Minister or officials consider whether they should have used this piece of legislation to tidy up those provisions and make sure that anyone, any company or any individual, who may have contributed to a biosecurity incursion or cost or blow-out or whatever\u2014that that person is immediately exempt from or prevented from applying within the one- or three-year period for any compensation? Indeed, there is a real question there around, should there be litigation or court action? At what point in that one- to three-year period does someone remain still able to claim compensation if they have a possible charge coming up and they\u2019re deemed to be innocent, thereby, they\u2019re able to claim for compensation? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002973\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThese are the kinds of technical issues that you might say go beyond the remits of this bill, but, actually, this bill is for the tidy-up of these very types of provisions. So, the question to the Minister is: did he or officials consider the access to compensation for more than just a length of time, but, actually, whether it relates to any liability in the courts or the court action that may, in fact, give some guidance on that? It\u2019s a question for the Minister, again, in clause 116\u2014and I see that he\u2019s getting some advice. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u0022deec0522b37c5472004d76eba1b463da\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002974\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022deec0522b37c5472004d76eba1b463da\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (10:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Just on that one, because it\u2019s quite technical, I\u2019m advised that the clause\u2014some of the issues that the member raised, he is correct about: they are not as part of this bill, and whilst he\u2019s correct it\u2019s a tidy-up bill, some of those would go further than just tidying up and creating a clarification. So, they\u2019re not part of this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EHowever, I\u2019m advised that the clause merely gives directional clarity that says that compensation would be sought whether the powers that have been used have been used lawfully or not. It is suggesting, therefore, or saying, therefore, that if the department has used its powers, whether that be lawful or otherwise, somebody has a right to consider and seek compensation\u2014firstly. Secondly, as far as time frames are concerned, it is set up so we are able to work through these things in an orderly fashion and, therefore, it works on both sides. People understand their rights and obligations and the department does, as well. I am informed that it does interact with a court deciding liability or whether or not something has happened there. A court would have the ability to consider their case before the statutory time frame or limitation for compensation would kick in.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022 data-id=\u00227bf0ad336a846187a381f38baad398f7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002976\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227bf0ad336a846187a381f38baad398f7\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS (Green) (10:07)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, my question is around clause 115, \u201CSection 159A amended (Accelerated infringement notice procedure for border infringement offences)\u201D. I know the Minister has talked about the challenge of receiving information via post. We know that, particularly in our rural areas, we don\u2019t have a great postal service anymore. But we\u2019ve got here: \u201CIn section 159A(3), replace \u2018is deemed to have been served on the defendant when it was posted\u2019 with \u2018is treated, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, as having been served on the defendant when it would have been delivered to the defendant in the ordinary course of the post\u2019\u201D. This seems to open up a whole lot of discretion. I wonder, has the Minister thought about how that is going to be actually applied? Because it looks as though this could be applied in any number of ways\u2014it\u2019s just opened it wide open.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002977\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIt might be a small thing. It\u2019s dealing with, I understand, a challenge, when we can\u2019t rely on the post anymore, but surely there must be another way of giving some clarity about post, email, telephone call, or something that is there that gives us a bit more clarity, because this is wide open. I\u2019d like the Minister to see if there\u2019s something that can help us understand a little bit more about why that\u2019s so extremely wide. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022 data-id=\u002228b317acfe32d2639c9910330e820f64\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002978\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002228b317acfe32d2639c9910330e820f64\u0022\u003EHon JO LUXTON (Labour) (10:08)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to ask the Minister a question with regards to compensation. In a follow-up report from the Ministry for Primary Industries that was tabled in November 2024, it was noted that since 2017, there are over 3,500 compensation claims where a decision has been issued. I know that three have gone to arbitration, and legal costs of these can be anything between $200,000 and $1.5 million.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002979\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ENow, if the arbitration deadline in amended section 162A(6)(a) introduces a time limit for going to arbitration after a decision on compensation is made, could the arbitration time limit introduced effectively prevent claimants from accessing arbitration in situations where legal advice or funding is delayed? And could this disproportionately impact small-scale operators\u2014you know, farmers and growers\u2014because of this provision?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u00224bc9dfa0727b7ff7d02315f4ace25a11\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002980\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224bc9dfa0727b7ff7d02315f4ace25a11\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (10:10)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Just while the Minister of Agriculture considers that, I want to ask him about clause 101, amending section 116, which introduces some wider powers of removal for the officers undertaking search. The replacement subsection (1)(b) includes a container, so it\u2019s relevant to the Hon Damien O\u2019Connor\u2019s question when it comes to compensation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002981\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EEssentially, the Minister here is drawing the net wider for what can be seized and removed. Well, maybe not wider, but more explicitly to include, say, a whole shipping container in the situation where a small part of it might be contaminated with, say, pest species\u2014then, at the other end of the net, effectively, as the Hon Damien O\u2019Connor has said, hasn\u2019t closed down an avenue for compensation on that. You then have a broader seizure power, which opens the State up to essentially getting it wrong and essentially taking away too much of any given goods. I want to ask the Minister first whether this is standard practice, and so perhaps there have been real issues in the past where seizure has included an entire container, and then people have raised issues around the Government seizing too much, and that\u2019s why he\u2019s included the specific power, and then how that impacted upon compensation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002982\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI laughed when the Minister said, \u201COh, that\u2019s outside of a statutory bar, and this way would be outside of the ordinary tidy-ups in this bill\u201D. These ordinary tidy-ups are pretty extraordinary impositions on civil liberties that we all are enthusiastic about\u2014that we have a system that allows a lot of regulation in this area, and that is something which is broadly supported around this House. We need tough biosecurity laws, and we need a department that can respond very effectively and quickly and to have flexible powers. But something like introducing a statutory bar on compensation when you are drawing the net a bit wider and intentionally giving the department the ability to seize a large amount of goods from, look, a business owner who has imported them, who has imported them, who has incurred costs\u2014that is something that is being agreed to here, but wouldn\u2019t be an overextension of the powers if they worked together when you consider just how wide they are already in the primary legislation and in these powers that are being amended and extended. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002983\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to ask the Minister whether, first, is that common practice? I\u2019ll just quickly get in another question about the levy-making power. The Minister was very helpful in confirming that he\u2019s considered this. It\u2019s appropriate for the House not to have to consider every levy change\u2014I think that\u2019s broadly agreed\u2014but I heard him say that there would be limitations around the way that increase in levy-making power was used, I think. Is it his intention that that sort of increase in a levy by the department that wasn\u2019t moved through an Act would be, say, in an emergency situation like \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EM. bovis\u003C/span\u003E, when Government had to act quickly to increase its funding available for response? Or would it be the other end of that\u2014would it be a minor increase or a minor change to the levy which sort of escaped public notice and wasn\u2019t of much concern to anyone? I\u2019m trying to understand the limitations on that is important when making a change to secondary legislation in this way, given that it\u2019s a levy-making power which is broad\u2014not a fee\u2014and which is associated with actual costs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u00226519753efe16c09974e44ba5d08f4712\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226519753efe16c09974e44ba5d08f4712\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (10:14)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll deal with some of these now. In as far as the question from the Green member around post and so on, the change actually helps those who are to have the notice served upon them. At the moment it says that if it is put in the post, it is deemed to have been served. In this case, it\u2019s treated as if it is unless there is evidence to the contrary. In the case that a notice is posted to somebody and they are overseas at that period of time, the mere posting under the rules currently would say that they have received it, they\u2019ve been served; in this case, there could be shown to the contrary that shows they\u2019re overseas, it wasn\u2019t served, and therefore it actually hasn\u2019t taken effect. This is, in a way, a clarification that provides protection to those who are receiving a notice to make it fairer upon them. It won\u2019t make a lot of significant alteration, but it is, we think, fairer in that respect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002985\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn as far as the Hon Jo Luxton is concerned, the answer is no, it won\u2019t have a detrimental effect or an unreasonable effect upon smaller farm operators. We have considered that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002986\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFor the containers, it is a fair and important point. I thank the member for her enthusiasm for this part of the bill. I\u2019m glad we\u2019re moving through it quickly; I would hate for her enthusiasm to wane as we continue through urgency. But if you think of it from the point of view that everything we do in the Act is to protect New Zealand producers from pestilence or other things that could come across a border, there will have been situations where a whole container needed to be seized or detained. We are merely clarifying that under the law so there is no ambiguity. In the case that part of a container has a biosecurity hazard in it, it is not unreasonable to assume that other parts of that container may also therefore have been affected, or could be affected. The Ministry takes a precautionary approach, but not a heavy-handed one. The changes that we\u2019re putting in place, I think, are fair and are well balanced. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002987\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAlthough the member is right that we take biosecurity very seriously, this type of bill is merely to make smaller changes, not necessarily overly consequential ones, so the Act can continue to work and be enforced appropriately, rather than having to wait for a time when the whole Biosecurity Act itself may be changed. Some of the ways we are serving notices, these other clarifications, and so on are extremely important in the fair, smooth functioning of the Biosecurity Act, but in themselves would not necessitate an overall amendment or review of the Biosecurity Act, which would have an opportunity to consider many other things. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022 data-id=\u00227d45732c7832764098f4f504c0ee53c6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002988\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227d45732c7832764098f4f504c0ee53c6\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR (Labour) (10:17)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I refer to clause 106, \u201CSection 131 amended (Declaration of controlled area)\u201D. It is a very timely adjustment, but the question for the Minister is whether other things had been considered?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002989\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is the public notification process here, in this clause. An example might be Madagascar ragwort, which is a growing issue up in Northland, and I know it\u2019s been raised with the Ministry and the Minister himself\u2014that is, when do you declare a controlled area? It states here when you do, and the decision-making on whether it should or shouldn\u2019t is something I\u2019d hope the Minister is looking at. New subsection (3A)(a) says \u201Cby notice in the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EGazette\u003C/span\u003E\u2014a couple of people might read the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EGazette\u003C/span\u003E\u2014and paragraph (b) refers to \u201Call major metropolitan newspapers; they might read the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Herald\u003C/span\u003E up north, but not necessarily. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002990\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt does go on to say, in new subsection (3B)\u2014this is in notifying the public of what is a critical component of the Biosecurity Act and its workings\u2014how you notify the public: \u201CIn deciding which methods of notification are most appropriate in any particular case, the chief technical officer or management agency must consider \u2026 (b) the characteristics and geographical spread of members of the public with an interest in the matter.\u201D That\u2019s kind of fairly general. What we do have, unfortunately, from time to time in Wellington is omission of local newspapers and rags and community engagement. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002991\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022542599517341db710478fb8aacb33bac\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, we\u2019ve got one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002992\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f6c173a05fdfe33b8fee49a41bb93b06\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, we have. The question for the Minister is whether there should have been stronger recommendations to officials in Wellington, with all due respect to them, to ensure that, actually, the people who are affected\u2014and sometimes they go way beyond the local controlled area notice (CAN) geographical area, like people coming and going from Northland, for example, people in the forestry industry, or whatever, who may be contributing to the spread of Madagascar ragwort\u2014are informed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002993\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, it\u2019s not a controlled area notice, I respect that, Minister. But the question is if that occurs, are we sure that\u2014and this is a bipartisan piece of legislation but it\u2019s something that in reading through myself, I\u2019m thinking, and for a local newspaper on the West Coast who are constantly telling me that they don\u2019t get notification from Wellington for things that should have been passed through to local community, it is critical that this area is tidied up\u2014when a CAN is issued, every single conceivable area of communication is utilised?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002994\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo whether subsection (3B)(a) and (b)\u2014and there should be a (c) there saying: \u201Cand ensuring that every local method of communication, local radio, whatever, does receive notice of this controlled area notice.\u201D So the question to the Minister is whether he considers that this goes far enough and whether, perhaps, it should have gone a little bit further.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u0022a2d1d52b119ee21f918dbd50cd8443a1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002995\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a2d1d52b119ee21f918dbd50cd8443a1\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (10:20)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I think I\u2019ve answered similar questions four or five times on this section, but I\u2019m happy to reiterate for the member: this is merely recognising that, currently, it has to be through a newspaper, and, although, on the West Coast, there may still be a newspaper in many parts of New Zealand\u2014rural New Zealand or provincial New Zealand\u2014there are no longer those or they\u2019re not delivered. People get their\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002996\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002239187dd09214e002cad8f01d8627d47a\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: In the great city of Dunedin, there is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002997\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222f9eec78d5ed58289dc2ca874685469f\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY\u003C/span\u003E: Pardon me?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002998\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227ba074b262e552b1ef01c026f32c6134\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: The great city of Dunedin, there is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30002999\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022095f87a5d74f08db4575c92fb0bdd111\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s right. And there are a lot of sheep and cows in the middle of Dunedin that we need to control\u2014you\u2019re right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003000\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe point here is, though, actually recognising that people get information in different ways\u2014firstly. And then secondly, we want to ensure that the tools available to the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and biosecurity are there to inform people. But the members can be assured, given the seriousness with which we take biosecurity, that all means possible are used, particularly when there is a significant concern. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf we cast our mind back to the Psa\u2014a disease that hit kiwifruit many years ago\u2014it wasn\u2019t merely a newspaper where information was put out, it was all of the things that the member\u2019s talking about. So this doesn\u2019t say that the Ministry should just use one, it, actually, depending upon the security, says that they will use tools available to them to ensure that people are aware of their concerns and what their responsibilities are.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003002\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think it is well-balanced and will work, but it is merely giving them the flexibility to ensure that they can communicate adequately with the public, rather than, at the moment, it says you need to do it in a newspaper, and if there isn\u2019t a newspaper there, it is impossible to do that. Of course, they would do other things as well, but the Act requires them to use a newspaper and, perhaps, putting it in the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Herald\u003C/span\u003E could be a good idea, but it won\u2019t always find its way to Dunedin because it\u2019s largely a North Island newspaper, and I know what people are like in Dunedin.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022 data-id=\u0022bbc3f1dc1263b8e9b098d60135b57c66\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bbc3f1dc1263b8e9b098d60135b57c66\u0022\u003EHon JO LUXTON (Labour) (10:22)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a question with regard to clause 107, section 134 amended. Now, the one after section 134(1) insert (1AA): \u201CAn inspector or authorised person may permit a movement under subsection (1)(b) subject to any conditions that they consider to be reasonable in the circumstances.\u201D Now, when we\u2019re dealing with biosecurity and enforcement areas of controls and things like that, this can be quite a pretty serious situation, and I just wondered if the Minister had given anymore consideration to, perhaps, tightening up that wording or making it a lot clearer because when what someone considers to be reasonable, what someone can\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ab32b09663ea48b199aa59e4d88f77e4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ebb5b413bdfbaa375763e0ca17b1a412\u0022\u003ETim Costley\u003C/span\u003E: Covered in the select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022577c4f83127cf8c74bc168ac23668fd4\u0022\u003EHon JO LUXTON\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014take a call if you wish\u2014but what someone considers to be reasonable in a circumstance could be quite different to what another person might consider reasonable. So I just wondered if there should be a little bit more stricter or tighter type wording in there to give a bit more, I guess, beef to that clause.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u00223ca015c1db32237a40a60b616af81490\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223ca015c1db32237a40a60b616af81490\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (10:23)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to take the Minister to page 54. I\u2019m at clause 121. I\u2019ve just had a look through the Biosecurity (Form of Search Warrant) Regulations 2012 (SR 2012/277)\u2014I don\u2019t imagine this is something that the select committee would have sought advice on and I just want to make sure that\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002264fceb11f6690ec59f4de51ad80acf12\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: What clause is that again? Sorry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221d33aeb1ef724fa2efb8d628be6e3b06\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014that is clause 121, we\u2019re at line 26\u2014and the question for the Minister is: I\u2019m sure that the department is getting rid of these regulations because they weren\u2019t using them, but I want to ask him why they weren\u2019t using them? Because you have some things which, I think, would have been under a general police warrant and that would have been the appropriate sort of search, and then you have some things which the department is entitled to search without that sort of stipulated secondary legislation described form\u2014why was there something in the middle is the question. Why were there searches that were being done by the department that weren\u2019t prescribed in secondary legislation as a power that the department had? Or why were there searches that were not authorised by police that, you know, fall within the category of more serious searches and more invasive searches.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s no doubt that the department is empowered to search, but was it the case previously that the department was using its generalised search power without using the specific powers in the secondary legislation? I have no doubt in my mind that the secondary legislation was out of date; it required any number of disclosure of documents which are no longer relevant, but the question is: were searches done which were outside of the mandate of the department?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u0022a9ba92faf1e079f6843580856680c8f0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a9ba92faf1e079f6843580856680c8f0\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (10:25)\u003C/span\u003E: As far as the Hon Jo Luxton\u2019s questions or comments around an inspector and them being able to consider whether or not an activity can take place when there\u2019s a closure order: the point here is that the inspector\u2019s authorised people are trained and will have guidance and guidelines. It is not unreasonable for us to allow them to consider a situation where a movement of a person may be necessary, but at all times would be our expectation, and they would consider risk, in as far as biosecurity is concerned, the necessity of a person to do what they need to. And so, it is merely allowing that, so it is not unclear in law. There will be times when I\u2019m sure that it happened, but we just want it to be clearer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn as far as the issue of search warrants is concerned, the only place where primary legislation for the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), to that effect, has a search warrant in primary legislation is this area. And so we\u2019re aligning it with other things that they would do. It doesn\u2019t mean there wouldn\u2019t be a search warrant; it does mean that it would be there. These things will develop over time to provide information to make sure that they keep pace with the evolution of law. But it is the only part in all of the Acts that MPI is responsible for where a search warrant is under primary legislation as opposed to developed other ways. We\u2019re merely aligning it with everything else that is done.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022 data-id=\u0022efa28005d5f1980042a2024084b3cca0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022efa28005d5f1980042a2024084b3cca0\u0022\u003EHon JO LUXTON (Labour) (10:27)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Referring to the amended wording in clause 116, in section 162A(1),where it says, \u201Cin good faith (whether or not they are exercised lawfully)\u201D\u2014I\u2019m interested to know what checks and balances there are going to be in place there. So how are decision makers are going to distinguish between unlawful actions that are taken in good faith versus bad faith actions for the purposes of compensation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EPart 5 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002255cae32424714b64c0cc6db95a67dc06\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f9b0b1c205fc74e81b78506f836ba1a6\u0022\u003EPart 6 Amendments to Commodity Levies Act 1990, and Part 4 of Schedule 4\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f071e0993d48768b48906ffb04944aa4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: We now come to the debate on Part 6. Part 6 is the debate on clauses 124 to 130B\u2014\u201CAmendments to Commodity Levies Act 1990\u201D\u2014and Part 4 of Schedule 4. The question is that Part 6 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022 data-id=\u0022663139c1eee84e2d7390f1ec12bf3e94\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022663139c1eee84e2d7390f1ec12bf3e94\u0022\u003EHon JO LUXTON (Labour) (10:28)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to talk about the extension of levy orders from 5 to 6 years under section 13(2), as amended by section 127 of the bill. I\u2019m interested to know: what additional or strengthened oversight mechanisms are going to be introduced or are being introduced to ensure that levy organisations do remain accountable throughout this longer period?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EMr Chair? Thank you, Mr Chair. In section 13, as amended by clause 127, if levy bodies underperform or if industry conditions change significantly, what safeguards are there to ensure continued industry-wide consent and oversight?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u0022137aaf89cfbbf6c257f8784e3f465a36\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022137aaf89cfbbf6c257f8784e3f465a36\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (10:28)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you Mr Chair. As the proud chair of the best committee in this Parliament, the Regulations Review Committee, I regularly review and, the Minister will be happy to hear, I am very enthusiastic about commodity levies that come to the Regulations Review Committee for its approval.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to ask him about whether he has considered advice or amendments in this piece of legislation to the problem for the Regulations Review Committee when considering these levies, which is that, essentially, you know, they recognise that there is a free-rider problem in the industry\u2014where if the industry is doing really well, it is very difficult to share the costs of improvements, which benefit everyone, if some actors within an industry do not play along, so that they are empowered to use State power in this way, as set out by this Act, the Commodity Levies Act 1990, to share those costs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat is a good thing. It is good for \u201CBrand New Zealand\u201D. It is something with immense public benefit. But there is no point in the system, other than the Regulations Review Committee, where anyone who has a problem with the way that the industry has designed those levies\u2014in a way that benefits larger players within the industry\u2014to be able to raise a problem. We are the last cab off the rank, and you really have to know where the Regulations Review Committee is in its own little corner of Parliament to be able to raise those issues. People do. Often, they require pretty expensive legal advice to be able to do that, to be able to use that mechanism in Parliament, to be able to raise those complaints. It is not a good system, but it is the system we have. I\u2019m not proposing a new one, but did he consider any options to improve that mechanism?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere are many, many amendments in this Act which are about improving the function of secondary legislation now that we have a Secondary Legislation Act and a more universal system of publishing instruments under it. This is one where there are definitely improvements to be made in terms of who is a trusted person within the industry to be able to go to to raise these concerns. A number of other industry bodies have that kind of process\u2014whether raising complaints can be separated from the other sort of disciplinary mechanisms within these provisions, which allow industry bodies to sort of, in a soft way, punish people that bring complaints. All of that is something that, at the beginning of this section, would be helpful if the Minister would sort of consider and outline the advice he\u2019s taken on improving the situation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u0022b8fef7e7d40f516a6f23d545a6b8e4c5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b8fef7e7d40f516a6f23d545a6b8e4c5\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (10:31)\u003C/span\u003E: In as far as the extension of six years, a new levy order is already six years; an extension is five years, which is merely lining it up so that there is certainty and not ambiguity again. If a new levy order is set, it is for a six-year period. An extension is for five years. It actually will reduce cost and compliance and create certainty for those who are to pay the levy but also those who are responsible for the use of the levy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFor the last speaker\u2019s questions, ultimately, the decision of the Minister and therefore Cabinet to set a levy has a number of things that need to be considered. At all times, there has to be a vote, and, largely, Ministers have the ability to consider the weighting of the vote and whether or not the levy is fair and reasonable in as far as all players are concerned. There will often be those who have to pay a levy that will have a view of how it might be used differently, but levy groups and bodies are directed to engage with those who pay and their stakeholders very widely. There have been occasions where Governments, over a standard a period of time, have given feedback and have not always accepted a proposal to change a levy, to increase it, or for the levy-paying body to go back and consult further. I think the checks and balances are there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI would disagree\u2014I would argue that the Regulations Review Committee is not the last cab off the rank. It\u2019s a very important part of the process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224b92b0a26044ba6a072610347b855049\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: An important cab on the rank.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00227fdb49f8c4704c66b2c9f47f0d2d051d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227fdb49f8c4704c66b2c9f47f0d2d051d\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (10:33)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, and can I just agree wholeheartedly with the Minister and maybe not my colleague that her committee is very important and is not the last cab off the rank\u2014a very, very important committee. I\u2019m a proud ex-member of it, as are many people in this House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EBut, anyway, that\u2019s not my question. My question is about the application of the commodity levies to a range of different levies, so a range of different types of producing\u2014food. My questions relate to some of the terms used here. There\u2019s a reference to \u201Cfull season\u201D and also a reference to \u201Ctotal area of land\u201D. If the levy is applied to\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226884d8317d9ac4b3be365cb5688f5bbe\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: You got a clause there?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228caf77e226da4aa3f227f5b80050f5ad\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: In clause 125A, at section 5(1), I think\u2014is that where I saw it? Then we have \u201Ctotal area of land\u201D at subsection (3). But it\u2019s actually a very simple question, and that is: is, anywhere else in the legislation, a \u201Cfull season\u201D defined? Is that just a term that\u2019s running through? Is a full season\u2014there\u2019s a reference here to not beyond 12 months, but I presume a full season will be quite different in different categories that the levies apply to, and is any clarity needed on that? That\u2019s one of the questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThen \u201Cthe total area of land devoted to the production of the commodity\u201D\u2014not just food; other commodities. Is that also a phrase that is defined in the legislation already, and is that something that could cause questions or not? Are these commonly referred to phrases so the \u201Cfull season\u201D makes sense in each of those different levy categories, as does the \u201Ctotal area of land\u201D? Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u0022a75d61de18615f304a5752c58fb0408e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a75d61de18615f304a5752c58fb0408e\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (10:35)\u003C/span\u003E: This amendment allows some flexibility when measuring the weighted voting\u2014i.e., volume or value of product\u2014in support referendums. It allows industries to be able to more accurately measure support in the most effective and efficient way. For a levy order to be brought to a Minister to set a levy to increase it, the Minister has to be assured that it has support, and there will be different ways of considering this. This allows for a greater say. It actually refers\u2014probably it helps with the question earlier\u2014to those who are smaller producers, and for the Minister to be assured that, actually, an appropriate amount of support is there for him or her to decide to bring the request for a decrease in levy to Cabinet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EActually, as far as the questions are concerned, it is not necessary to state what a season is or areas of land and so on. From sector to sector, each levy itself\u2014separate levy, separate Act, and so on\u2014it will vary, from peony flowers to fruit to all sorts of other things and so on. It is very well clear and it is understood that a Minister would have to be assured, when those measurements are being used, or that category, that it does line up, and that would be advice he or she would receive.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u002214a227e082c544ea2568d97313a2ff15\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002214a227e082c544ea2568d97313a2ff15\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (10:36)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s interesting to see colleagues across the House clambering to articulate the value of their own committees when, of course, the Primary Production Committee is the best and most important committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022318654867e3cb1eb430b50a97304e0e4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: So many cabs on that rank now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022123e7309c5f6190092f0f5be2d31f3bf\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: But the k\u016Bmara doesn\u2019t speak of its sweetness, Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn this clause, Minister, 125A, I wonder, can you give us an idea of what in the legislation to be amended was the problem or the absence that these amendments correct? i.e., what was the issue that needed to be solved, or is this simply an articulation of the same principles in clearer language, or is there an actual material change in the basis on which commodity levies are dealt with through these amendments in all of the parts of clause 125A, amending section 5(1) through to (4)? Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u002268f363d4864d88a15fae13dacaed5219\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002268f363d4864d88a15fae13dacaed5219\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (10:38)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chair, thank you. Can I suggest that the Regulations Review Committee is to Uber as other committees are to a Lime scooter, so they do a very important job.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn effect, there is not a significant change. Levies and levy orders\u2014it works very, very well. They are well supported. You can look in many areas of significant production in New Zealand where the levy is used for research and science and other things to help the levy payers be better at what they produce, to meet obligations, and to improve production. The system works well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThese changes should be viewed as minor but ongoing improvement to ensure that the system continues to work well. It\u2019s not a change of direction. It is not a change of principle. It is merely, as an example, where, in one of the earlier questions, a new levy order is for six years and an amended and updated one is for five years\u2014to line it up so there is certainty. Every time there is a difference without it being purposeful, there can be uncertainty, and therefore could lead to cost.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is merely\u2014where you have a car, occasionally you will change things on the car to ensure it continues to work as well as it could. New tyres\u2014some of these are as important as new tyres on a car.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022 data-id=\u0022d20d7c6160800642051dc6c66f0ed95c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d20d7c6160800642051dc6c66f0ed95c\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR (Labour) (10:39)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. This is a unique piece of legislation, and it provides huge opportunities for New Zealand exporters, and I fully support it. It has endured the test of time, but it\u2019s not been fully utilised as it might be. Can I just come back to clause 125A, \u201CSection 5 amended (Restrictions on making of orders)\u201D. While not having the wording of the status quo in front of me, if you go down to subsection (3): \u201CReplace section 5(2)(aj) with: where voting in the support referendum was conducted on the basis of the area of land\u201D being more than half. Maybe the Minister can explain to me how that has come up, because, actually, area of land is a very, very poor mandate for anything, given the huge variability in the productivity and the capability of farmers and growers to produce from that land. Can the Minister clarify that, firstly, it\u2019s not, say, a grower with X hectares and then additional hectares that might be fallow or not utilised\u2014that is, it might be part of a so-called orchard operation but not in production? Is the clarification and the specifications around the land appropriate?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen, secondly\u2014I want to go back to my first question\u2014the appropriateness of that, to say that if half the land area for a commodity\u2014say, avocados or something else\u2014agree with this, when there may be more productive, highly efficient growers who have less land but produce a hell of a lot more commodity or product, they get outvoted. This is a critical and, from a constitutional perspective, arguably one of the more critical areas of Government legislation. This is the right to tax. This is the right to tax, and I don\u2019t think there are many other areas of legislation where a group of people, or half of them, or half of the landowners, get the right to tax others. That is usually a privilege reserved for the Crown, and there\u2019s quite a process that we go through when we impose a tax on anyone. This is a tax; it\u2019s a levy. I\u2019m not saying it\u2019s bad; I\u2019m saying that the right to impose that should be highly scrutinised.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll come back to the first question I have for the Minister. The utilisation of the land as a proxy for that\u2014what was the wisdom of that, and can he see the points I\u2019m raising?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u0022187b97eca1cf167bc65d6a9423ec3254\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022187b97eca1cf167bc65d6a9423ec3254\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (10:42)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chair, thank you. Yes, I can. These are already possible. This is more clarifying to make sure that it is used uniformly and there is, again, no uncertainty. Each of the things the member the Hon Damien O\u2019Connor has suggested is already possible now, and it is for the sector, the levy body itself, to choose the means by which they want to go out and have a referendum. That is then presented to the Government. The Minister must be assured that the referendum has been run properly, that there is a majority of support, and that majority fairly represents the views of the stakeholders. There will be examples, when this member was a Minister previously, when he may well have agreed a number of levies, or he would have delegated that responsibility to somebody else, to an Associate Minister, and a number of measures or ways to decide whether a levy has support or not will have been used in referendum, and that decision would have been made. This is merely clarifying so that, actually, it is more certain\u2014i.e., it has to be over a 12-month period. He does raise an important point though, but in the case that there are three producers and one of them has 95 percent of production and 95 percent of land\u2014the other two 5 percent\u2014in an up-and-down vote, it could be that the two smaller ones have a greater say than the person that would pay the most. Actually, while it would be democratic\u2014an up-and-down vote\u2014as far as the amount that\u2019s been paid for that levy and the use of it, that wouldn\u2019t be the case. At the same time, that somebody merely has a larger proportion of production or land is not a reason to exclude the views of those who are smaller, where there could be very many of them. This allows a levy-setting body to consider what is most appropriate, to go out and consult on this, to have a referendum, to bring it to a Minister, and then finally it\u2019s a Minister\u2019s decision in Cabinet to be assured that what is being proposed and the Government is being asked to accept, as far as the levy being set is concerned, fairly represents the views and a majority of those who are involved.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EPart 6 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022dfc89d275ad79c174a3cba91f5ac53d4\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e2d70ecea4c39316cac9b69e85951c29\u0022\u003EPart 7 Amendments to Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002262c712d49c118a341a738391d6f80bad\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: We now come to the debate on Part 7. This is the debate on clauses 131 to 132A, \u201CAmendments to Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001\u201D. The question is that Part 7 stand part. The question is\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022 data-id=\u002224f33653de979c659c1915bab307dffc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002224f33653de979c659c1915bab307dffc\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR (Labour) (10:44)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chairman, sorry, I don\u2019t want to let one pass by. It is the largest industry in our country. It is at, arguably, the most critical point of the industry, or debate, and it relates to, in my recollection\u2014I wasn\u2019t on the Primary Production Committee\u2014the appointment of the Milk Price Panel. This has been, arguably, one of the more contested areas of dairy industry politics over recent years. The price for raw milk is, arguably, at the critical point of viability for independent companies. They would claim that Fonterra sets the price of milk.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, we\u2019ve set up an independent Milk Price Panel, and, unless I\u2019m mistaken, these are the changes proposed in here. They relate to the number of independents, or the people present, when the panel is sitting. Correct me if I\u2019m wrong\u2014because, as I say, I\u2019ve just got my notes here, but I didn\u2019t want to pass it by. I thank you, Mr Chairman, for being able to leap up. The claim is that if there are not, as I understand, two independents present, the panel can\u2019t make a judgment. And I can stand corrected, but it is important that the industry has confidence that the Milk Price Panel does truly act independently. Fonterra is less than 80 percent of the production at the moment, but it might 75 or 78\u00A0percent. It is a big player. Governments, across the board, since 2001, I think, when we set up Fonterra, have all tried to encourage innovation across the dairy industry. We\u2019ve got a lot more independent players now and a lot more innovative products.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat they pay for milk, or the calculation of that, which is set by the Milk Price Panel, is critical to allow people to buy milk and then turn it into high-value products. Now, without getting into the politics of ingredients or service or where that milk powder goes, the ability for innovative food producers in this country to get access to raw ingredients is important, and ensuring that they pay a fair price for it, not simply the price that can be paid by the clearly dominant player, which is Fonterra, is critical. The operation of the Milk Price Panel must be seen as independent. Indeed, as Minister, I appointed and made some changes to this to, hopefully, give more confidence, and I think there is more confidence in the panel at the moment, making sure that we haven\u2019t\u2014and I suspect we are slipping back from that a little bit by ensuring, as I understand, that the panel can meet without the presence of two independents. The Minister will clarify this for me.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m just wanting to get an assurance from him that says he understands the need to have this panel independent and understands the need for the perception of its independence to be upheld as well, because, if that does slip, we\u2019re going to be another merry-go-round dairy industry debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u0022056f5de20731625a4cfae8c9b0f9a305\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022056f5de20731625a4cfae8c9b0f9a305\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (10:48)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chair, thank you. This is an important point, although it is a practical change that is being made as opposed to one that alters the function or importance or gravity of the milk panel. I won\u2019t go over the importance of the job of the milk panel setting the price, but it is important there. What this is the saying is that currently two people are appointed, nominated by the Minister. The co-op, the chair, and then either two, three, or four more members of the panel. Currently, if one member vacates a position or was to pass away, as an example, the panel cannot make decisions, and therefore that is a problem for them making sure that they are meeting their statutory obligation. In the case of the changes we\u2019re making, if there is a vacancy or vacancies or somebody is not able to be there, the panel can continue in its work, but at all times, it would be upon the Minister who appoints to ensure a process is followed very, very quickly. For my part, and I\u2019m sure for future Ministers, the Minister\u2019s nominations are independent\u2014we would always ensure they were the\u2014but, in the case that somebody can\u2019t be at a meeting or in the case that there is a vacancy, the panel is not able to make decisions. There are very few groups or organisations that have panels, or boards and so on, where that would be the case. It\u2019s not to alter anything significantly, but ultimately in as far as the member\u2019s concerns, they are reasonable. But I would put the emphasis on the Minister making sure that the Government\u2019s appointment is always there, which is a very good area of that independence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u0022ed49c373230a3b788d9110dac96fe3c9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ed49c373230a3b788d9110dac96fe3c9\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (10:50)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you for that articulation, Minister. We actually deliberated quite a bit on this at the Primary Production Committee around concerns at the broadness of the wording that any vacancy in membership would not stop the panel from being able to execute its powers. The concern was the risk of a loss of an expectation of quorum based on a sufficient number of people being able to make those decisions. We did ask officials a number of questions around that to get confidence that that was not a risk that we should be concerned about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI wonder, what advice did you get on the leeway that is potentially given in a negative sense from what is the inevitable likelihood that there will be vacancies, and how many vacancies would be tolerable? And what are the risks in terms of the thoroughness of decision making if there are vacancies that last for a long period of time, for example?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022 data-id=\u002233a5b7fed4049a24ff415bd642da591d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002233a5b7fed4049a24ff415bd642da591d\u0022\u003EHon JO LUXTON (Labour) (10:51)\u003C/span\u003E: Just to follow on there from Mr Abel\u2019s question. Minister, if there is a vacancy that occurs, is there a time frame with when that vacancy must be filled by to ensure that decisions and stuff remain robust and representative?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u00228b8cdca311b21a847171c5fda173ac91\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228b8cdca311b21a847171c5fda173ac91\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (10:52)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you so much, and as far as the last question, no there\u2019s not but it\u2019s in everybody\u2019s interest for somebody to be appointed quickly. As far as the Minister\u2019s appointees, the ministry seeks advice, gives it to the Minister, and it can go through fairly quickly. I don\u2019t see a situation where, actually, a full component on the panel is not in everybody\u2019s best interest, nor would stakeholders not want to have people there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut I direct members to the actual Act, the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001, section 150E, appointment of the panel, it is very detailed already. As far as other panel members, it\u2019s either two, three, or four, so there is already the ability to have a differing number. In the case that it was three\u2014so you would have two appointed by the Minister, a chair by the co-op, and three others\u2014if one of them was not there, it would fall down to the equivalent of what is still possible under the Act, which says two plus one plus two. That would suggest a minimum number there because it says it has to be two, but in the case that there were only five and one was not able to be there, or that member vacated office for a range of reasons, the panel can continue its work rather than waiting for the formal process of appointment. All stakeholders, including the Government, take the role of this body extremely seriously. It is there for a reason. It needs to function well, it always has. It should not be held back from doing that important work merely because the Act says everybody has to be there. Whilst there is a degree of flexibility in the Act itself, this is merely making it certain. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf I may, Mr Chair, there is just one other change that\u2019s been proposed in as far as section 118, clause 132. This is a very minor change. There are a number of offences under the Act. The way it is written, it could be interpreted that all three offences would have to be done at the same time for there to be a contravention. We\u2019re merely clarifying it says only one of those would need to apply, not all three.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022 data-id=\u002297fee5045a9713c9ba9999f3dd3bbe10\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002297fee5045a9713c9ba9999f3dd3bbe10\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR (Labour) (10:54)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Can I just go back to the milk price panel, and I don\u2019t want to dwell on it, but the Minister of Agriculture\u2014and I\u2019m sure in good faith; I\u2019m not challenging the intent here\u2014but it is one of the most political industries in the country, for good reason. I can go back to Dairy Board days, and actually beyond. The Minister\u2019s delay in appointment could be critical. I\u2019m not saying that that might be done intentionally, but it could be because there\u2019s a lot of lobbying that goes on. These decisions are absolutely critical and they do affect the viability and the opportunities through the dairy sector.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI guess the question for the Minister is: does he think, perhaps, there should be a limit? Because I know there\u2019s been procrastination and blocking because Fonterra don\u2019t want someone on there. They\u2019ll just block, block, block until the Minister comes up with someone different. Those are the kinds of things that have happened; they could happen in the future. The question for the Minister: did officials consider there should be a time limit, or an obligation on the Minister to reappoint, or for a reappointment to be made within a set timeline? Because it can upset the balance of a critical committee like that. I leave that with the Minister. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u00229d80079c8375ee2242788b445b9aed92\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229d80079c8375ee2242788b445b9aed92\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (10:55)\u003C/span\u003E: In as far as the examples given, Fonterra don\u2019t have the ability to block. It is the Minister\u2019s decision as to who he or she may appoint, and there can be dialogue and they could have a view, but it is for a Minister to make that appointment, firstly. Secondly, though, the example that the member\u2019s just given is the reason that we are proposing this change. In the case that there was a challenge in having somebody appointed, or there was the necessity for a delay on either side, the milk panel can continue to do its work as opposed to not being able to under the way the Act sits at the moment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EUltimately, the two situations are the reason that this is necessary. If a Minister takes too long to make an appointment, or is not able to make up their mind, they must be cognisant of the effect that could have upon the milk panel. But in the same situation, if a Minister decided to take 12 months to make an appointment, the milk panel cannot function during that period of time. Therefore, there is an onus to be expediate in a decision-making appointment process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022 data-id=\u0022acd296c34d654ec9561924610b57501f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022acd296c34d654ec9561924610b57501f\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR (Labour) (10:56)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, and I appreciate the Minister\u2019s clarification on those. Can I ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture, just for clarification: that is that the nominees to the milk price panel are made on the recommendation of Fonterra\u2014they are nominees from Fonterra\u2014the Minister can block or approve, I understand, or that is for one or two of them? Is that correct, Minister?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u00221b0dc52cb57a76f58818100691b9945d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221b0dc52cb57a76f58818100691b9945d\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (10:57)\u003C/span\u003E: Fonterra makes nominations for the ones that they would like to see there. The Minister is responsible also for appointing, and that is outside of engagement with others. Fonterra make a recommendation\u2014this is similar to some other areas too that people are appointed; from memory, the Meat Board also. The Minister has a right, in this case with the milk panel, to appoint two. It is the Government and the Minister\u2019s decision as to who to appoint. Fonterra also has nominations for their number.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EPart 7 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00225fd8a4277e8b3a2667a8da5c6e8f8abd\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u00226383b5080e418eb07fb68df4a0d777f6\u0022\u003EPart 8 Amendments to Fisheries Act 1996, and Part 5 of Schedule 4\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d55e1831c7b6c894cba3904ab9d7c516\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: We come now to the debate on Part 8. Part 8 is the debate on clauses 133 to 222\u2014\u201CAmendments to Fisheries Act 1996\u201D\u2014and Part 5 of Schedule 4. The question is that Part 8 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u002277aa4bc1598e54e40dd23b6e2294f420\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002277aa4bc1598e54e40dd23b6e2294f420\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (10:58)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019ll start with a simple one. It\u2019ll get more complex, but page 58, clause 134, \u201CSection 2 amended\u201D\u2014amending the Latin names of a number of the species there. The dredge oyster\u2014\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ETiostrea chilensis\u003C/span\u003E to \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EOstrea chilensis\u003C/span\u003E; it goes on that happens in terms of the Nelson-Marlborough; then in subclause (4), rock lobster, changing the name there; and whitebait, changing the name there. Oh no, that\u2019s a spell correct, I think, on that one, isn\u2019t it? Can you just clarify what\u2019s going on there with those Latin names, Minister?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022065e7cad5fc7fe602312d2043f7c9d83\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022065e7cad5fc7fe602312d2043f7c9d83\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (10:59)\u003C/span\u003E: Also interested in that at clause 134(6), on the Latin names, the difference appears to be the addition of an \u201Cn\u201D in both names for the whitebait there. If the Minister of Agriculture can confirm that that is in fact the change, just an extra \u201Cn\u201D to make things -\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003Epinna\u003C/span\u003E with two \u201Cn\u2019s\u201D, rather than -\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003Epina\u003C/span\u003E with one \u201Cn\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAlso interested in clause 139, \u201CSection 14 amended (Alternative total allowable catch for stock specified in Schedule 3)\u201D. It says here that \u201CThe Minister may exercise the power under subsection (1) without considering whether the purpose of this Act would be \u2026 achieved\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOf course, the purpose of the Act is very important in terms of sustainable fisheries. I\u2019m wondering if the Minister can explain why this change is made. That\u2019s one question. Then also another big question\u2014and it\u2019s talked about in the select committee report\u2014is the disposal methods for commercial fishers. In our Government, there were some changes. \u201CCommercial fishers may not sell or otherwise dispose of landed fish or other aquatic life except to a licensed fish receiver, in limited wharf sales, or by an approved alternative method of disposal in accordance with regulations under section 297 of the Act.\u201D That\u2019s reading from the select committee report. However, the Minister has a\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022996a77ba84439ee6273cf953e02c8be5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Which clause? Sorry, I\u2019ve just taken on the Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022975ea87099b079d0c9d4ba17052e139d\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: I was just talking about clause 139, but, now, I have moved on to what is the change to section 297\u2014which is over some pages on page 68 of the bill I\u2019m looking at\u2014by clause 177. Clause 177 amends section 297, and this is the change to the regulations that the Minister can make about disposal methods. They have been very tight, the disposal methods, and now this looks like quite a loosening of what can be a disposal method in the regulations that the Minister can make. One of those is the \u201Cspecifying alternative methods of disposal that may be used by fishers\u201D, and so I\u2019m really looking for a general comment, from the Minister, about these regulations and what mischief he is trying to fix here and what sort of regulations the Minister would envisage that would allow more disposal methods to be used via regulation. That\u2019s one quite large point that goes to a number of different clauses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThen my other question was: why have the references to the purpose of the Fisheries Act been taken out when some of the quota decisions are being made? My first point was the \u201Cnn\u201D point, which is the least important of my three questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u00221ee24424f5b8cd8625d0d725be7a6db2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221ee24424f5b8cd8625d0d725be7a6db2\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (11:02)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you so much. I\u2019m going to start with that one. I think it\u2019s very important for a number of reasons. The name changes largely reflect updates that have been made to the scientific names of several species over time, and this is just to ensure that it is clear. Of course, when courts need to go in and enforce, we\u2019d prefer them not to have to interpret Parliament\u2019s desire or intention. This way, it\u2019s just merely enough data as concerned.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ESecondly, in as far as clause 139, this is just a cross-cutting amendment and, in effect, allows the Minister on a case by case basis to ensure that the Act is being met in the best possible way. There is no intention other than to ensure that, actually, that can be met well and, firstly and secondly, that, in working with the sector, they are able to meet their obligations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222873d8328a040cd4a2da859279324193\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224ff2811caa476fec895345837a8cf9e1\u0022\u003ESteve Abel\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, Madam Chair!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002218946102100e2c405ccab400700cb20f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m sorry, but no one took a call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Part 8 set out on Amendment Papers 580 and 500 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003084\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003087\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 8 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222c608c1ce4f19bf9ee105b50dcf6b600\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Just before we move on to Part 9, I just do want to make a comment. Right across the committee, members are getting\u2014and this is not a reference to any member currently\u2014a bit slow at calling for calls. If we don\u2019t hear a call, we move on to the next section, so that\u2019s just a wake-up call for everyone in the Chamber.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u0022007af11293511d23b9eb4882b8f8ee4d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022007af11293511d23b9eb4882b8f8ee4d\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (11:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Madam Chair. You haven\u2019t been here all morning, Madam Chair, with all due respect, and we\u2019ve had a very\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E] Can I make a point of order, please? We\u2019ve had a very positive back and forth interaction. No one has been taking full calls. There\u2019s been no closure motions because this side of the committee, when we\u2019ve had our answers sufficiently addressed, have not sought to just ask spurious questions. You shut down that debate very quickly, Madam Chair. You changed the tenor of the character of the debate that\u2019s been going on all morning on a substantial section of the legislation\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225a6acd372e0527fdaf2e61018f04e3d3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m going to respond to that, Mr Abel, in that if I don\u2019t hear a call, I take a vote, right? I\u2019ve got no intention of changing any tenor of how the debate was going, but, genuinely, I heard no call, and that is my role\u2014to take a vote. I have been watching the committee, and I haven\u2019t come in here to change the tenor of anything, but my ruling is that if I don\u2019t hear a call, I will take a vote.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022346d6069387492c3751e078eb3a83563\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022346d6069387492c3751e078eb3a83563\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (11:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f4659e78540e51556b9ff85f8e2d6d37\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Is this a separate\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002291dfd12583e09997e6042b1d0dd20378\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: No, speaking to the point of order. I was calling for a point of order before Steve Abel.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022201cb4522409316178cd76a639591fb0\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: No, I don\u2019t accept that. I can see you both from here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f6c5a478d3a6ba679c70f1338c351d28\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: I would like to speak to the point of order then.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002231e785589a4628cb25faebea26377dbe\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, no, I\u2019ve closed the point of order, sorry, the Hon Rachel Brooking.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002274d3fc3ceaff05162240a44efe5a95dc\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Well, a new point of order\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022477a0e136dc2895526d7af0297cc06d1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The ruling is: if I don\u2019t hear a call, I will take the vote.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fbfcc979140f21ccd594e3a971946b46\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: A new point of order, Madam Chair!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a3ec258316c52e2ec5c4dd15dd978226\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: A new point of order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002236c284082f9cd65d1170a9d934456aaa\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, and it is related, but there is the issue of waiting for when the Minister sits down. When the Minister pauses and is going to sit down, should we be calling as soon as he finishes, or do we wait till he sits down?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228c16819d3594349c8d29b331ddcf3c6c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, when you\u2019ve got another call to take, be vigorous in taking your calls, and I\u2019ll be able to see that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002276cf5b2fe946e8a29ff9fc939d2a2d83\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: So we should not wait for the Minister to sit down? That is what you\u2019re saying?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fcd8477f9727dcd22bbcd1251d3d9808\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: If you can see the Minister sitting down, there\u2019s a balance\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c551e30c1b07e8746973246628ef1dd5\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: That is what was happening.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b0623b6c37b1fa1f1cf97d376ea9eba8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: No. I\u2019m\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002252ee01fe9cbf9f74eeb54a6c9c0c9172\u0022\u003EHon Todd McClay\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, I can assist here. I have a bad knee. I sit down very slowly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d1304e485add4e1a0ff58e67add32825\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: OK, on those point of orders, I want you to vigorously take your calls. Otherwise, I will take the vote.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002232a27cf2507c3cb62b12c8c16f5b896d\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u002278e20fc16fdcf5e5f64f0c129a0bd59e\u0022\u003EPart 9 Amendments to Food Act 2014, and Part 6 of Schedule 4\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d645a229f4a01061971fd867e4e8d149\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: We now come to the debate on Part 9, which is the debate on clauses 223 to 247\u2014\u201CAmendments to Food Act 2014\u201D\u2014and Part 6 of Schedule 4. The question is that Part 9 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022a3cc2de27c2591cb582e8433e0620c63\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a3cc2de27c2591cb582e8433e0620c63\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (11:07)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222d64de5aa6c77a6f72857acfc324ddcb\u0022\u003EHon James Meager\u003C/span\u003E: Where are the Beroccas? Beroccas in the morning.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002260072492bc806e0c43a5b7e9aa1d3ac5\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Now, this is what happens. You tell us to be vigorous, and we get rude comments from the other side.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ac9e0728c5e4290f4e216cb342e6adb\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m not listening to the speakers who sit to my right, because I will be the sole judge of what happens in here, not those speakers who sit on my right. Carry on, the Hon Rachel Brooking.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002229781bfc2f34cbc729e4e8a7cc031240\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m interested particularly in clause 234, and I notice that there are no amendments on this particular clause, but it is something that a different Minister spoke about in, I think, the second reading speech. It might have been the first reading speech. I\u2019m not sure. Anyway, section 404 is amended, and, of course, 404 is very interesting. It often comes up as an error message. But here it is important because we are talking about domestic food standards and where there is a difference to what we do with our Australian friends.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMinister, my recollection is that Minister Hoggard was saying in one of his speeches\u2014and I haven\u2019t gone back to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E\u2014that this new ability to make\u2014I\u2019ll start again. Normally, our food standards are made with Australia, and there\u2019s been an issue identified that, where there\u2019s not a food standard, New Zealand doesn\u2019t have an ability to make that food standard. What Minister Hoggard was seeming to be saying was that these provisions are just to fix that one particular problem. However, they also seem to apply for when New Zealand opts out of that agreement of our Australia - New Zealand standards, our joint food standards.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo can the Minister clarify that this new ability to make domestic food standards applies to both\u2014because there is an \u201Cor\u201D between (a) and (b)\u2014when New Zealand has chosen to opt out of that, and also that there are just none that are being developed. This is important because there seems to have been more opting out, or more discussion of opting out, of those joint standards, the Australia - New Zealand Joint Food Standards. If the \u201Cor\u201D is different from what Minister Hoggard was saying, will this lead to more opting out because we\u2019ve got this ability now for these domestic food standards? So I\u2019m interested in that incentive and how it works with the Australians.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u002299694dff0b7ae52058be4d9d7a51d2ab\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002299694dff0b7ae52058be4d9d7a51d2ab\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (11:11)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, thank you. Minister Hoggard is correct. It won\u2019t lead to more, but there will be situations, or could be circumstances or situations, where what we do in New Zealand compared to Australia could be different, subtly or significantly. This merely allows and gives the opportunity to ensure that we have standards in place that are appropriate for New Zealand, and that those standards are met. I don\u2019t expect that this is something that is used frequently or often, but it is important that the House has the ability, through the Minister, to make sure the standards that are set, as far as food safety and security is concerned, are appropriate, not only in the case of New Zealand or Australia, but in the case of our desire to meet conditions we may have, and as far as export markets are concerned.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224bb8faaa27914c428e647cb5b05b2065\u0022\u003EHon Damien O\u0027Connor\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair! Madam Chair! Madam Chair!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ffa460e1e754c7ea3477fbfece3d7694\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Damien O\u2019Connor.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022 data-id=\u00225a32ea61e3ebd9eaf2b79ed1d96a8af8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225a32ea61e3ebd9eaf2b79ed1d96a8af8\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR (Labour) (11:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m just trying to make sure you heard my call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f5020dff96894c3c546e3ff848bbcef\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I heard you, loud and clear.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222ca05a971dc2be2cad1d4be7be8f8ef7\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR\u003C/span\u003E: Great, thank you very much. Look, following on from the legitimate questions coming from my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking, when it comes to temporary food standards, new section 404A(1), inserted by clause 235, states \u201CThe Minister may, by notice, issue temporary food standards for food manufactured or prepared for sale or sold in New Zealand, or imported into, or exported from, New Zealand,\u201D\u2014the point is, \u201CBefore issuing temporary food standards\u201D, as stated here in new section 404A(2), \u201Cthe Minister must take into account the following matters: (a) the need to protect public health:\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo my question to the Minister: the issue of food security, affordability of food, is critical in our country at the moment. So if we are to take into account public health, does access to food line up alongside food safety, and will it be a consideration alongside food safety? So that\u2019s one question for the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second is: paragraph (b) says, \u201Cthe desirability of avoiding unnecessary restrictions on trade:\u201D. Now, many non-tariff barriers, non-tariff measures, requirements into export markets are considered by many food producers to be unnecessary. So the question is: take, for example, the Minister who might be lobbied, for whatever reason, and considers that we should step aside from Australian requirements, and because it\u2019s good to avoid unnecessary restrictions on trade\u2014that is, to do our own thing\u2014we\u2019ll just set up our own food standards. The development of the trans-Tasman food standards has been very positive for New Zealand food producers\u2014that is, open access on both sides of the Tasman, and I think Australia remains one of our number one consumer food markets.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question to the Minister is: what does \u201Cthe desirability of avoiding unnecessary restrictions on trade\u201D mean? It\u2019s a pretty kind of subjective word, and is it desirable to the exporter, to the food producer, to the Minister, to some lobby group, or to the importer in another country?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo, firstly, a couple of questions in there for the Minister: one is about the fact that the need to protect public health is a wide-ranging objective, and really opens the door to any establishment of our own food standards, and what that might mean, and the second one is: how can he define desirability?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u0022814ad8e6f54fb89d3ca3be91216fb9a9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022814ad8e6f54fb89d3ca3be91216fb9a9\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (11:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, in as far as the member\u2019s question about affordability of food is concerned, it doesn\u2019t have a direct correlation, although it could, because it could be the desire of a Government to reduce food standards, with the hope that the cost upon a sector comes down to make food more affordable, and, of course, that would not be in the best interests of New Zealand, our consumers, and, of course, it wouldn\u2019t be as possible in as far as meeting requirements of an export nature. So I know that\u2019s not the intention of his question, but just to give an example as to why this part of the legislation is not about affordability; there are already other parts of things that Governments must do, in that respect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAs far as his point around the joint food standards that we have with Australia, they are very important, New Zealanders rely upon them, and they work very, very well. But there may well be situations and cases where New Zealand may want the ability, on a temporary basis or otherwise, to derogate from what could be or had been or might be agreed with Australia. An example of this could be where you have a sector or an item of food that Australia consumes themselves and does not export, but New Zealand predominantly does export and doesn\u2019t consume, or we export to other markets, not Australia. In that case, the standard that might be set with Australia could have a greater bearing or interest upon consumption in Australia, which could restrict New Zealand exporters from other markets or place greater costs or prohibition upon them. This merely allows the Government to consider situations like that, and what is best for New Zealand. It\u2019s not about lowering a standard. It\u2019s not about, you know, altering or changing or sending a signal that the joint food standards that we have with Australia and the Closer Economic Relations are not important\u2014they\u2019re extremely important\u2014but it is also giving the Government the ability to consider what is best for New Zealand in as far as, in the case of the member\u2019s question, export markets outside of Australia.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u0022a6a8aa52d9fbd01b1181bb7b3d520ec2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a6a8aa52d9fbd01b1181bb7b3d520ec2\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (11:17)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I wonder, to that very point, Minister, about some specific articulation of the fact that that must be done without a lowering of standards, without a lowering of expectations, in regard to the calibre of those standards. That would be a useful articulation to put in the legislation itself, wouldn\u2019t it, by way of clarifying that there is no means to avoiding the higher bar?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u002270d4f28aab4566ff3f5f09c7f2a3649f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002270d4f28aab4566ff3f5f09c7f2a3649f\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (11:17)\u003C/span\u003E: I understand the reason for the member\u2019s question, but that would be subjective, because there\u2019ll be cases where Australia, as an example, may set a standard\u2014perhaps there was advertising, because they have something particularly they want to do in a state there that does not directly apply to New Zealand; it may well not be relevant but would be a cost to New Zealand without any additional benefit to New Zealand, New Zealanders, or another market, for instance, we want to go to overseas. Now, an argument or discussion could be had about the lowering of a standard. But in some cases, it will be a standard that shouldn\u2019t and can\u2019t apply to New Zealand, but there is no intention to lower food standards. In fact, New Zealand has a greater reputation for the production of high-quality, safe food than Australia does, I would argue, every single day, and I think we see that best when our exporters compete with Australia. In markets overseas for food, we often do better and our products are chosen first.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Government, as does industry, takes food safety extremely seriously, but it is really saying that, actually, whilst there are significant benefits to the joint food standards we have, there may well be times where we have to differ in the interests of New Zealand, not to lower standards but so that we are not restricted or so that additional costs or regulations are not put upon New Zealand for overseas markets that has no benefit to us.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt comes back, largely, to the fact that in many areas where we might want to trade, Australia, as a larger country, consumes more than they might export, whereas New Zealand exports more than they might consume. Putting aside Australia, it\u2019s about other markets. Of course, if somebody does want to sell into Australia, it is to their conditions, just as every country in the world, in selling into New Zealand, should meet the conditions set by New Zealand, the New Zealand Government. In many cases, that would be a joint system or standard with Australia, but there may well be times when an exceptional change to that is in the best interests of New Zealand, but not in lowering standards.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u002270af8b19e6acb662dc5a5813da6289b2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002270af8b19e6acb662dc5a5813da6289b2\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (11:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. The Minister responded to my question about clause 234, which amends section 404, by reference to Minister Hoggard and saying he\u2019s right. But that seems to go against the words of the bill here.  So I just want to take the Minister through it more carefully. One of these domestic food standards can be issued under either clause 234, amended section 404(1)(a) or (b). There is an \u201Cor\u201D between (a) and (b) and an \u201Cif\u201D before them. So (a) is the opting out provision and (b) is the standards have not been developed. I\u2019ve got no issue with (b)\u2014the question\u2019s not about (b). It is about this paragraph (a) and the opting out. Was the Minister in his answer to me saying that while Minister Hoggard is right in that the intention is not to go opting out of lots of shared standards, but we have the ability to\u2014is that simply the answer? It is not right to say that the standards won\u2019t apply to things that apply currently to Australia and New Zealand that we can opt out of. So if he could just clarify that, in fact, it does include totally opting out as well as where there is an absence of a standard.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u0022f208d1c66f8585bbcedb25fcf3f892d9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f208d1c66f8585bbcedb25fcf3f892d9\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (11:21)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m informed by my officials that clause 234, amended section 404(1)(a) is not changing and remains the same. Therefore it is written there, but it is not a change.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022 data-id=\u00229b582bfb488ff476bd3d19ecc3882a1d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229b582bfb488ff476bd3d19ecc3882a1d\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS (Green) (11:21)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question\u2019s around clause 235 in relation to new section 404B: \u201CMinister must not delegate power to issue domestic or temporary food standards\u201D. My question really is thinking about our food future, and wondering\u2014we could imagine a future where we have more local production. We might have home kill, for example. We might have direct sale of home kill. We might have direct sale of artisanal cheeses that have a different standard. As we\u2019ve seen in other jurisdictions where there\u2019s greater direct sale, we\u2019ve also seen occasionally problems that can pop up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019m a big passionate eater of raw cheese, for example. In France, direct sale of raw cheese is under a different standard than the EU standard. But what does happen occasionally is that somebody contracts listeria and dies. That\u2019s the risk you take when you eat good cheese. Good cheese is worth a lot! But my question to the Minister is: really, if we are faced with an emergency situation, wouldn\u2019t it make more sense if there is the ability to delegate, if there is the ability to move a bit faster, rather than the Minister not being able to delegate to any other person under new section 404A or 404B to issue domestic or temporary food standards. We might find ourselves in more of an emergency situation. This is a scenario and a future where we are thinking about food security and greater diversification of food supply.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u00228377ec5ee5ca3af66e68b44712c4a4fb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228377ec5ee5ca3af66e68b44712c4a4fb\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (11:23)\u003C/span\u003E: I just want to clarify, because I know that the member was trying to make a point by way of observation, but I want to be very clear to anybody listening in: the likelihood of dying from cheese is so, so minimal. Unless a big block falls on you, it is safe to eat. Please keep eating it\u2014even French cheese, which I can almost smell from here!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe point here is that I take the member\u2019s point, but it\u2019s not about speed. Only the Minister\u2019s empowered under the Food Act annex to make these decisions. So what it is saying is where there needs to be a temporary measure or a restriction put in place, only the Minister can do that. He can\u2019t delegate that responsibility to somebody else\u2014for instance, as an official. But in case there was a concern about human health, then the Minister would act quickly and appropriately or he or she would be judged for that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022 data-id=\u002219aebbb72fb4d5f5f685b73ade90429a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002219aebbb72fb4d5f5f685b73ade90429a\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR (Labour) (11:24)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m glad you didn\u2019t miss that. Can I just go to a point which is just kind of occurred to me in reading this. I refer to once again the wisdom of my colleague Hon Rachel Brooking, and asking questions of clause 235, new section 404A. In subsection (1) there, where New Zealand has chosen under an annex of the agreement to opt out of the standards. I then go over the page here to the issue of temporary food standards. The temporary food standards are issued on the assumption\u2014because, if you go down to subsection (6) \u201CA temporary food standard issued under subsection (1)\u201D\u2014that\u2019s with all the requirements I talked about later\u2014\u0022expires on the earlier of\u2014(a) the date on which an applicable standard is developed under the Australia\u2013New Zealand Joint Food Standards\u201D. The point is that there\u2019s an assumption that the temporary food standard is only there until a joint food standard is developed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EQuite frankly, if you read through this, go down to subjection (7) \u201C \u2026 the Minister may extend the period for which a temporary food standard is in force by a specified period of not more than 2 years if\u2014(a) an applicable standard has not been developed\u201D. The assumption is that it will be developed and it\u2019s only temporary because it\u2019s not there. But you come back to new section 404, inserted by clause 235, and you say that New Zealand can opt out. So if we opt out, what do we develop? If it\u2019s not a joint food standard, then it\u2019s a temporary one, but a temporary one on the basis that one is being developed. But you go back to the point where we\u2019ve opted out. So what are we then left with? The Minister can maybe explain, but I think that the Government\u2019s trying to have its cake and eat it too\u2014that is provide an option for opt out but not explain what will be in its place. Because a temporary standard is only allowed under the provisions here on the basis that one is being developed. So maybe the Minister can explain that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u00224ae6ffc8b5f34f1844107a4978d13ed0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224ae6ffc8b5f34f1844107a4978d13ed0\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (11:27)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, thank you so much. So the way it would work, for the honourable member, is that, actually, temporary food standards would be put in place until a joint standard is developed. If a joint standard is developed, then the Minister has the option to opt out of that to develop his own. So, in essence, we are not saying in this legislation that we\u2019re going to have lots of our own food standards. It would be very infrequent and would be very rare, as I have explained under previous comments and questions. But it is the intention of the Government\u2014and the legislation backs this up\u2014to continue to work closely with Australia to develop joint food standards; they work very well for us.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn the case that a food standard jointly with Australia is developed where there has been a temporary standard in place and it is the view of the Minister and the Government that, actually, that doesn\u2019t work for New Zealand and we need our own one, then, in essence, our own one would be developed. But that wouldn\u2019t be done until after the point of there needing to be a joint food standard, because if there isn\u2019t a joint food standard set up, then, effectively, we don\u2019t have anything to opt out of.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022 data-id=\u00223c734ebd80660cfbe37624fcc5a28748\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223c734ebd80660cfbe37624fcc5a28748\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR (Labour) (11:28)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for allowing to continue this. My understanding at the moment is there\u2019s no provision for us to have an independent food standard. We can have a joint food standard or we can have a temporary one, as provided here, but there\u2019s no legislative ability\u2014and there hasn\u2019t been since the Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement\u2014for us to have an independent standard. It\u2019s a joint standard or temporary. So if the Minister implies that we can opt out, which is what this says, and have our own independent one, where are the regulatory provisions for that? Because for a food producing nation, this is absolutely critical. The assumption that we have joint standards with Australia, which has served us well in international markets, and we may be able to have a temporary one because the joint standards haven\u2019t been developed, which is what the implication is here\u2014where\u2019s the independent one and what international verification do we have for that at the moment?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u0022d6847b6323c436b5166bd27fb1e2584e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d6847b6323c436b5166bd27fb1e2584e\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (11:29)\u003C/span\u003E: The member is not incorrect. The joint standards are important. We\u2019ve developed them very, very well. They have served us well, but there have been occasions where, actually, they don\u2019t meet the requirements of New Zealand. We have the ability to opt out of a joint standard. In that place, New Zealand also has the ability to put in place our own standard. It would have to be to the standard set that people overseas would require us to have, but ultimately it\u2019s a standard for New Zealand. At all times, as with what\u2019s done jointly with Australia, it is an eye to our exports. The whole point of including the clause 234 change is to provide for an extra mechanism to do this, should we require it; not to replace anything or create something we\u2019re not able to do, but to ensure that a certain\u2014I state again, a joint standard is developed. The agreement and the treaty with Australia does allow either side to opt out of the standard, should they choose.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022 data-id=\u0022325fad34e9499d0062352651ebef8f8f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022325fad34e9499d0062352651ebef8f8f\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR (Labour) (11:30)\u003C/span\u003E: Look, thank you very much. Can I just, for clarification then, because I think food producers out there will be scratching their heads a little bit because it is a complex world: there are a lot more ingredients, a lot more components to food. Say you take something\u2014even in, I guess, the positive area, if you like\u2014around branding and regenerative, around standards or what you might call that; true-to-label nonetheless being the objective, then is it likely that New Zealand is going towards\u2014does the Minister think that we\u2019re going to have the development of more independent food standards? If so, what are the pressures for that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EA cynic might say that a couple of people have lobbied the Minister for Food Safety and decided that we opt out of the infant formula requirements. So, I\u2019m concerned that, as we go forward, we will have independent food producers pressuring Governments of whatever colour, shape, or size to set up independent standards for their particular product into a particular market. In moving away from a trans-Tasman structure, framework, and security we\u2019re opening ourselves up to a huge amount of confusion for a country that is so dependent upon food exports for its livelihood. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u0022d1df3729f001546c8421b7cfce88f6dc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d1df3729f001546c8421b7cfce88f6dc\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (11:32)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, no, I don\u2019t share the member\u2019s concerns. The Act and the changes we\u2019re making do not speak to whether they\u2019ll be more, fewer, or less of these, as it merely gives a functionality and option to Governments of the future. But it comes back to what I said at the very beginning, seven or eight or nine questions ago: there will be times and situations where a Government may want to consider something different than the joint standard. The reason for this is a joint standard may well be adopted that is in the interests of Australia because they consume domestically rather than export. For New Zealand, as a country that largely exports more than we consume of most of the things we produce in the primary sector and food, it may be that there is a cost or burden or restriction based upon a New Zealand exporter as a result of a joint decision that could be made or proposed with Australia.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThis amendment merely offers optionality or functionality for a future Government to make a decision as to what\u2019s in the best interest of New Zealand. It would be my view that it would be used extremely, extremely rarely. The bar to its use would be very, very high for that reason. The reason for that is, actually, New Zealand has the highest food standards in the world. A standard is something that is set. New Zealand businesses and Government, with our agencies, honour the standards that are there. We think about food safety as one of the most important things we can do, not only for New Zealand consumers but for the countries we export to, but there may well be the occasion where what is being discussed and negotiated is the best interest of New Zealand and that that actually doesn\u2019t go to the safety of food, but it does place a restriction or puts New Zealand exporters at a disadvantage. I reject the member\u2019s suggestion or comment that Governments come under pressure. People from business raise issues with Governments and Opposition parties all the time. It is for a Government to make a decision of what\u2019s in the best interest of New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022a54b796297efaad08200727cca01ab35\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a54b796297efaad08200727cca01ab35\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (11:34)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Not so much on the opting-out point of the standards\u2014although noting it\u2019s been well publicised that there was a lot of pressure on different Government Ministers who turned out to have different opinions on it about formula, recently or in the past year or so\u2014but my question is related to what the Hon Damien O\u2019Connor has been asking about, and that is that new section 404A, inserted by clause 233, is \u201CMinister may issue temporary food standards\u201D. When I read this, I was thinking that a temporary food standard was quite different from a domestic food standard. So if the Minister can comment on that\u2014is it a domestic food standard or either the opting-out situation, or there\u2019s nothing that we\u2019ve got with the Australians, so it\u2019s a absence? How do they link up then with, when you turn over the page, a temporary food standard? I was under the impression from reading the select committee report that the temporary food standard that\u2014it says here in the bill, in new section 404A, \u201Cin circumstances permitted by an annex to the Australia\u2013New Zealand Joint Food Standards Agreement.\u201D I was under the impression that a temporary food standard had some element of urgency to it. So can the Minister explain, is a temporary food standard, a domestic food standard? If not, how do they link up together?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u0022b51a761f6001040d684aa2c6ffce780a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b51a761f6001040d684aa2c6ffce780a\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (11:36)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, yes, it will mean domestic because the food standard applies in New Zealand for production here. But for some countries of the world when we go to export, they would say you can export to a country based upon as long as it meets the standard required in your own country. Therefore, the two are not dissimilar but they\u2019re for different reasons. A temporary standard could well be there as a matter of urgency, or probably, more to the point, because there is demonstrated a necessity in the case of developing a joint standard with Australia, and that can take an extended period of time. The Government could decide something is required in the interim, as that happens, because it is about negotiation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ESo, to answer the member\u2019s questions, yes to almost all of what she has said, but, of course, a food standard that is set is to be used domestically. It also has an impact upon how things are produced for export.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022693e2c7a69011f95bb625bdb2f6e4cef\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m going to take another call, but I believe that the Minister\u2019s kind of laboured this point. The clarity in which the questions have been asked may not be agreed upon, but, actually, there\u2019s been a lot of questions on this point. I\u2019m going to give the Hon Damien O\u2019Connor one last chance. Is there something to clarify?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022 data-id=\u0022f167891bfcec3320d040ae52ae08487d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f167891bfcec3320d040ae52ae08487d\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR (Labour) (11:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, thank you. These are really critical issues and I know you\u2019ll appreciate that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002242f098df6fffd076bd0bf41bd5f76785\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I get that, and we\u2019re honing in, but the Minister\u2019s been very forthcoming in answering those questions, so I\u2019m just trying to hone down a wee bit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222dd947fbe8aad684a3e1c33b497d2068\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR\u003C/span\u003E: I appreciate that\u2014yes. It\u2019s a healthy discussion; it\u2019s not yet a debate. The one around domestic versus international food standards goes to the heart of our food standards system. One of the big issues blocking domestic producers of food, be it home-kill in meat or dairy in particular, is the paranoia by officials and by big exporters that locally produced food\u2014safe food\u2014will not meet the requirements of export standards because usually, for good reason, they are a lot higher. There are maximum residue levels for food sold in New Zealand that are lower than that for export markets. These are critical issues that we shouldn\u2019t just skim over. So I\u2019m not trying to be flippant, Madam Chair\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002272a2212ef14810c78808d99210993453\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I know you\u2019re not, and I\u2019m just trying to get to the nub. I\u2019ve just put something to the Minister, so you ask your question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220b977cb11a8a1215c25e7cd134fafdd2\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR\u003C/span\u003E: The question is, and the Minister raised a point around it\u2014and I\u2019m not saying inappropriate pressure on Governments; there will always be\u2014but the pressure to ensure lower food costs and the pressure to ensure access to local food, which has always been upon a Government, has said that you should be able to go to your local farmer and kill meat and get it. That could be a temporary food standard for local domestic supply. There would be uproar from the export sector, who say that that meat could get into the supply chain. So off the back of that, the question to the Minister\u2014and I\u2019ll leave my colleague to pursue this further\u2014is around one of domestic and international or trade standards, and does a temporary food standard meet either or both, or what is it for?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f600ec71a50b6781978d1a43cf99ed91\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Right. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u002251e891ab17fa28bb434fa495792180ee\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002251e891ab17fa28bb434fa495792180ee\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (11:39)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, thank you very much. Ultimately, the proposal is not to weaken\u2014in fact, it is to enhance and provide optionality. To answer a number of member\u2019s questions, a temporary standard or a new standard could be about domestic or it could be merely about export. To take the last member\u2019s point there, the Hon Damien O\u2019Connor, in as far as home-kill is concerned, it would not alter requirements around the supply chain for manufacturing or export requirement for a recipient country. It doesn\u2019t alter those obligations there; it is merely saying that there will be situations where one might envisage a difference to what it is in Australia.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI could turn it round the other way\u2014that Australia is actually creating a joint standard that is merely for Australian domestic production, not their export, and therefore that could have an impact upon our desire to export. Under the treaty, we already have the ability to exempt ourselves, to remove ourselves from a standard, and to set our own. This is merely creating some clarity. But the concern that he is right to raise around will it have an impact upon food production export in New Zealand? Absolutely not, is the answer to that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022400ebfddf6324595c67f55435acd0d4c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022400ebfddf6324595c67f55435acd0d4c\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (11:40)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002264c6cd44b91a7e6e27264d55e0686d20\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I just want to check with the Hon Rachel Brooking, does that clarify your question around\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226aa8e2221699f556c1b4724353d64074\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220082113ab743fe32262a12c459e6f2da\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014whether it can be done\u2014well, the answer is that it could be done domestically or\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e0c42aa5f6f4e6e1c14685e05f939ee7\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: No\u2014no, no.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f1500187bdd481e1f5e7d0471d9cc04b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Is this a new question?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022000f95b9baf4f60a6a8b9b683bbde48b\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: This is related. It\u2019s simply\u2014I\u2019m just asking about the mechanics of the legislation here. There are domestic food standards in section 404 of the Food Act, and then there are temporary food standards. Are temporary food standards a subset of domestic food standards, or are they a different thing? At new section 404B, inserted by clause 235, the title is \u201CMinister must not delegate power to issue domestic or temporary food standards\u201D. I\u2019m asking about that link between the domestic food standards in section 404 of the Food Act and the temporary food standards in new section 404A, inserted by clause 235. How do they link? Is one a subset of the other, or are they quite distinct entities?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u0022dbf44ea230f9e5d643383b816ff8c274\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dbf44ea230f9e5d643383b816ff8c274\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (11:42)\u003C/span\u003E: A temporary food standard will end up being a joint or New Zealand one only, if that clarifies for the member. A temporary one is in place of something that\u2019s not there. A temporary one either becomes a joint standard with Australia, or in the case that New Zealand would opt out, it would become our own standard.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224f9781f01a584e731fa166ddd82cc742\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Scott Willis\u2014thank you for your patience.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022 data-id=\u0022f4646ab1fdae3cc2ad88d20babda9514\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f4646ab1fdae3cc2ad88d20babda9514\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS (Green) (11:42)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair, and I have been patient, so I appreciate your recognition of that. For the Minister, clause 247 is \u201CSection 443A amended (Certain secondary legislation or published instruments may be consolidated)\u201D. What it says here is that in section\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b54b03f3687f394fb16d353637784ce5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, the Minister\u2019s just asking which number.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f73f88dad8217c67449a41b853a8f512\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Page 89, clause 247. What we\u2019ve got here, in replacement section 443A(1) is \u201CIn section 443A(1)(a), replace \u2018by satisfying\u2019 with \u2018and that is subject to\u2019\u201D. My question is not a flippant question; it is an important question because\u2014when we\u2019re thinking of Aotearoa New Zealand becoming a nation with a growing appreciation of food as more than simply fuel, but instead as a way to communicate, to love, to share things together\u2014when we\u2019re using words that are really utilitarian, like \u201Cthat are subject to\u201D over \u201Csatisfaction\u201D or \u201Csatisfying\u201D, I\u2019m wondering why? Is there a need to change the terminology here? Because, personally, I quite like legislation to be a little bit more human in the way it relates and can tell us what its intention is. Just for the Minister, a really simple clarification, but I\u2019d appreciate that. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u002202a151d53c6dd52900ddea5579c46a32\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002202a151d53c6dd52900ddea5579c46a32\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (11:44)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m informed that section 78A amended, inserted by clause 22, allows amendments to delegated instruments to be consolidated into a new instrument. The clause clarifies that the consolidated powers under that section apply to secondary legislation that is subject to the same publishing requirements. At a high level, you must publish this way. It doesn\u2019t weaken the requirement to publish; it ensures that it follows through, and there is not a difference.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Part 9 be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003182\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 9 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022fef024f6d6ad42ee68b21e186687ebca\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a89093cc51639d6f6f984751f4a64492\u0022\u003EPart 10 Repeal of Food Safety Law Reform Act 2018\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220129e9220960ebf325d5f20bb8509631\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: We now come to the debate on Part 10. This is the debate on clause 248, \u201CRepeal of Food Safety Law Reform Act 2018\u201D. The question is that Part 10 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022882cb2bbd1776a31c9bd507fc2becdf2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022882cb2bbd1776a31c9bd507fc2becdf2\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (11:45)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. A very short question for the Minister, and that is: why? Why are we repealing the Food Safety Law Reform Act 2018?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022 data-id=\u0022d0919f78fb027fca4bdc1f00c083f0aa\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d0919f78fb027fca4bdc1f00c083f0aa\u0022\u003EHon JO LUXTON (Labour) (11:45)\u003C/span\u003E: My question follows on from the Hon Rachel Brooking\u2019s question when she asked: why is it being repealed? I\u2019m interested to know: with repealing it, what reforms or what protections may be lost as a result of repealing that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c031939196db8895fe2fa5ddce1de965\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll give the Hon Damien O\u2019Connor a call, because I know the Minister is just looking for some advice here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022 data-id=\u00223e2dcd15f92a0b17a2f8c0b3dc336bf8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223e2dcd15f92a0b17a2f8c0b3dc336bf8\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR (Labour) (11:46)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, my understanding, and I don\u2019t have it in front of me here, is that piece of legislation relates to dairy products and critical components of some of our exports. The question asked by my colleagues is a critical one, because just taking it away and repealing the Act without any clarity\u2014and we\u2019ve been asking a few questions here around other parts of food safety, and we do need clarity on what will replace that piece of legislation in an area of quite technical ingredients for our food safety system and dairy exports.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022 data-id=\u0022acd6abf5855df19bb7896d41d7c4da2f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022acd6abf5855df19bb7896d41d7c4da2f\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (11:47)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you to the member for that question. The Food Safety Law Reform Act made one-time changes to the Food Act, Animal Products Act, and Wine Act, and all amendments have been incorporated into the principal Acts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022 data-id=\u0022a02fcb3c6cb638868ce381de0dad5fb0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a02fcb3c6cb638868ce381de0dad5fb0\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR (Labour) (11:47)\u003C/span\u003E: I know the Minister\u2019s received advice on that, but maybe a little more clarity on that? As I say, it is quite wide-ranging and quite technical. I\u2019m seeking a guarantee\u2014and I know this is a non-contentious piece of legislation, but I think there are a few questions still unanswered from the previous part of the bill. Maybe if the Minister could just go over a few of those key components and explain to and reassure the House, because just taking away a piece of legislation\u2014not amending it, taking it away\u2014does leave some potential gaps. Maybe the Minister\u2019s just got the opportunity now, with a bit of information, to explain to the House and to the country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022 data-id=\u0022c7af00976945b67e7b7d8ddb1d3942e5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c7af00976945b67e7b7d8ddb1d3942e5\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (11:48)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, thank you. Look, I\u2019ve been advised that the principal Acts will now do all the work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d514844053e12aa19f84bcd969a2d108\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a27c66becc4954b337a28e1f02650583\u0022\u003EHon Damien O\u0027Connor\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221848c77f3cec3bcbdd16a114ac71402e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: You\u2019ll need to be quicker and louder next time, OK\u2014one supplementary from the Hon Damien O\u2019Connor.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022 data-id=\u0022b794388c698ccb05e447d3f2f93b6ffc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b794388c698ccb05e447d3f2f93b6ffc\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR (Labour) (11:48)\u003C/span\u003E: I appreciate that. I\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220662c3b901a48058ffbc45308ae88a86\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Because of your experience.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226daa6e82ade83f6baa18791bde808b0d\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, and I\u2019m not trying to take advantage of the Minister\u2019s advice there, but I think officials would have a little bit more advice and information for the Minister to explain to the country just why a piece of legislation is being repealed, the core components that this piece of legislation incorporated, and how they\u2019re incorporated into the new Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002258422bd5cbb9d8811cafffe1c9200d19\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll just give him a minute to take advice. He did say that it would be replaced.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022 data-id=\u0022ece2c750c585041c992b21b613ce12a0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ece2c750c585041c992b21b613ce12a0\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (11:49)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I\u2019ve been advised that residual issues, if there are any, can be managed under section 32 of the Legislation Act, which provides that repeal of legislation does not affect existing rights interests, titles, etc. Again, I refer back to all amendments have been incorporated into the principal Acts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EPart 10 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c0e1525aff41897d1ac56317c90cca76\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f20e4c6ad3d2b78be859577bb383b210\u0022\u003EPart 11 Amendments to Forests Act 1949, and Part 7 of Schedule 4\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222cd3fcd4812800af052eeb4ab01f5ceb\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: We now come to the debate on Part 11, which is the debate on clauses 249 to 258, \u201CAmendments to Forests Act 1949\u201D, and Part 7 of Schedule 4. The question is that Part 11 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022 data-id=\u002225b3d66ed3d5669c9caeeaf0734e4eb0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002225b3d66ed3d5669c9caeeaf0734e4eb0\u0022\u003EHon JO LUXTON (Labour) (11:50)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just want to ask the Minister a question with regard to new subsection 63ZZD(2A) being struck out\u2014\u201CConsultation need not be undertaken on rules made under regulations if the test in section 72AAB is met.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow that has been removed, but I would like to know\u2014when I flick over to new section 72AAB, \u201CMaking instruments that make minor amendments or correct minor or technical errors\u201D, it does say \u201CThe test in this section is met if the maker of an instrument is satisfied that\u2014\u201D the instrument that is to be made is new\u2014and that\u2019s fine. But I want to go to point (b) \u201Cthe amendment or replacement of the affected instrument is minor in effect or corrects a minor or technical error.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m just interested to know why we\u2019re not having to consult on things like that and what is going to determine whether something is minor in effect or corrects a minor or technical error. What would be considered minor in that situation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022 data-id=\u0022bafa01b0776a19831e9a995ab79ab65a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bafa01b0776a19831e9a995ab79ab65a\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (11:51)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. What counts as minor will depend on the circumstances, and it will be determined on a case-by-case basis.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022 data-id=\u002273e8529160a4abec12675bf46792bded\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002273e8529160a4abec12675bf46792bded\u0022\u003EHon JO LUXTON (Labour) (11:51)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to move to clause 250: in the interpretation section, \u201Csection 2(1), \u201Cdefinition of \u201Csalvaged timber\u201D, paragraph (b), delete \u2018to waste\u2019 \u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ENow, I\u2019m just wanting to ask the Minister why that was deemed to be necessary. I see that the rationale says some timber was felled for milling but was lost and is going to waste at the bottom of waterways, and this amendment clarifies that this timber, if felled before 3 July 1989, can be milled. Why was this needed? What was the issue here in order for this to be changed\u2014the definition to be changed and deleted?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f16e775ea5349fe67ac07d48e95a90a2\u0022\u003ECushla Tangaere-Manuel\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f972600530f0b58fb4d245669717dcd2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Um, sorry. You\u2019ve just popped up before\u2014Cushla. Cushla Tangaere-Manuel. Apologies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022 data-id=\u00223e4735660870d5d98e8c694b75d8b7c0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223e4735660870d5d98e8c694b75d8b7c0\u0022\u003ECUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour\u2014Ikaroa-R\u0101whiti) (11:52)\u003C/span\u003E: Ha, ha! T\u0113n\u0101 koe\u2014kei te pai. Thank you, Madam Chair, and t\u0113n\u0101 koe, Minister. Good to see you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMinister, my question relates to clause 254, which is replacing section 67G. Unlike the original section, this section, which replaces 67G, sets out some notification options. Can the Minister tell us why specificity is needed. These specific notification options include notice by \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EGazette\u003C/span\u003E\u2014the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EGazette\u003C/span\u003E\u2019s\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsTerm\u0022 style=\u0022font-style: italic\u0022\u003E\u003C/span\u003Ehad a lot of air time today, wh\u0101nau; we\u2019re trying to push people to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EGazette\u003C/span\u003E\u2014newspaper notice, and the ministry\u2019s public internet site. Has the ministry included a particular preference for notification type?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAlso, Minister, has there been consideration about more accessible or more popular notification options, given technology and the advances we have there?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223a99be5ab5fa3c3d721333d40bff5002\u0022\u003EHon Member: \u003C/span\u003EMore popular than the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EGazette\u003C/span\u003E?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d3f0a6a23e4b2f925c35398ed85ac000\u0022\u003ECUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, more popular than\u2014well, you know, things that people may access. Not everyone may be across the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EGazette\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ESection 67G(2)(d) sets out that notifications may be made \u201Cin any other manner that the Secretary is reasonably satisfied will ensure that the matter is sufficiently notified to the public in the area concerned.\u201D What manners are envisaged by this section, and what elements does the secretary need to see in order to be \u201Creasonably satisfied will ensure that the matter is sufficiently notified to the public in the area concerned.\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022 data-id=\u0022b8ec675d681f0e363b33e1cfdc722318\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b8ec675d681f0e363b33e1cfdc722318\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (11:54)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. In regards to the first question around clause 250, it is, in effect, just providing some clarification. To the second question, it is about providing more flexibility, and we trust our officials to use their better judgment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAnd the second question that you asked?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002264a0139d671a6e0e59948963df9cf32e\u0022\u003ECushla Tangaere-Manuel\u003C/span\u003E: What elements does the secretary need to see in order to be \u201Creasonably satisfied will ensure that the matter is sufficiently notified to the public in the area concerned.\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229dcf640c3c96834273a5f1f2537c399a\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK\u003C/span\u003E: Again, very similar to the previous answer. We trust our officials to use their discretion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022 data-id=\u0022aceb80f1e6052b520f031ff854277174\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022aceb80f1e6052b520f031ff854277174\u0022\u003EHon JO LUXTON (Labour) (11:55)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. My question is with regard to clause 256, around the new consolidation powers. Why are we allowing instruments to be consolidated and partially remade without the standard requirements\u2014without them having to come back to the House and have that scrutiny?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u00227835d3abaf73051586e36e1a1709864c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227835d3abaf73051586e36e1a1709864c\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (11:55)\u003C/span\u003E: To expand on that, while the Minister considers some advice on that point\u2014this is important, because the House has previously empowered officials to act in a certain way under this part. So the question is: if there is merely a consolidation going on that would already be within the remit of the officials undertaking these powers, what\u2019s being done is actually a change to the wording of what the explicit provision was that they were acting under.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Minister won\u2019t be able to tell the House at this point what will be changed. He is asking everyone in this Chamber to accept that at a future time officials will drop off, or change, or add to these specific parts which empower them to do things, and he can\u2019t tell us today what will be dropped off or what will be added. So the question is, really, asking him to elaborate on the kinds of circumstances that he would expect officials to, as he has said to my colleague, \u201Cuse their discretion\u201D in.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIs it minor amendments, which are sort of beneath the notice of the ordinary lawmaking power of the House or by Order in Council\u2014which is another mechanism that would usually deal with things which are not political? Or is it the other end of the spectrum? Is it use of an emergency power? Is it the kinds of things where officials would have to very quickly move to do something which was unanticipated by Parliament when it gave them these powers in the first place? Is it the kind of big extreme event that would require this kind of response? The question is\u2014give us some parameters, because we\u2019re not asking you to give a full account of what officials are being tasked with here in future. That\u2019s an ability that executive government has to act without the full knowledge of the House in these powers. But it is a reasonable request to ask in what circumstances they might extend their remit or limit it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022 data-id=\u00224daf165249fc465e9ba2e335afb8c201\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224daf165249fc465e9ba2e335afb8c201\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (11:57)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. To the first question, typically those changes will not come to the House, and they will only need to consult on specific changes\u2014to the following question. We don\u2019t want them consulting on what\u2019s not changing, so it\u2019s about delivering efficiencies in terms of that decision-making process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u0022633ab9b662d6cde07b764cafcb6e3093\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022633ab9b662d6cde07b764cafcb6e3093\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (11:58)\u003C/span\u003E: What efficiencies, Minister?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dff15ef2609dfcc92bb85289ebecd181\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry\u2014what was the question?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e08920f209618d4f58aff1496111126d\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS\u003C/span\u003E: What efficiencies?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c2186aebd4d7ef7b9a8b48e8c3489632\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll take a question from\u2014oh, it\u2019s OK. The Minister\u2019s ready.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022 data-id=\u0022c6726041c97ba0e3fc143e46f81ac1a9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c6726041c97ba0e3fc143e46f81ac1a9\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (11:58)\u003C/span\u003E: Efficiency in terms of consultation\u2014yeah.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022 data-id=\u0022f65bd0038496fca9d66c188273a8b257\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f65bd0038496fca9d66c188273a8b257\u0022\u003ECUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour\u2014Ikaroa-R\u0101whiti) (11:58)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Looking at new section 154A \u201CRegulations may require public listing\u201D, section 154A(1)(a) notes that regulations may require any person, premises, or thing to be listed for the following purposes: (a) enabling members of the public to know\u2014(i) who is authorised to carry out particular activities under this Act and under secondary legislation;\u201D\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b29fc1092e4e70c2dba3e15a26e04627\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, could you clarify the clause?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002267f7d12961febc914ca14cc7963ae2db\u0022\u003ECUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL\u003C/span\u003E: We are in new section 154A(1)(a).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e7c241e6282290f3236c31b9f2cc2ec8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: On page\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222e29f13a4fbc3e2c7557ea1e19c72a82\u0022\u003ECUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, Madam Chair\u2014these are my notes; on page 93.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e22115180571aec1f73e8b29454c9135\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s for the next part, so I\u2019ll ask the member to hold\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002222b664a8977513f4cbeb60a09f5d97e4\u0022\u003ECUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL\u003C/span\u003E: OK, Madam Chair. Looking at clause 256, inserting new sections 72AA, this relates largely to a maker of secondary legislation and their publishing requirements for that secondary legislation. \u201CMaker\u201D here is defined in new section 72AA(7): \u201Cin relation to an instrument, means the person empowered to make it\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ECan the Minister clarify this definition\u2014whether a Minister, public sector agency, or some other person is meant by this?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022 data-id=\u0022fb92bd75f1c11279fcd4ae0a18c147a0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fb92bd75f1c11279fcd4ae0a18c147a0\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:00)\u003C/span\u003E: It would depend on the relevant decision-making process, in terms of who would apply to make that decision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022 data-id=\u00228a859b11a6c2834f7143375e587d2725\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228a859b11a6c2834f7143375e587d2725\u0022\u003ECUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour\u2014Ikaroa-R\u0101whiti) (12:00)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, therefore, can the Minister give examples of how that may be defined, given the specific scenarios he\u2019s outlined?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u002244bb2011053c0bf35a69720d24d07018\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002244bb2011053c0bf35a69720d24d07018\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (12:00)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just while the Minister considers that, I\u2019ll just take the section, which my colleague is dealing with\u2014but this one is the top of page 92, it\u2019s new section 72AB.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is a specific provision for making the sorts of minor amendments, which I suggested to the Minister might be useful to clarify, that these are all about. I want to ask him whether\u2014the making of minor, technical amendments; that\u2019s fine. There\u2019s certainly no question coming from the Opposition that would suggest that making minor, technical amendments is outside of the remit that is expected in any of these instrument-making powers. The question is: are there emergency powers in here, given that that\u2019s especially outlined?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBecause there\u2019s an avoidance-of-doubt provision back on page 91, as new section 72AA(5). And it also hasn\u2019t included a specific part about, say, emergency powers or major event powers. So we\u2019re really just trying to understand whether this is then all-empowering, that kind of situation, where you would have something that was an apolitical decision, because this is what\u2019s intended to cover. You wouldn\u2019t make major policy changes in this kind of provision, and the department is not empowered to that. So what is a decision that is not minor and technical amendment that doesn\u2019t change policy which the department is empowered to do?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022 data-id=\u00226a8d704e790be0c1c2a4b62af2d5989a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226a8d704e790be0c1c2a4b62af2d5989a\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:02)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Chair. In regard to the question from Cushla, it is very much about futureproofing. An example of decision making could be, for example, the chief executive of Ministry for Primary Industries.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b15462cc9ecb4c4e6a47118fb66b069c\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e820a3864692f8ad7b92b0a500138812\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Is this a new question?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u0022e1b70966f6fe78e9cee4566d2004c1f2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e1b70966f6fe78e9cee4566d2004c1f2\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (12:02)\u003C/span\u003E: Just a final question on this point, just in relation to what the Minister has said there. Does the Minister envision a situation in futureproofing where a new policy decision would be taken by the department\u2014that is, the establishment of a new policy in circumstances that are not envisioned at the moment in the primary Act?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022 data-id=\u002263546032061d002ae7f6d3dbd391365f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002263546032061d002ae7f6d3dbd391365f\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:02)\u003C/span\u003E: In regard to the first question\u2014the questions are coming thick and fast, actually. We\u2019re trying to keep up here. The intent of this amendment is to enable decision makers to efficiently make the changes that include updating outdated terminology or cross references, removal of spent provisions, and the updating of outdated logos.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EPart 11 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022bd4d5dbefe6627cdd1a667edc2f622d0\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022884dde4f19e13413784414926c46a502\u0022\u003EPart 11A Amendments to Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Act 2023\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cd38f116cdc66a8d7c55054f4367b89d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we now come to the debate on Part 11A, which is clauses 258A and 258B, \u201CAmendments to Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Act 2023\u201D. The question is that Part 11A stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022 data-id=\u0022b2cd555edebe17c8c56df05960a1385d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b2cd555edebe17c8c56df05960a1385d\u0022\u003ECUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour\u2014Ikaroa-R\u0101whiti) (12:04)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair\u2014the relevant part now. So new section 154A, page 93, which states \u201CRegulations may require any person, premises, or thing to be listed for the following purposes: (a) enabling members of the public to know\u2014(i) who is authorised to carry out particular activities under this Act and under secondary legislation; and (ii) what things are authorised to be used in the carrying out of activities under this Act and under secondary legislation; and (iii) what premises are authorised as places for carrying out these activities\u201D. I\u2019d just like to ask the Minister\u2014in previous sections he has specified where these notifications must be published. I\u2019m just seeking clarification of why specificity is not required in this part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022882f0b3e22984115d4ca1c2dd7f532e1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry. Could the member just repeat what she\u2019s referring to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222ec958b472f1ef6763229b7ddc3db21e\u0022\u003ECUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL\u003C/span\u003E: Page 93, new section 154A, where it discusses that \u201CRegulations may require any person, premises, or thing to be listed for the following purposes: (a) enabling members of the public to know\u201D\u2014and the question is, in previous sections, where notifications must be published has been specified, such as in the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsTerm\u0022 style=\u0022font-style: italic\u0022\u003EGazette\u003C/span\u003E. The question here is, why is this section\u2014why is the Minister not specifying that in this part?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u00222f5872c394c29814470c2ecad42a6a41\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222f5872c394c29814470c2ecad42a6a41\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (12:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Again, this is a cost-cutting amendment to change overly specific consultation methods to become a list of options that appropriate decision makers may choose from is to make it easier rather than there being overly one, and the intention, and, I believe, the effect of this will be that it is easier for those that need to know about something gazetted, or the information, to be aware of it without there being an additional burdensome cost.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EPart 11A agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a2f7a7e491c08564cf8a065169c035cc\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u00220f0e6b65630fafbc42eba02a0dffec68\u0022\u003EPart 12 Repeal of Forests (West Coast Accord) Act 2000\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022efd20b9e21225dc4aca0753b9817e601\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: We come now to the debate on Part 12, clauses 259 and 260, \u201CRepeal of Forests (West Coast Accord) Act\u201D and Part 8 of Schedule 4. The question is that Part 12 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u0022fbf2e08565b58b99d6f3db47342bf488\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fbf2e08565b58b99d6f3db47342bf488\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (12:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. The West Coast Accord passed on 6 November 1986. It was effectively repealed in 2000 with the then change of Government, to the first Green-Labour Government, out of interest.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThat Act, the repeal of the Forests (West Coast Accord) Act gazetted the forests that were to be logged under the West Coast Accord into conservation estate\u2014from memory, 137,000 hectares of forest was gazetted into conservation estate. That was, as a result, as my colleague is rightly shouting out, of environmental campaigning action in the 1990s.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002211e9e1f818754d97b60bba4b18e5dc03\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225b388961512f69c3ee78d5a6e9418274\u0022\u003EHon Mark Patterson\u003C/span\u003E: Tell us more, Stephen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227b1784ee6514c6ad3d26d10b3dd80395\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: I shan\u2019t tell you more. I\u2019ll tell you more later, if you like\u2014that began in 1996, so 30 years ago.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWhat my question for the Minister is why is this being repealed now, this many years after the Forest (West Coast Accord) Act was put in place in 2000? Is it simply because it is no longer relevant? Can you clarify and disabuse anyone in the conservation community of concerns that repeal of this Act might impact the ending of the logging of Crown native forests on the West Coast? Or is that no longer a relevant question because the West Coast Accord is no longer in force and those forests are all in conservation estate?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u0022beff780b5df6f47aa3995090702bdc63\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022beff780b5df6f47aa3995090702bdc63\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (12:08)\u003C/span\u003E: The answer is, yes, I can give that assurance. All remaining savings and transitional provisions are spent, and any residual issues can be resolved via the Legislation Act default settings for repealed Acts. So, in effect, the member is correct, the Act cancelled the accord in 2000, in order that the forest in the public ownership had become reclassified for conservation purposes. That\u2019s now happened. Therefore, the repeal is to get it off the statute book because it has no function any more.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EPart 12 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002212d3d256a19e23737c534fc5c94899e3\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a0aefffba876892df8e383c1e46ac8fd\u0022\u003EPart 13 Repeal of Hop Industry Restructuring Act\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ee6ff59aca380a6a88c17667265f65b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: We come now to the debate on Part 13, the debate on clause 261, \u201CRepeal of Hop Industry Restructuring Act 2003\u201D. The question is that Part 13 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022e227596c662be920b1fec84230753061\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e227596c662be920b1fec84230753061\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (12:09)\u003C/span\u003E: Again, just the basic question for some of these ones, is if the Minister can tell us why. Why is it being repealed?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u0022b8675e2f6d284b8e7cb7868fc813c989\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b8675e2f6d284b8e7cb7868fc813c989\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (12:09)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the Act converted the New Zealand Hop Marketing Board into a cooperative company and governed its transitional tax and employment issues. That process was completed in 2004. All remaining savings and transitional provisions are also spent, and, as with the last section of the Act, any residual issues can be resolved via the Legislation Act default settings for repeal Acts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EPart 13 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002299bed5bf0a1b4023589d000cd45a10bc\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u002280d915e1a87e345c418cf1d7f986fca5\u0022\u003EPart 14 Amendments to Kaikoura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management Act 2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b6d7335d5c203f87e0aa23ae99b77a42\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: We come now to the debate on Part 14\u2014the debate on clauses 262 to 264\u2014\u201CAmendments to Kaikoura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management Act 2014\u201D. The question is that Part 14 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00229059759bec8d7d2770e536a3e05498ea\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229059759bec8d7d2770e536a3e05498ea\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (12:10)\u003C/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsTerm\u0022 style=\u0022font-style: italic\u0022\u003E:\u003C/span\u003E Just, again, if the Minister can explain why this part is there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u0022ecfd9225cb2e02e4141b74eb76766f93\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ecfd9225cb2e02e4141b74eb76766f93\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (12:10)\u003C/span\u003E: This legislation is out of step with other legislation, such as the South Island customary fisheries regulations, which provide for tangata whenua to make appointments of kaitiaki correctly. Together with clause 263 this clause will ensure consistency with other legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022 data-id=\u0022d75391e8ed93163e8142d3f63bb56bb1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d75391e8ed93163e8142d3f63bb56bb1\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (12:11)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019m just looking at this part and I notice on clause 262, the principal Act, it amends the Kaikoura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management Act 2014. I note on there \u201CKaikoura\u201D doesn\u2019t have a macron above the \u201Co\u201D, which is obviously a misspelling of how Kaik\u014Dura is spelled, and I\u2019m just wondering why that hasn\u2019t been picked up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u0022cfab847e3699f7c05ac19669df249e58\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cfab847e3699f7c05ac19669df249e58\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (12:12)\u003C/span\u003E: My follow-up to that is that in the body of the amendment Kaik\u014Dura is spelled correctly with a macron. I wonder if it is an oversight that the actual name of the legislation doesn\u2019t have the macron and whether that\u2019s an amendment that needs to be made and whether the Minister on such a simple manner would be amenable to correcting the name of the actual Act so that it is consistent with the correct spelling of Kaik\u014Dura.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022 data-id=\u0022dd850a70276c4ea1199fae9ed9e8195f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dd850a70276c4ea1199fae9ed9e8195f\u0022\u003EHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (12:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you for the spotting. That is very good work. I will check with the Clerk, but I think that is something that the Parliamentary Counsel Office can do under its editorial responsibility. It would not need an amendment of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fb8b25387f72c6690aaf5471c87608cd\u0022\u003EHon Member: \u003C/span\u003EKia ora. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EClause 14 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00222fba04af70eebe56ee361b016cf9db50\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u002263d658aa9b46df4c8efd277aa15c7274\u0022\u003EPart 15 Amendments to National Animal Identification and Tracing Act 2012, and Part 9 of Schedule 4\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e8d6b2456e39f60aa93be217358cb1e8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: We come now to the debate on Part 15\u2014the debate on clauses 265 to 281\u2014\u201CAmendments to National Animal Identification and Tracing Act 2012\u201D\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002272d008a350829294d6b3b99d6a879358\u0022\u003EHon Jo Luxton\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222737a33a3044e9a11349a434a8b68311\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014and Part 9 of Schedule 4. The question is that Part 16 stand part. The eager Hon Jo Luxton!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022 data-id=\u002249f54e5ddfe745db524d8cda5520ce94\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002249f54e5ddfe745db524d8cda5520ce94\u0022\u003EHon JO LUXTON (Labour) (12:13)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. We\u2019ve been told we have to be rigorous in our jumping up and taking the call or we\u2019ll lose it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI wanted to ask a question of the Minister with regard to a clause that was in the legislation as it was introduced. It was clause 269, where it allowed the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) officer or NAIT authorised person to share core data held in the NAIT information system for the purposes specified in subsection (1).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe had a lot of submitters that were concerned that allowing a wider sharing of the NAIT data\u2014and including with police\u2014could weaken privacy protections. Farmers do need confidence that their personal business information is protected, and so the committee did agree and remove that amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGiven submitters\u2019 concerns about privacy and their information being shared or not being shared, what specific safeguards will exist to ensure that NAIT data-sharing with agencies will contribute to strong farmers\u2019 confidence in the protection of their personal and commercial information? In light of the fact that the committee did decide to remove that proposed amendment on the wider information sharing, I\u2019d like to know, Minister, what other alternative mechanisms are going to be relied upon to balance effective enforcement with strong privacy protections in the NAIT system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022 data-id=\u00224e1befd1daed7b2269194789078a5a80\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224e1befd1daed7b2269194789078a5a80\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019m advised that the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) are still continuing to work on improvements on this, but we didn\u2019t want that to hold up this bill. So that\u2019s what\u2019s happening in the background.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022 data-id=\u0022b9f8201244f292cfb13b995858649fbb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b9f8201244f292cfb13b995858649fbb\u0022\u003EHon JO LUXTON (Labour) (12:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Could the Minister elaborate on what those improvements might look like or what they are considering.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022 data-id=\u00229a05d041324a6ec37640959756aab269\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229a05d041324a6ec37640959756aab269\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:15)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s on MPI\u2019s work programme at the moment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022 data-id=\u002219cb846ce0cf6e8a0c17752be1439139\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002219cb846ce0cf6e8a0c17752be1439139\u0022\u003EHon JO LUXTON (Labour) (12:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Minister assure farmers that their information and data will be protected?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022 data-id=\u002201e02b02142b6f26428b0931a1c350d0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002201e02b02142b6f26428b0931a1c350d0\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, and it\u2019s being worked through at the moment. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EPart 15 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00229280496f327aa3b715aa4e098963f893\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u002275b0ed050591c67b7cfc87e87081c78a\u0022\u003EPart 15A Amendments to New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act 1987 and secondary legislation made under that Act\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229443f754d1c0f2fec69ff2557a0ae4cf\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: We come now to the debate on Part 15A, the debate on clauses 281A to 281D, \u201CAmendments to New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act 1987 and secondary legislation made under that Act\u201D. The question is That Part 15A stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fa05d94faf44f8cf99754fd0a71f18ff\u0022\u003EHon Jo Luxton\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002225dde6b30a23fd74254a348ba0d7b6c1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Jo Luxton.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022 data-id=\u00222e8661d4f4bd3c749dd854d9df0a8426\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222e8661d4f4bd3c749dd854d9df0a8426\u0022\u003EHon JO LUXTON (Labour) (12:16)\u003C/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsTerm\u0022 style=\u0022font-style: italic\u0022\u003E:\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dd3b100f1bd1a09f8f8ab91e47f36f29\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsTerm\u0022 style=\u0022font-style: italic\u0022\u003E:\u003C/span\u003E Seamless.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002269298e3ea370d73ba7f4da5bfac1d7a9\u0022\u003EHon JO LUXTON\u003C/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsTerm\u0022 style=\u0022font-style: italic\u0022\u003E:\u003C/span\u003E Yes\u2014thank you, Mr Chair. My question is with regard to section 281B(1), which amends section 62(2)(f), and this is the key part that allows exemptions and refunds where a climatic or other event has resulted in a loss of export produce and the fee payer cannot benefit from the authority\u2019s services.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EGiven that fees are not automatically waived following major events such as Cyclone Gabrielle and relief depends on discretionary exemptions, can the Minister guarantee that growers affected by significant climatic events will be treated fairly when applying for fee waivers or refunds under these provisions?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022cb9082bcf89d83575c406790bf8eab98\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cb9082bcf89d83575c406790bf8eab98\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (12:17)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Just a simple question while the Minister talks to advisers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis new Part 15A seems to have been introduced by the Primary Production Committee\u2014as does the next Part\u2014and the select committee report says \u201CWe recommend inserting new Part 15A into the bill to implement the Minister\u2019s proposed amendment\u201D. So I\u2019m wondering if the Minister can just comment on the process that was used here\u2014for the Minister to communicate a proposed amendment with the select committee and then for the select committee to implement that by changes to the bill\u2014and whether or not there were any submissions on this part\u2014or the other parts of the bill; but we\u2019ll just stick to this part of the bill\u2014on this topic or if this is the first time that these issues are being discussed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do note, of course, that this bill\u2014and I\u2019ve been talking on it in a committee stage at some point some time ago, so I know the bill has been lurking about the place, so it might have been an opportunity for people to make further comments on it. And if that is the case\u2014if the Minister\u2019s aware that people have been aware of the bill as reported back from the select committee and made comments\u2014he might want to comment on that too.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022 data-id=\u0022e40098a77b5a5e2cae191410d7b2dc17\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e40098a77b5a5e2cae191410d7b2dc17\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. To the Hon Jo Luxton\u2019s question: yes, it does give the authority to make decisions on a case-by-case basis.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ETo the second question here\u2014the Hon Rachel Brooking; we got there in the end\u2014the Minister did write to the select committee, and it was publicly notified, and I\u2019m advised that there were no submissions received.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002212997622f78f6c3d74e072993b71fea5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: I just note that because of the nature of this, I\u2019m happy to wait while the Minister does take advice rather than having to be rushing these things. We\u2019re moving along quite nicely.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022 data-id=\u0022c1b8eeddbbf4394708afe687da0d7ab2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c1b8eeddbbf4394708afe687da0d7ab2\u0022\u003EHon JO LUXTON (Labour) (12:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. My question is with regard to new section 8A, the exemption or refund of fees. It states, \u201CThe Authority may exempt a person, in whole or in part, from the requirement to pay an annual monitoring of compliance fee, or refund the fee in whole or in part, if the Authority is satisfied that\u2014 (a) a climatic or other event has resulted in a loss of export produce for a fee payer; and (b) as a result, the fee payer has been unable to benefit from the services provided by the Authority.\u201D Now, it is stated that it is \u201Cif the Authority is satisfied that\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ENow, it is stated that is \u201Cif the Authority is satisfied that\u201D. My question to the Minister is when something like this happens when you have a climatic event or a disaster whereby the grower is obviously going to be very traumatised and be going through a lot of stress at the time, how much of a process is this going to mean for the grower to satisfy the authority? Is it going to be a big admin job for the grower or is it going to be a very seamless and easy to do claim, if you like? Because, given the nature and the situation and stress these people will be under, it\u2019d be really good for people to know that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022 data-id=\u0022ff9b1affa844343dfe061c6854a44691\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ff9b1affa844343dfe061c6854a44691\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:20)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Chair. I\u2019m advised that the exporter has to satisfy the authority, not the grower.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EPart 15A agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002211e84c739bdee20b0598f088cbfd04ca\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022293ee9b110d842aa78e7bf45681f9b65\u0022\u003EPart 15B Amendments to Organic Products and Production Act 2023\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022376de84730b820309d1cdd13afc4fc06\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: We come now to the debate on Part 15B. This debate is on clauses 281E to 281Q, \u201CAmendments to Organic Products and Production Act 2023\u201D. The question is that Part 15B stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022a2926d24d727dd11870d8caac6b855b6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a2926d24d727dd11870d8caac6b855b6\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (12:21)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Just, again, the same question that the select committee says that they have been inserted because the Minister wanted to make amendments. So can the Minister confirm that the same process was used and that there was some sort of notification and ability for people who\u2019d be interested in regulations about organic products to make those submissions? Also, if he can comment on why it is that the Minister had a desire to make quite a wide range of regulations under the Organic Products and Production Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022 data-id=\u0022f05e623cdec22f68c331966f40b81c8d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f05e623cdec22f68c331966f40b81c8d\u0022\u003EHon JO LUXTON (Labour) (12:21)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. The Organic Products and Production Act 2023, section 132, as amended by clause 281G, inserting subsection (5A), what specific examples can the Minister give of circumstances that would justify using the emergency organic standards power instead of the normal legislative process and how will misuse or overuse of this power be prevented?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022 data-id=\u002245919c03095a86b4345ed8b92810ce88\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002245919c03095a86b4345ed8b92810ce88\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:22)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Chair. The two questions from the Hon Rachel Brooking: the Minister wrote to the select committee and was publicly notified. I\u2019m advised that no submissions were received. The second answer to the second question: the Organic Products and Production Act 2023 was before the House at the time this bill was being drafted. It contains some of the same issues being addressed in this bill. Amendments to the Organic Products and Production Act replicate other amendments in the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022 data-id=\u0022108f918a0a9feced15b8443d8cb50555\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022108f918a0a9feced15b8443d8cb50555\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR (Labour) (12:22)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, this is just an interesting section. I guess probably the Ministry for Primary Industries sees it as novel, given that it\u2019s been quite a process to get organic standards in place. A lot of the industry kind of baulked. One of the things that did occur to me as I was looking through here, of course, is the regulations provide an ability to impose levies on the sector. One of the things the organic sector hates is any regulation for a start; but then, accepting that there\u2019s a need for discipline, of course, it\u2019s setting a cost. So these regulations do have an ability to impose levies in regulations. Whereas, if you go through the Commodity Levies Act, of course, that\u2019s one that requires a mandate from the sector.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EA question for the Minister is does he consider that the levies and payments through regulation on the organic sector are fair and how can he give an assurance that they won\u2019t end up being excessive? Because there is an arbitration process here in disputes. I think that\u2019s a positive one. The same provision\u2019s not necessarily under the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority one. I\u2019m not wanting to relitigate things, but I guess the organic sector would like to\u2014because there are some quite extensive changes here that have been passed through. I guess, I think, the committee, in voting for these, would want to give an assurance, and maybe the Minister can give the explanation as to how the organic sector is not being unfairly regulated and, in fact, the provisions here are all necessary, I guess, to protect them and protect us from them and to ensure that the organic sector grows.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022 data-id=\u0022c02e85f8fd72fecc15fe0a86e84d3954\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c02e85f8fd72fecc15fe0a86e84d3954\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:24)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Just in answer to the Hon Damien O\u2019Connor: nobody does like paying levies at the best of time, but we do find they are necessary. So the clause clarifies the ability for regulations to set a process for determining renumeration amounts for auditors or mediators. The current drafting of section 140 implies the regulations can only set a dollar amount for remuneration, rather than setting a procedure for determining remuneration. This amendment will reduce the need to update regulations frequently and it doesn\u2019t affect any safeguards or regulations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u0022716e86321473e2583062510d6dbaf0b8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022716e86321473e2583062510d6dbaf0b8\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (12:25)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. That clarification is useful, Minister. I know that the amendments were notified publicly and submissions were sought, but given the very specificity of this bill\u2014a bill that the organic sector themselves fought hard to have developed and, as my colleague has pointed out, which took a much longer time than they would have liked\u2014what direct consultation was had with the sector over these amendments? What was the feedback they gave and are these amendments with the support and the consent of the organic sector, specifically Organics New Zealand being the overarching body?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022 data-id=\u0022d0d23597e10ff178a96e795d03df490a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d0d23597e10ff178a96e795d03df490a\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:26)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. The consultation was via the select committee process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EPart 15B agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002240f0da6ecca6ae620603862d96fc1012\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u00223780cfd5a8c9093017c6d7874ffe726a\u0022\u003EPart 16 Amendments to Primary Products Marketing Act 1953, and Part 10 of Schedule 4\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c8ab576af2488b13b8112d081854a7d3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: We come now to the debate on Part 16, debate on clauses 282 to 285, \u201CAmendments to Primary Products Marketing Act 1953\u201D and Part 10 of Schedule 4. The question is that Part 16 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022 data-id=\u00226ae484db41b3afb4d2fce6a1db4bb10d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226ae484db41b3afb4d2fce6a1db4bb10d\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR (Labour) (12:27)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m sure I\u2019ll find something to say. Part 16 and \u201CAmendments to Primary Products Marketing Act\u201D\u2014is that correct?\u2014I guess 1953. I guess we could ask ourselves why it\u2019s taken so long. It\u2019s a reasonable question. Maybe the Minister can answer that. It\u2019s been around for a while. So, I guess, if it has been, making sure that changes that we make are sensible. So maybe a brief explanation from the Minister on that would be really, really useful for the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022 data-id=\u0022b872c4216ca30e61430a1e5e55d56bb1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b872c4216ca30e61430a1e5e55d56bb1\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:27)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. As the member over there that asked the question would know, all good things take time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EPart 16 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002225a98b4766e7a7c33a02709f2c619816\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e875598be4b220de63bcf3397fe9c51c\u0022\u003EPart 17 Amendments to Walking Access Act 2008, and Schedule 3A and Part 10A of Schedule 4\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221504e306f2b2d1494b5310223a28b4a6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: We come now to the debate on Part 17 on clauses 286 to 289S, \u201CAmendments to Amendments to Walking Access Act 2008\u201D and Schedule 3A and Part 10A of Schedule 4. The question is that Part 17 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022 data-id=\u0022179cccd12d38a676c1d27b11a6490591\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022179cccd12d38a676c1d27b11a6490591\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR (Labour) (12:28)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chairman, because I do have to disappear. My colleagues will be happy about that. But Amendments to Walking Access Act\u2014look, I take some pride. This is a piece of legislation that I heralded through and it was quite difficult at the time, I think, as it turned out to be a core part of the New Zealand way of life, I guess, which is access to waterways and access to the great outdoors. Amendments here, of course, actually change the name, which is sensible, because it\u2019s more than just \u201Cwalking access\u201D. It is access to the wild and wonderful New Zealand that says the Outdoors Access Commission is an appropriate name. Just making sure that the ongoing funding for it and the ongoing principles and objectives are maintained\u2014absolutely critical. I guess, the Outdoor Access Commission, which is what it will be called, has that same long-term commitment and it does underpin a lot of what we see across rural New Zealand. I just acknowledge and support this as a sensible step forward.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022 data-id=\u002223c5dcb20226261919b85ab645bb3074\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002223c5dcb20226261919b85ab645bb3074\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:29)\u003C/span\u003E: Nothing changes other than the name.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u002234308b4f2819377ad1302f609fc06d13\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002234308b4f2819377ad1302f609fc06d13\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (12:29)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Now, going back to an earlier discussion in this debate, we were talking about the importance of the great Regulations Review Committee\u2014I\u2019m not sure that anybody is left in the Chamber who was in the Chamber at that point\u2014and the Minister made a quip that perhaps the Regulations Review Committee is like an Uber compared to the other select committees being scooters. That relates to my question, believe it or not, and that is that we\u2019re changing walking and making it outdoor, and does that mean that we\u2019re supposed to look at other forms of getting around, such as on a scooter or an Uber, even? Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022 data-id=\u00221c423dcc6aa09ef1dd5e058912a6cbe6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221c423dcc6aa09ef1dd5e058912a6cbe6\u0022\u003EHon JO LUXTON (Labour) (12:30)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. My question relates to clause 289, which repeals section 80, \u201CMinister must review Act\u201D, and I\u2019m interested to know why the statutory review requirement is being repealed. I do note that it does say that the Minister has reviewed the Act, but are we to believe that that was a one-off ever review of the Act, or is it going to be something that is going to be on a cyclic level, and, therefore, if that is the case, then why are we repealing section 80?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022 data-id=\u00225ab62f3999a45266fbed9702a58f5b89\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225ab62f3999a45266fbed9702a58f5b89\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:31)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. This section 80 requires the Minister to review the Act and this review has been completed. I\u2019m advised that it was a one-off.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EPart 17 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c1da59856d98ace6bccffcf85e420eb6\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d84a15afef55267f47b99251109ad35b\u0022\u003EPart 18 Amendments to Wine Act 2003, and Part 11 of Schedule 4\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d135104fd8519cb1c5b4540f5c012051\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: We come now to the debate on Part 18, which is the debate on clauses 290 to 309, \u201CAmendments to Wine Act 2003\u201D, and Part 11 of Schedule 4. The question is that Part 18 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00228b27d3e8b669dacd5cd584cc847a3dc6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228b27d3e8b669dacd5cd584cc847a3dc6\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (12:31)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. The Primary Production Committee report says that a lot of the amendments here are to do with fixing up relationships between different pieces of primary industries\u2019 legislation, which makes sense. My question is about clause 294A, which says to insert after section 39, a new section 39A, \u201CExemption from labelling requirements\u201D, and this relates to the changes that we\u2019ve discussed earlier about food standards and the difference between the domestic food standards and the temporary food standards. The Minister can confirm my understanding, which is that this allows a wine exporter to \u201Cnot comply with [either a] joint food standard,\u201D\u2014so that\u2019s one with Australia\u2014\u201Ca domestic food standard,\u201D\u2014so that\u2019s a special New Zealand one\u2014\u201Cor a temporary food standard\u201D\u2014which is also a special New Zealand one\u2014\u201Cto the extent that the standard\u2019s labelling requirements conflict with the labelling requirements of the country that imports the wine.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat I\u2019m interested in here is that word \u201Cextent\u201D of the conflict. Could we be in a situation where a country that the wine is being exported to\u2014the importing country\u2014has, say, no labelling requirements, and what would happen then? Would that wine not have any of the normal labelling requirements that we see in New Zealand, or is it just more to do with where the importing country\u2019s standard might be slightly different, and so the exporter wants to still provide the information, but in the slightly different format that is required by the importing country? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI just want to ensure that if New Zealand wine ends up going somewhere else, it will still be appropriately labelled, and I understand that it can be very costly for these winemakers to have lots of different variants of their labels. But I ask if the Minister can just speak to the intent of this new clause, and also, if he can specifically refer to the test of the extent that the standard labelling requirements conflict, where that conflict is imagined to be. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022 data-id=\u00220121965620ce8d82e03d417968203918\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220121965620ce8d82e03d417968203918\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:34)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. The Wine Act currently provides that a wine standards management plan does not need to comply with the New Zealand food standards to the extent that the standards\u2019 labelling requirements conflict with the labelling requirements of the country that is importing the wine. However, it\u2019s not the wine standards management plan that has to comply with labelling requirements; it\u2019s the wine. This amendment will exempt wine that is being exported from having to comply with conflicting labelling requirements.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022708bd43239898adf84a5f9dc7a9c4718\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022708bd43239898adf84a5f9dc7a9c4718\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (12:35)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you for reading out the section to me. That\u2019s what I\u2019m interested in: the conflict. Can he comment on the conflict that is anticipated by how the wine will be labelled in New Zealand before it is sent off, because any conflict might be\u2014the importing country might say that they don\u2019t need any information at all, and you could say that that was a conflict: you don\u2019t need any information, but you need some information. But the word \u201Cextent\u201D of the conflict, to me, implies\u2014and it would be useful to have it on the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E\u2014that having nothing doesn\u2019t mean that you wouldn\u2019t still supply the label; you would only make a change to the New Zealand labelling requirements if there was some unnecessary double-up of information that would cause that conflict. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThat is why we are looking at the extent of the conflict, and that is why the word \u201Cextent\u201D is used\u2014and I\u2019m just aware that the Minister is still talking to the official, and so I may be labouring the point somewhat, Mr Chair. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022370202a223d1ec7b338e1b341fcb54b2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, that\u2019s all right. We\u2019ll wait for the Minister to take his advice. We don\u2019t need to\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226c8d3c10259d730b75e2c6144fd9efba\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Say the point any more?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002243e10e78ef83001b1083df33f2b39415\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: We need to make sure that the quality of the answer is at its best. The Hon Jo Luxton\u2014but feel free to wait while the Minister is taking his advice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022736f68125556c67cd9156b5a6b330433\u0022\u003EHon Jo Luxton\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m happy to wait, yeah.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022 data-id=\u0022b74a431aae2fe023de6cab85b90f3577\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b74a431aae2fe023de6cab85b90f3577\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I have been advised that in terms of compliance with the country that we\u2019re exporting to, we should meet their labelling requirements and not New Zealand labelling requirements, otherwise they\u2019re actually in conflict.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022 data-id=\u0022857ab1c847ed3894571154a3cde6ae15\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022857ab1c847ed3894571154a3cde6ae15\u0022\u003EHon JO LUXTON (Labour) (12:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. My question relates to clause 291, \u201CSection 4 amended (Interpretation)\u201D, and the definition of \u201Cfruit wine or vegetable wine\u201D. Why are we broadening the definition of the fruit and vegetable wine? What is the purpose of this, and what regulatory gap is actually being addressed by this? I mean, it just seems unclear, and I\u2019d be interested to know what the purpose of all of that is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u0022ff0c0cbbb701ebabb7d382f74dfa7cb7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ff0c0cbbb701ebabb7d382f74dfa7cb7\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (12:38)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Yeah, mine\u2019s on the same clause, and, specifically, the wording of the definition of \u201Cfruit wine or vegetable wine\u201D includes products that are made with the fermentation of products that include \u201Cfruit, vegetables, grains, cereals, or any combination or preparation of those foods;\u201D, but it does not include grape wine. Essentially, it\u2019s any wine products made from a plant, isn\u2019t it? I wonder why the definition doesn\u2019t include mention of grains and cereals, or whether it couldn\u2019t be broader and simply say \u201Cplant-based wines that are not grape wines\u201D. What consideration did the Minister give to that sort of clarity?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022 data-id=\u00224c7811368194a248316658dce8c5b7e6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224c7811368194a248316658dce8c5b7e6\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:39)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve been advised that the answer to the Hon Jo Luxton\u2019s and Steve Abel\u2019s questions is the same. It is that the definition of \u201Cfruit wine or vegetable wine\u201D is ambiguous, and this amendment will bring the definition of \u201Cfruit wine or vegetable wine\u201D in the Wine Act into line with the definition in the Food Standards Code, improving consistency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u002215019d43a86fc659b2337d1f0753349a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002215019d43a86fc659b2337d1f0753349a\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (12:39)\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister was still talking as he was sitting down, which makes it very difficult to work out\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229a96edaa7a68c9283bb25813974dab21\u0022\u003EHon Mike Butterick\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228f996db859d00f3c71a69d832e90108b\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: Keep standing while you\u2019re talking, Minister, please.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229bc86f27e2c017313eb13f2b5fd3e8aa\u0022\u003EHon Members: \u003C/span\u003EHe\u2019s messing with you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002253769226488fa5f188a75cf3479e4cea\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: He is\u2014he is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EGoing back to those labelling requirements and his answer, and to clarify then, if the importing country says that no labelling is required, then is he saying that any New Zealand requirements would be in conflict with that? No labelling is required, and as the bottle\u2014whatever it\u2019s in; let\u2019s say it\u2019s a bottle\u2014goes out of New Zealand, it will have no label because that is the conflict. That\u2019s my question about the conflict and the extent of the conflict, if it means that it could result in no labelling, or it might be that every country in the world does have labelling requirements through Codex or something.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022 data-id=\u00221f406950159be5ded35414abe8345939\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221f406950159be5ded35414abe8345939\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:40)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair, and I\u2019ll make sure that I stand up for the Hon Rachel Brooking. I\u2019m advised that, again, it\u2019s exporting from New Zealand to overseas, which I think that the question was\u2014that direction of travel. It should meet their standards.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e7cafb2e2a91b7b007711b65aa56827a\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: But if they have no standard?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002238b95724faedb776a31b508833e3623f\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I\u2019m not aware of\u2014I\u2019ll take some advice on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f6b3fd207d4f770edcceb34b78b60c05\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The only exemption the Minister would get from standing up is if he had played in the Rumble at Russell.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a9487b266f767dc5d43d0a1a0331348c\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK\u003C/span\u003E: If there is no conflict, you\u2019d need to comply with New Zealand\u2019s standards.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EPart 18 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c77617b2c7062819b20daa071d7bf0bf\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u002276f78d0618e7fe80d14fa713c11973c3\u0022\u003EPart 19 Repeal of Wool Industry Restructuring Act 2003\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002258d85f28111213df2fc69c7a4ef97be6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: We come now to the debate on Part 19, which is the debate on clause 310, \u201CRepeal of Wool Industry Restructuring Act 2003\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002211e9e1f818754d97b60bba4b18e5dc03\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220e363746e30e37b7d8d3df98c4c71068\u0022\u003EHon Mark Patterson\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, don\u2019t do it, Mike\u2014don\u2019t do it!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228e97bf68ff950f87559b91772aa884c7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Part 19 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u0022cbb89d0f255817f05878e5efbf0fb278\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cbb89d0f255817f05878e5efbf0fb278\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (12:41)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chair, thank you very much. I mean, I guess the obvious question, for the benefit of Mark Patterson, is: why are you repealing the Wool Industry Restructuring Act? What is the consequence of that? What was the purpose of the Act, what are the contents of that Act that need to be retained, and do they exist anywhere else in legislation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022 data-id=\u002235fa2f41371b1cbb254b21c734226dab\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002235fa2f41371b1cbb254b21c734226dab\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:42)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I might just start off by saying that wool is now the new white gold, and it\u2019s at about $7.42 clean, which is great, great news for all our wool growers up and down the length of the country. Some Acts that have had short-term effects remain on the statute book, despite having fulfilled their functions and having no live provisions. The Act converted the New Zealand Wool Board into a company to disestablish and distribute the assets and govern its transitional tax year disbursement and employment issues. The final distribution was made in 2011. All remaining savings and transitional provisions are spent, and any residual issues can be resolved through the Legislation Act default settings for repealed Acts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u00221a78b15c20cce036fd053fe46b0156ae\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221a78b15c20cce036fd053fe46b0156ae\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (12:43)\u003C/span\u003E: Is there clarity as to what happened to the Wool Board\u2019s art collection, or is that a cold case, so to speak?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022 data-id=\u00226312bf12f69dd6b9d3dcf8ff8bd4da6b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226312bf12f69dd6b9d3dcf8ff8bd4da6b\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:43)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll take advice on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022 data-id=\u00221df8c2bf3b470bb6aed9a33b2216c5e8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221df8c2bf3b470bb6aed9a33b2216c5e8\u0022\u003EHon JO LUXTON (Labour) (12:43)\u003C/span\u003E: What assessment has been made of the consequences, if there are any consequences, of repealing this Act for the wool sector?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022 data-id=\u00224cc1223e06d784d33b7a1a2a401428b1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224cc1223e06d784d33b7a1a2a401428b1\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:43)\u003C/span\u003E: There are none, because it was wound up in 2011.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227edf6445c3d9e8fe58fd85774c494db7\u0022\u003EHon Jo Luxton\u003C/span\u003E: Pardon\u2014sorry, I didn\u2019t catch that last bit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222ef5000bcdbfb5deb34c3324afa57e87\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK\u003C/span\u003E: The final distribution was made in 2011, and so there are none.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022 data-id=\u0022acbb0b25f85ac50691d3fe7e4e2ef3b1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d839e70748034293b9dc7da14cde6c13\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022acbb0b25f85ac50691d3fe7e4e2ef3b1\u0022\u003EHon JO LUXTON (Labour) (12:43)\u003C/span\u003E: Given that the Act is to be repealed, can he confirm where wool regulation now sits in New Zealand law, if at all?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002211e9e1f818754d97b60bba4b18e5dc03\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c58f2a628698408c8b8884814db48cfb\u0022\u003EHon Mark Patterson\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s above the law, Jo!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022436290de4eeb8a028d677c7b033eee35\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Was that for \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E, Mr Patterson?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022 data-id=\u002283320ea753157438e8c6bb5e3c6ea343\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002283320ea753157438e8c6bb5e3c6ea343\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:44)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s outside the scope of this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bc384aabd5070a7d7341b1c919397f05\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s outside the scope of the bill currently.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 19 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022971e8f4b9faca4b46ef7e5ddfce421b8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 580 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 2 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 3 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 3A agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227139456b2c99135ca266b7a79f2cb42e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Schedule 4 set out on Amendment Paper 580 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 4 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00227a04de0d5295102231d40fb94867b0fd\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022860eb5d739bff1693712fff893214a32\u0022\u003EClauses 1 and 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aa3cea9e3e6b840fe6f29e00bda416c4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: We come now to the debate on clauses 1 and 2, \u201CTitle\u201D and \u201CCommencement\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u0022af0857058ed6283e8137d983d8dc235c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022af0857058ed6283e8137d983d8dc235c\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (12:45)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. There is an Amendment Paper here in the Minister\u2019s name about clause 2, which is commencement. At the moment, the bill as drafted says, \u201CSubpart 2 of each of Parts 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 15, and 18 comes into force\u2014(a) on 1 or more dates set by Order in council; or (b) to the extent not brought into force earlier, on 24 March 2026.\u201D That date, on Amendment Paper 579 in the Hon Todd McClay\u2019s name, will change to 1 March 2027, and so I was wondering if the Minister would like to comment on that change.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EObviously, 24 March 2026 has already passed, and so I do note that. But I ask whether if he considers now why it is that we\u2019re still heading into a March date for this commencement date, and what consideration was there that went into that date in the Amendment Paper?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022 data-id=\u0022967a97e6d9aed1130ab885965c446c01\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022967a97e6d9aed1130ab885965c446c01\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:47)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. The commencement date of 1 March will allow time for the Ministry for Primary Industries to complete the administrative arrangements necessary to implement the amendments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u002211220688bf93b4a673f675e1374a1843\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002211220688bf93b4a673f675e1374a1843\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (12:47)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Now, in the commencement clause, I\u2019ve read out clause 1, which was some of those subparts, and then Subpart 3 of Part 1 comes into force 12 months after the commencement of the rest of the Act. Can the Minister explain why that Subpart 3 of Part 1 is treated differently and why it will need this additional year\u2014so, presumably, that will take us through to something like 1 March 2028.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022 data-id=\u00229234c3936ede813f029afd07817b1c47\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229234c3936ede813f029afd07817b1c47\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:48)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019m advised that that creates a 12-month transition period for inhibitor products.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00225c15b8c58a789ba1ee0e266114dd5345\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225c15b8c58a789ba1ee0e266114dd5345\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (12:48)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. The inhibitors, then: why do they need the additional 12 months on top of the time that is now going to be\u2014I can\u2019t count how many months it is till March 2027, but that still seems like a good time away. Why is this additional 12 months needed on top of that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022 data-id=\u0022deafb92653a7e4d426dbf45c41cdd84e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022deafb92653a7e4d426dbf45c41cdd84e\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:48)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019m advised that it will give manufacturers time to register under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines register.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u002260a0358ca1fcab3e2cd50f2b3abeae68\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002260a0358ca1fcab3e2cd50f2b3abeae68\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (12:48)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. There\u2019s currently a bill before the House on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines (ACVM) register, and so I\u2019m interested in the interaction with that bill and the changes here. Is this extension so that that bill that\u2019s currently with the Primary Production Committee\u2014and it has quite a quick report-back date, I think, and I\u2019m looking at members of that committee. So the ACVM bill\u2014is the idea that this additional time frame for commencement is so that the two can catch up, or are they totally unrelated?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022 data-id=\u0022b08754f7d2ebaaa0156fb46ebbe52dbe\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b08754f7d2ebaaa0156fb46ebbe52dbe\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:49)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m advised that they don\u2019t interact.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EClause 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224d43a6b26b82d2d1f76ec53ef52b0e90\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendment to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 579 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 2 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill to be reported with amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHouse resumed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003424\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002201f6fd843ff83e5d6c63aff7bce62e23\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Speaker, the committee has further considered the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. Madam Speaker, I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the report be adopted\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EReport adopted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b7fa5cf2ceacc1dcdfd92f75ff049b45\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003428\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ce9460ca0a713abd38c8229774f0cdc7\u0022\u003ELegislative Statement\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022 data-id=\u00226bc6d1ca05a2a69c721592087b69c276\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226bc6d1ca05a2a69c721592087b69c276\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:51)\u003C/span\u003E: I present a legislative statement on the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00222db4778cdc1fa94d9af2f830e431071a\u0022\u003EThird Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022 data-id=\u0022b82f10ceaec82adea3477f6eddb41008\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022beb91839dc784d58b7c846dc39ac3831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b82f10ceaec82adea3477f6eddb41008\u0022\u003EHon MIKE BUTTERICK (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (12:51)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsTerm\u0022 style=\u0022font-style: italic\u0022\u003EThat the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is a pleasure to bring this bill through its final stage today. As I\u2019ve talked about in previous debates on this bill, this is a piece of legislation about good regulatory practice and making sure our legislation is fit for purpose. A regulatory systems bill is an opportunity to fix small issues that accumulate over time. These are often minor irritants that are not large enough or problematic enough in themselves to justify amending the relevant Acts through a stand-alone amendment bill. But in taking them all together, this omnibus bill becomes an efficient way to make minor or technical improvements to legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill has over 250 substantive amendments in it. I\u2019ve gone through some of these in detail previously, and I do not propose to repeat myself; the bill speaks for itself. Many of the changes in this bill will reduce the amount of red tape that farmers, exporters, and public servants have to deal with. It will streamline some existing processes so that farmers and growers can keep their attention on what they do best, not on the paperwork. The Government backs farmers in the rural sector. While minor, this bill will make things easier for the primary sector across New Zealand. I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223ee04ef621a2338e2fa26023aa44f0da\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I would just note that that legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003435\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe question is that the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u002218cfa2f2bce1a351967982d89541df0e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002218cfa2f2bce1a351967982d89541df0e\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (12:52)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on the third reading of the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill. We\u2019ve just had a very useful committee stage, going through the very many parts of this bill. As the Minister noted, it does make many changes. Some of them are fairly minor and technical in nature, and some of them have a bit more guts to them\u2014we\u2019re talking about the primary sector so we can talk about guts, can\u2019t we?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe spent some time focusing on food standards. Most of New Zealand\u2019s food standards\u2014well, they are all jointly done with Australia. One of the amendments that this bill does is it says where there is not a joint standard with Australia, then New Zealand can make one, and that\u2019s something that seems very reasonable. There\u2019s also another aspect where there\u2019s a need for a temporary food standard, which seems to be\u2014I think we got to the position from the Minister that where it is a different type of food standard, a temporary standard, when there\u2019s some need to suddenly have a standard, then that can be made as well. There was some discussion in committee stage about how that is made and how robust it is, and the importance\u2014we all agreed, all around the House\u2014of very high food standards in New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut then there\u2019s this other domestic food standard that can be made when there\u2019s already a joint food standard with Australia and New Zealand decides to opt out. This is quite a substantive policy decision, I would say, in terms of the fact that, for a long time, New Zealand has benefited from that arrangement with Australia in having those joint food standards, but we have seen, and we can argue about this, one big decision to opt out of that joint food standard with Australia over infant formula. There is concern, of course, that different groups may lobby Government Ministers to get them to opt out of the joint standard, and then that could be the reason for why we\u2019re now looking at another opportunity for a different type of food standard to come through.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo we have had good discussion with the Minister the Hon Todd McClay, who was assuring speakers on this side that, in fact, there was not an intention to go around opting out of that joint food standard all the time. So some comfort was provided, and it is useful to have that recorded in the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003440\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOther aspects: we had an interesting discussion on labelling of wine when it\u2019s exported to countries where that importing country has different standards from us. Again, that seems to be quite a substantive change where the two labelling requirements are in conflict. Then, you don\u2019t have to match the New Zealand standards and you can go with that importing country. So, hopefully, that will be clear as to how it will be implemented.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe had some good conversation in the committee stage that we\u2019ve just had about wool. We seem to all be loving wool around the House, as well as food standards, so that\u2019s good to be standing here and agreeing with some things.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe didn\u2019t get through probably all the questions that were on the Fisheries Act, but there does seem to be some changes there around the power for the Minister to make regulations to change the rules around when fish can be disposed of. I think that\u2019s an important change, and we\u2019ll want to see that. We\u2019ll be, of course, watching what regulations come out of that, and very much hope that the legislation that the last Labour Government put in place is not diluted too much by those changes, or diluted at all, in fact\u2014that they are just ones that go with the spirit of the Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOn that note, noting the time on the clock\u2014not the red clock but the other clock above it\u2014I will say that we commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002245bbb9c81e968b8d1f5d37a5285acfdd\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the time has come for me to vacate the Chair. The House will resume at 2 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EDebate interrupted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterItalicsCentred\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 12.57 p.m. to 2 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003447\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c1fd04d8b11647ba9c5663237d4dd24c\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The House is resumed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00220ecb7008ff810b8498c227d3d51d2ccf\u0022\u003EOral Questions to Ministers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003449\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00223c66618d8225a1094b330dfff8ca1be2\u0022\u003EFinance\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003450\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00221e03c848d69e7339b8b905406a879a8c\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 1\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022 data-id=\u002264c20efa38e031970f8bf61150e3aac0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002264c20efa38e031970f8bf61150e3aac0\u0022\u003EHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour\u2014Mana) (14:00)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Finance\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022gil\u0022\u003EKam na mauri, \u003C/span\u003E Mr Speaker. 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=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022 data-id=\u00228ca43cbeedf44347375d21769c899429\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003452\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228ca43cbeedf44347375d21769c899429\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Finance) (14:00)\u003C/span\u003E on behalf of the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Finance\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022105ac952a6f2a09663556ec451bc3e7d\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: Is the number of people in work higher or lower compared to\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E] I\u2019ll start again. Is the number of people in work higher or lower compared to when she took office?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003454\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022796f1e6842035cbc42763446a35252ab\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: The number of people in work is publicly available information that I believe the member is well aware of. If she\u2019s here to genuinely discover new information, she\u2019s welcome to do that. If she\u2019d just like to make political points, she\u2019s got lots of opportunities to do so.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003455\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d5c0654350aec06b9cca2d4b998b9383\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, sir. If question time is limited to information that isn\u2019t publicly available, we\u2019d be reliant on this Government releasing information\u2014we wouldn\u2019t find out a thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228bf3ee5c10f6ab63076a6a48379c3159\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Part of what you\u2019re saying absolutely true. I think some attempt at an answer or \u201CI don\u2019t have the information.\u201D would be perfectly acceptable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002245554548fd0e3944532122377ecb4353\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: Are there more or fewer homeless people now compared to when she took office?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cd8be7f0767d3f326c653026cbf24571\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: If the Minister wants to ask questions about homelessness, she should probably put them to the Minister for Housing. What I can confirm\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002228c3cef08b5d9735064219d5ffde17fe\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, sir.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b8c0496d4c6341049c8a7221607df485\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Just a minute.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002289a5a16e141190546fa741237ab7ccf9\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Is it correct, sir, that once a member starts answering on behalf\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229c0df8841e71afd5221828ebfdecd6e5\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I\u2019m just taking that advice for the present time, but I think you\u2019re right. Thank you for that inquiry. The advice I\u2019ve got is that the Hon David Seymour was acting for the Minister, now that the Minister is here, the Minister answers in her own right because you can\u2019t act for someone who is here. Slightly complicated\u2014part of the arcane rules of Parliament.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003463\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226b17bf39e4587c2ca7bb5aa8e3fb416e\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: Is the number of people on jobseeker benefit higher or lower compared to when she took office?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225f2a13aa7a2b770eef959c83144e996d\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: As has been traversed many times in this House, the economy has been through a difficult recovery period following sky-high inflation, under the last Government, and rapidly rising interest rates that were needed to curb that inflation, and that has led to increases in unemployment. However, our Minister for Social Development and Employment has been doing extraordinary work to ensure that job seekers more readily move into work, and the data shows that that has been very successful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002207a0dbecba2818821378bb7e07378033\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: Is GDP per capita higher or lower compared to when she took office?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022981e53f55b071bc816637087392ac9ec\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: GDP per capita is also a factor of a difficult recovery, however, I can confirm for the member, positively, that GDP per capita in the first three months of this year grew by 0.5\u00A0percent, and is forecast to keep growing over the forecast period.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bb3d23e1478da9f1b511604eedbaa1f0\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: Why won\u2019t she accept any responsibility when, on her watch, unemployment is worse, homelessness is worse, people on the jobseeker benefit is higher, KiwiSaver hardship withdrawals are higher, business closures are higher, and GDP per capita is worse?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222e73b58f558b1adc9e975cc600fc1935\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: I accept responsibility for this Government\u2019s extraordinary work to strengthen the foundations of our economy following a period of epic mismanagement by the last Government. On our watch, inflation has come back under control, interest rates have dropped; we have seen that even though the world has thrown us curveballs, we have made sensible decisions. We are investing more in front-line education, health, and police services. We have set out a path to get back into surplus and to reduce debt. And all I\u2019ve heard from that member is, \u201CLet\u2019s offer some free things and tax Kiwis more to pay for it, drive up inflation, and undermine the fundamentals of this economy.\u201D; while also saying \u201Cno\u201D to every idea that we put forward to create jobs, whether that\u2019s fast track, whether that\u2019s the Investment Boost tax credit. And so I will stand by this Government\u2019s record any day of the week.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d377c2f45cf2c749aef43b07190fba4c\u0022\u003EFinance\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003470\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002242663f1e6c11aa697e7525d68a15b95c\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b27d8609c612411686d517d0f9b09b28\u0022 data-id=\u00223b35d1cf7112ece483212e75bb5e1ea7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d8609c612411686d517d0f9b09b28\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223b35d1cf7112ece483212e75bb5e1ea7\u0022\u003EDAVID MacLEOD (National\u2014New Plymouth) (14:05)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Finance\u003C/span\u003E: What recent reports has she seen on the Government\u2019s fiscal position?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022 data-id=\u00228005ca9e25da33d8173287fcdbc7dda2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228005ca9e25da33d8173287fcdbc7dda2\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:05)\u003C/span\u003E: This morning, the Treasury released the interim financial statements of the Government for the 11 months ended 31 May 2026. Revenue and expenses are tracking better than expected. Core Crown tax revenue in the first 11 months was $940 million higher than forecast at the Budget update, and overall core Crown revenue was $1.7 billion higher than forecast. This reflects both businesses and Crown entities performing better than expected. On the other side of the ledger, core Crown expenses were $929 million lower than forecast. Now, these positive results of course flow through to the headline operating balance indicator, OBEGALx\u2014operating balance before gains and losses, excluding ACC revenue and expenses\u2014meaning that the deficit for the first 11 months of the year was $3 billion smaller than forecast in the Budget.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d8609c612411686d517d0f9b09b28\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bc082e6e21cc55d62721b335ed4ece9f\u0022\u003EDavid MacLeod\u003C/span\u003E: What do the financial statements say about Government\u2019s debt?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f6e9cf9de458ad2497d091afa4dca69b\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: The 11-month results for revenue and expenses flow through to the Government\u2019s cash position and therefore its debt position. The interim statements show that net core Crown debt was $2.8 billion lower in May than previously expected. The figure of $2.8 billion is the equivalent of 0.6 percent of GDP. That means that net core Crown debt in May was 41.3 percent of GDP compared to the forecast of 41.9 percent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d8609c612411686d517d0f9b09b28\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022313a93b247564a34b322dc695e545c91\u0022\u003EDavid MacLeod\u003C/span\u003E: What is the significance of these statements?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221173b8309810550ca5b2d15037e699af\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Today\u2019s release covers eleven-twelfths of the last financial year, so it does give a very good indication of what to expect from the year-end statements for the 2025-26 fiscal year\u2014those won\u2019t be released until October. Year-end statements are important because they are actual figures, not forecasts or projections. Of course, a lot of accounting goes on to prepare these full-year accounts, and the numbers will move around a bit, but today\u2019s release is obviously a very encouraging sign that the books will be in better shape than previously expected.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d8609c612411686d517d0f9b09b28\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bb6ce60547f939aa7dc3d9d7977f9876\u0022\u003EDavid MacLeod\u003C/span\u003E: What was driving the increase in tax revenue?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a2d065e06da929a96742f4d2ae835ed2\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, as I said, core Crown tax revenue was $940\u00A0million higher than expected. This was mostly due to corporate tax, which was $692\u00A0million higher than forecast in the Budget. Stronger corporate tax revenue is a welcome sign of underlying strength in the economy. Indications are that the conflict in the Middle East slowed growth in the second quarter of this year, and we expect the data to reflect that, but they also show that the economy is already regaining the momentum it had before the conflict.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022fb22a139b192b752be7720f2ac24c361\u0022\u003EHealth\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002233c2c12e364c5061abfd09c6561379a3\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 3\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022 data-id=\u00227d0cea2625318dcf1bf2267c8a60ff10\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227d0cea2625318dcf1bf2267c8a60ff10\u0022\u003EHon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (14:08)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Health\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by the statement from the Ministry of Health that \u201CThe principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, as articulated by the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal, provide the framework for how we will meet our obligations under Te Tiriti in our day-to-day work\u201D; if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u00228929daeefa8202468aec3faf43af2a5d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228929daeefa8202468aec3faf43af2a5d\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:08)\u003C/span\u003E: As the ministry has said, the principles developed by the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal continue to inform how the Government meets its obligations in the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill, which I\u2019m pleased to report was passed in the House this morning. This sets out clearly how they apply in the health sector as part of fixing the basics and building the future of our health system. The bill strengthens the role of the Hauora M\u0101ori Advisory Committee so that independent specialist advice continues to inform health decisions, keeps iwi-M\u0101ori partnership boards in place to give communities a meaningful voice, and, importantly, it delivers better outcomes for patients by putting health targets into law. We all saw what happened when the previous Government scrapped the health targets: outcomes for patients went backwards across the board, including for M\u0101ori. Our focus is on improving health outcomes for all New Zealanders, including M\u0101ori, backed by record health investment and targets that are already lifting performance year on year.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220a946ca4c1f1e6dc3745fce5cd73ec93\u0022\u003EHon Willie Jackson\u003C/span\u003E: Does he agree with former New Zealander of the year Dr Lance O\u2019Sullivan, who said that the health system is \u201Ca dangerous system with really poor systems for M\u0101ori.\u201D, and, if not, why?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003484\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c314b10c93e75c6d32bfaf4ea85f25dd\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: Well, what I agree with is the fact that our health targets are seeing year-on-year improvement for all New Zealanders, including M\u0101ori. I would just point out, on the shortest stays in emergency departments, that when Labour came to office in 2017-18, 89.7 percent of M\u0101ori were being seen within six hours. When they left office, 71.6 percent\u2014that\u2019s now improved back to 77 percent. Childhood immunisation rates: 89 percent of M\u0101ori two-year-olds were immunised in 2017-18; that fell to 64.9 percent when Labour left office. That\u2019s back up to 71.5 percent. Our targets are working. There is still much more work to do, but I\u2019d rather be on this side of the House where we\u2019re focused on getting outcomes and delivery, rather than simply restructuring the health system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a9fb2c7705fce738981f702371060698\u0022\u003EHon Willie Jackson\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister consider that he is culturally competent to deliver better health outcomes for M\u0101ori, and if so, what has been done to improve competency across the health system in relation to M\u0101ori health outcomes?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eabfc3c4e79dab3149b207bd938e05af\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: I just refer the member to my previous question. We\u2019re focused on outcomes and delivery, and I again point to improved childhood immunisation rates. Under his watch, two-year-old childhood immunisation rates for M\u0101ori tamariki fell from 89 percent to 64.9 percent. Shame on you!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cda886fdc0a88446ebacec8c7c27d2ef\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Just one person speaking when a question is being asked, and that\u2019s the person asking the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225b71637409d59477d270bb587602fa8c\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Supplementary question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c8763fb948adb61248098eafcd137642\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Three questions here\u2014last one here, then we\u2019ll come to you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ce901d352cbbeb3a6c87bb8201699ee\u0022\u003EHon Willie Jackson\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister agree with his own colleague Dr Vanessa Weenink, who, as the deputy chair of the New Zealand Medical Association, welcomed the M\u0101ori Health Authority, saying that the \u201Cone-size-fits-all model does not work\u2014it\u2019s exciting to see our health system will encompass more M\u0101tauranga M\u0101ori and rongo\u0101\u201D; if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022309e4bffd64cb477719777a86aee9cc4\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: I agree with the decision by this coalition Government to have a health system that is based on need and ensuring that all New Zealanders are treated based on their need, not based on their ethnicity and not based on a co-governed model by the previous Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aa3f2f4752a7eda45cac705192f0f97d\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Can I ask the Minister as to what is most critically important for public health: cultural competence or medical competence?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226e9d1e6f57c396b317730a90a15c8361\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: Well, what I want to see is I want to see New Zealanders getting the care they need by healthcare professionals who are qualified and competent to do that job and to ensure that we reach the targets that we\u2019ve set out by 2030, and I\u2019m pleased to see year-on-year progress against those health targets. I acknowledge there is a huge amount more work to do, but, backed by our record investment and the increased focus on front-line workers in our healthcare system, we are making progress. There\u2019s much more work to do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002258967369ee22e5802fa7ab459d2437f2\u0022\u003EHon Willie Jackson\u003C/span\u003E: Why did he intervene in the Medical Council refusing to reappoint Dr Rachelle Love and pursuing what he calls an \u201Cideological agenda\u201D, when Vanessa Weenink did the same thing, or is it only M\u0101ori women that he\u2019s interested in sacking?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002231d730195b3f0deec2d92ac05a67f729\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m pretty sure that as a former Minister, Willie Jackson would realise that ministerial appointments are ministerial appointments; the clue\u2019s in the name.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003496\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f8b0e9f24ed407bbb35c6a2f4d46b3d8\u0022\u003ESocial Development and Employment\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003497\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00226f745cc0c85bb7bd50d0834030a50a67\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 4\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u002248bfeb03009dc126e19c5de0c79dda06\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003498\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002248bfeb03009dc126e19c5de0c79dda06\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (14:13)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister for Social Development and Employment\u003C/span\u003E: What legislation or policy changes, if any, has she introduced this term that would see low-income New Zealanders with less money on a weekly basis?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u0022bdca717d340d5bc3a0c5f8b068516779\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bdca717d340d5bc3a0c5f8b068516779\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (14:13)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve introduced a range of improvements to the welfare system this term. These changes are about making the welfare system fair, focused, and sustainable, while ensuring taxpayer funding is directed to those who need support most. Our Government\u2019s welfare reset is shifting the dial by strengthening expectations, supporting job growth, and helping job seekers take up opportunities so more Kiwis can get ahead. From 1 April, more than a million New Zealanders received additional support through the 2026 Annual General Adjustment. I\u2019ve made changes to the eligibility for 18- and 19-year-old job seekers, to reinforce the expectation that young people are supported into work, education, or training. I\u2019ve also rebalanced housing support settings to ensure assistance is focused on those with the greatest need.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003500\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a83f9e0b4eed700924cfb89dc91569b1\u0022\u003ERicardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u003C/span\u003E: What are the policies that have seen low-income New Zealanders worse off on a weekly basis?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003501\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002257b9c0c380029c4c1a98187bc039226f\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve answered that in my primary question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003502\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002283934d7eee713ad8e4e3fb9510cb1dec\u0022\u003ERicardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. In the answer to my question, she noted policy interventions that have seen people, potentially, with more support. She has not named a single policy intervention that leaves people worse off.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002257a387084bf336d800eef6f90a0a2909\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, but your question itself, if you have a look at the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E and see the wording, is putting forward a proposition that may or may not be correct, so the way the Minister answers is going to be along similar lines.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002205ffb7f816393b41f8d6637000e1d4b0\u0022\u003ERicardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Minister saying she has not introduced any policies that have left low-income New Zealanders worse off?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003505\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a4dd56d27af0db7d133d32486830023d\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: As I said in the primary answer, I outlined a number of changes that we\u2019ve made in the welfare reset to ensure that the system is fair, focused, and sustainable. I specifically referred to changes around housing support and eligibility for 18- and 19-year-old job seekers to reinforce the expectation our Government has that every young 18- and 19-year-old will be in employment, education, or training.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224eb7757be47fc8c1a9be82c585ba2440\u0022\u003ERicardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u003C/span\u003E: How much worse off will the 111,000 low-income people who receive Temporary Additional Support (TAS) be because of the Government\u2019s decision to cut TAS by $196 million?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003507\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221b77920c8283e84a42dc90e641e3dbc2\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: The changes that were made to the Temporary Additional Support were on several levels. The first was around ensuring in Budget 2026 that we increased the accommodation supplement. By increasing the accommodation supplement, that therefore meant there would be less reliance on the Temporary Additional Support. Temporary Additional Support is meant to be exactly that\u2014temporary. If people require housing income assistance, it should be delivered through the accommodation supplement. That\u2019s exactly the change we are making. One of the other changes to the Temporary Additional Support was to remove the formula-assessed child support liability as an allowable cost, because Temporary Additional Support\u2014the intent of the policy was that it was never to cover personal liabilities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003508\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e032586eb94a53aa5add6be1684b3a39\u0022\u003ERicardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u003C/span\u003E: How does she expect to reduce the rising rate of children growing up in homes that do not have access to the basic essentials when she consistently has introduced legislation and policies that see those very same families worse off?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003509\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ef8de89cafc3a3bb18f8a59ae9353b7b\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: Because this side of the House knows the best way to lift children out of poverty is to have a parent in work. Our record, despite economically challenging times, saw 85,000 New Zealanders leave welfare for work in the last year. That is something I\u2019m extraordinarily proud of.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003510\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226ca96375ad846695f0e3d69ab1b68d15\u0022\u003ERicardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u003C/span\u003E: As the parliamentary term wraps up, is she comfortable creating a legacy of persistently high child poverty, higher unemployment, and a litany of policies worsening hardship for the very same people she\u2019s talking about?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003511\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002219d8dcf9313587dfdbcdf1c399c11b45\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: I completely dispute that, and it would have been wonderful to have come into this term of Parliament with a wonderful set of books, a booming economy, and great conditions that mean every New Zealander flourishes. Unfortunately, that wasn\u2019t what we came into, but this side of the House knows that a growing economy and job opportunities are absolutely the best way to lift the conditions of New Zealanders young and old. I\u2019m proud of our record, I\u2019m proud of the direction, and we are going to improve the lives of New Zealanders through fixing the basics and building the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003512\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225fbf3ea3252836505a7e31a758be7f93\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: To help the questioner, is there anything in the workings and writings of Karl Marx that would help you with your portfolio?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003513\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c644e299f6a83ca80836d47f32be8f92\u0022\u003EWorkplace Relations and Safety\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003514\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022921cef49431d25f7b9bd6b2e9e89a08c\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 5\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b064dd56673f4c1cb11c1242823abb92\u0022 data-id=\u002277b10b2afd901c481c23fdd4633709b7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003515\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b064dd56673f4c1cb11c1242823abb92\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002277b10b2afd901c481c23fdd4633709b7\u0022\u003ELAURA McCLURE (ACT) (14:18)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister for Workplace Relations and Safety\u003C/span\u003E: What progress has the Government made on delivering the ACT-National coalition commitment to reform health and safety?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022f5b0fc2e1ee076319bf0c2a9ba99f1ad\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003516\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f5b0fc2e1ee076319bf0c2a9ba99f1ad\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (14:18)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m pleased to announce that yesterday, the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Act, which delivers on the ACT-National coalition commitment to reform health and safety, passed into law. These reforms strike the right balance, maintaining strong protections for workers while delivering a simpler, more effective system that focuses on critical risks and improves safety outcomes. This Act reflects that this Government is listening to the people on the ground\u2014the small businesses\u2014having to deal with our laws day in and day out. They told us change was needed, and we have delivered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003517\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b064dd56673f4c1cb11c1242823abb92\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022be56ad1b7431037d5231fbdc30bc89c9\u0022\u003ELaura McClure\u003C/span\u003E: Why did the current law need to change?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022995b61ed095de85e4a5d73a47921d87e\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN\u003C/span\u003E: For too long, businesses have been dealing with a system that is confusing and difficult to comply with. I\u2019ve heard some members from the opposite side of the House mourn for the days of the John Key Government, which introduced the Health and Safety at Work Act in 2015, but let me share one thing. At least one member of that administration does not share the same attachment. Former Minister of Labour the Hon Simon Bridges, who signed off on the 2013 Government response to Pike River, has said, \u201CToday, I do wonder whether the sweeping reforms went too far and were too overly broad, bringing the strong approach required in mining, and other critical activities, to a wider range of workplace activities than was necessary or desirable. Health and safety needs to be proportionate to risk and foster an economically enabling environment.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003519\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b064dd56673f4c1cb11c1242823abb92\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d8c9788cbe11a4efc349f7802d983e2d\u0022\u003ELaura McClure\u003C/span\u003E: What feedback did she see about the reforms in select committee submissions?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003520\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022952299e2f8f2de0d8f2452d1fdb1f587\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve seen a lot of narrow reporting of what the select committee submissions actually said in relation to this health and safety legislation, so I wish to put the record straight. I\u2019ve seen a number of positive submissions that have supported the legislation from the start. Law firm Simpson Grierson said they were \u201Cbroadly supportive of the policy direction and intent\u201D of the legislation and they \u201Csupport its core objectives\u201D. Business South pointed out the issues with the current system, quoting from its members, who said, \u201CHealth and safety should save lives, not bury small businesses in paperwork.\u201D and \u201CClear guidance on the most serious risks would help businesses focus on safety rather than compliance interpretation.\u201D The Restaurant Association supported the reforms, explaining that its members say that \u201Cthe current system feels in practice as though a small cafe employing eight people has the same compliance expectations as a higher risk business.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003521\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b064dd56673f4c1cb11c1242823abb92\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ec50f64721c50ca0b2c246771f60d6c1\u0022\u003ELaura McClure\u003C/span\u003E: What feedback has she seen now that the reforms have passed into law?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003522\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d924cd74bdd63c093799c2586979a342\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN\u003C/span\u003E: Business Canterbury has said the common-sense changes the Government has made to health and safety legislation today responds to concerns the business community has had for years. Business New Zealand expressed its support for the legislation. Following extensive consultation with small businesses across New Zealand, it said that \u201CWhat changes is that small, lower-risk businesses can spend less time on unnecessary paperwork and more time identifying and managing the risks that genuinely matter.\u201D Retail New Zealand has said that \u201CSmall businesses make up the majority of retail in Aotearoa New Zealand, so streamlining compliance and ensuring their focus is on managing critical risks will relieve some of the pressure being felt by SMEs operating in low-hazard environments.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003523\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c5e12a2f917fc833a779d5c8288a90b7\u0022\u003EHealth\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003524\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022bf16f99a45b09f0abeaa2683ba8fa3dd\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 6\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022 data-id=\u00222464ffdadfb242f9c3361268a8484129\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003525\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222464ffdadfb242f9c3361268a8484129\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (14:22)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Health\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by his statement that \u201Cto improve patient outcomes we must ensure we have modern infrastructure to help provide the healthcare Kiwis need\u201D; if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u0022dd08c9b89c5bc0e3a73edff1eed08bcb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dd08c9b89c5bc0e3a73edff1eed08bcb\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:22)\u003C/span\u003E: In the context it was made, yes. New Zealand has been faced with ageing infrastructure and decades of under-investment, and we\u2019re fixing the basics and building the future to put that right. That\u2019s why we\u2019ve published the first ever health infrastructure plan to set out for our health sector a long-term pipeline across the estate of buildings averaging 47 years of age. We\u2019ve delivered a $1 billion hospital infrastructure boost in Budget 2025, and Budget 2026 delivers additional investment towards the delivery of redevelopments at Nelson, Whang\u0101rei, Tauranga, Hawke\u2019s Bay, and Palmerston North, with Taranaki Base Hospital\u2019s new east wing already open. Health New Zealand has continued to lift its maintenance budget year on year, and the new Dunedin Hospital is under construction now, with cranes on site. I also note\u2014as the member will be aware\u2014that not a single new cent of health capital expenditure funding was allocated in Budget 2023.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003527\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221362ad972ef93a45d33f52230d260e27\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: Why were Nurses Organisation delegates told that plans for a pre-built ward to be placed next to Waikato Hospital\u2019s emergency department were cancelled, as reported in today\u2019s \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EWaikato Times\u003C/span\u003E?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003528\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227ef5ce6baa47ee41ffc2f458e43e1d8d\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: They haven\u2019t been cancelled.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003529\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022559989d2b05fff6005117b4fbc85c6de\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: Why is a ward that was meant to be delivered by now \u201Cstill in the design phase\u201D, according to Health New Zealand, and why are details of the site \u201Cunder active consideration by the Minister of Health\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003530\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002245a73e3308b9b15313475fba7b86bff7\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it would have been helpful if more funding had been put in Budget 2023 to deliver more health infrastructure to start with. Secondly, in terms of the particular Waikato interim inpatient unit, there is work under way and it is being delivered. It is in the design phase with stakeholder engagement, including clinicians, and mobilisation activities continue. Current programme assumptions indicate practical completion in 2027, with the facility expected to become operational shortly after. The project has experienced delays due to site selection. I\u2019m advised that this site selection has been an issue which has had to be worked through due to it being quite close to the helipad, and, of course, there being some potential noise issues. There is stakeholder engagement, including engagement with clinicians.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003531\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022edc507369ee1389ae1ad7806debd6596\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: Has he received advice that the pre-built ward cannot be put in the planned site next to the emergency department?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022404c66a2ace566dbc4414aeaf807903a\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: Look, I\u2019ve been advised that there are some issues around the site selection, which is, of course, why it has caused a bit of delay. Of course, that has been worked through with the infrastructure team. It is, as the member will be aware, quite a tight site in terms of the infrastructure at Waikato Hospital. The proposed site is next to the helipad, which, of course, does require, potentially, some additional infrastructure and insulation and other things around noise to manage that, but, as I said, the project is continuing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224cc52e3ac14c4aa496c3fa10e56f6b78\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: Why did he choose to ignore the Treasury, Ministry of Health, and Infrastructure Commission advice about the inadequate planning of this project and including risks about the site, as now the project is clearly delayed by at least a year?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002212a09aa262989e0d556f525f00db1801\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I\u2019m not sure if the member wants this project to go ahead or not. I mean, I would like to see more beds put into Waikato Hospital. The rapid inpatient units are being constructed in an off-site manner. They can be constructed relatively quickly. They\u2019re in modular design. It allows that to be done in a rapid way to get more beds into hospitals which need them. Yes, there are some site issues and some site selection problems. They are being worked through, as I would expect them to be, but, ultimately, I\u2019ve been clear that Waikato Hospital needs more beds and the project continues.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003535\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224795b0bbf24cff5802dd2ecced55a361\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: Who is responsible for these site selection issues, given that he received details of the site in late 2025, he stood on the proposed site to announce this initiative, and he ignored officials\u2019 concerns, and, now, he has responsibility?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003536\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228508a155af0af019a4440c18cefa913a\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: I actually stood on the site of Middlemore Hospital to announce this initiative.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003537\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022755fba1f7fc88a1a70167e405d13c68e\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a document that is not publicly available. It is an email from the chief nurse of Waikato district to a New Zealand Nurses Organisation delegate, stating that the ward is not going ahead.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003538\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228df044826c7f852b700396fb30639072\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003539\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00227e3cf37caace903d18066d95b3faf4d0\u0022\u003EJustice\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002274cf2df887d88e1370aa794fe5a570e5\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 7\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022 data-id=\u002279e56e1d290c7dfb3b8074b98cd0c92e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003542\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002279e56e1d290c7dfb3b8074b98cd0c92e\u0022\u003ETOM RUTHERFORD (National\u2014Bay of Plenty) (14:27)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Justice\u003C/span\u003E: What progress is the Government making on restoring law and order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022 data-id=\u0022ab531e053ed4ab18731ae7c6df19f2e7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ab531e053ed4ab18731ae7c6df19f2e7\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (14:27)\u003C/span\u003E: The Government, and indeed New Zealanders generally, are making excellent progress on restoring law and order by a commitment to fixing the basics and ensuring the victim\u2019s interests are at the centre of our justice system. The vital part of this is making sure that criminals face real consequences for crime. Very shortly, the Crimes Amendment Bill will have its second reading in Parliament, which makes a raft of changes to the Crimes Act as part of our effort to reduce the number of victims of crime.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a3f0bc3578aabfad597c17ad75e051b1\u0022\u003ETom Rutherford\u003C/span\u003E: What will the Crimes Amendment Bill do to strengthen consequences for crime?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003545\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a8c1b0637ed009bf4c9d0a816368b514\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, primarily, it ensures criminals face longer penalties for crimes such as coward punches, attacking first responders, retail crime, and human trafficking, as committed to in coalition agreements. Specific offences will be created for those who offend against our first responders, those Kiwis who run towards danger to help those in need. Assaulting them puts multiple lives at risk and, therefore, must face greater consequences. It also responds on the matter of coward punches, heinous acts that can cause significant and lifetime harm to others. Perpetrators have, in the past, received insufficient sentences in our view, and the change to this legislation will send a different signal from this Parliament.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003546\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222eb4734b7e5edb7020818bc8fd750037\u0022\u003ETom Rutherford\u003C/span\u003E: What will the Crimes Amendment Bill do to strengthen consequences for retail crime?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003547\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022871dc0979e54ebca50dcff9b1390170b\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the bill will give effect to the Government\u2019s expansion of citizen\u2019s arrest powers so that business owners and all New Zealanders have an additional tool available to protect themselves and their livelihoods by fixing an anomaly which allowed a citizen\u2019s arrest to be carried out after 9 p.m. but not at 8.55 p.m. If members of the public think it\u2019s safe and appropriate to do so, they\u2019ll be able to hold on to somebody until the police arrive.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003548\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222c32bb95be8dae4620a2236adb0f4ca2\u0022\u003ETom Rutherford\u003C/span\u003E: What will the Crimes Amendment Bill do to strengthen consequences for trafficking and people smuggling?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003549\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223a8aa20e92afc4fb0202beaf2bd6033e\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, in the previous 15 years, more than 50 victims of people trafficking have been identified, but only four prosecutions have been undertaken. Just two have led to conviction. It\u2019s not good enough. The bill will increase the penalties for offences dealing with slaves and will also modernise our trafficking offence for both international and domestic trafficking by making the offence more consistent with international standards, as well as making it easier to prosecute those who engage in child trafficking. We\u2019re stopping criminals using loopholes to evade real consequences for crime.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003550\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022443f23de4cbd464f91833e6c466c98c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f374bd4235a38483b3257cc053d274fb\u0022\u003ETodd Stephenson\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Minister confirm there has been a 25 percent reduction in children and young people with serious persistent offending behaviour, far exceeding the 15 percent target?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002213465d8e5ffb364aa7b0b128ffbffebb\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I can confirm that. And that\u2019s good news for the many, many New Zealanders who have been victims of such crimes. It doesn\u2019t matter if you\u2019re bashed over the head by somebody who\u2019s 15 or 25 or 55; the consequences are the same, and there do need to be significant consequences for all actions. I want to acknowledge the sterling work by Minister Chhour in this area.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002211bbf4441e3e0fd5495361b85132fdd8\u0022\u003EEducation\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003553\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d4675aeddf101a8c0c13e52ed1246f19\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 8\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022 data-id=\u002254506c7413c8eb58b8329b5fa25ed43b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003554\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002254506c7413c8eb58b8329b5fa25ed43b\u0022\u003EHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (14:31)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EAssociate Minister of Education\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by his statement regarding the school lunches programme that \u201CYes, there were problems. We owned them. We never denied them, and we fixed them\u201D; if so, why?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022 data-id=\u00223dcc01f98cdf0e038dd47e4818d40cbe\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003555\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223dcc01f98cdf0e038dd47e4818d40cbe\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education) (14:31)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes; and why: because it was the right thing to do\u2014show up, be honest; acknowledge problems; treat people well, including your staff. I mean, just all good stuff to do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022daf8bb3495201fef0b80a55ca2d8ccf4\u0022\u003EHon Ginny Andersen\u003C/span\u003E: How can he claim to have fixed the problems with the school lunches when the Auditor-General has found that he failed to effectively monitor or minimise waste, and that over half of all meals aren\u2019t meeting basic nutritional requirements for children?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003557\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f1ab716c8c9fbe49db64a5dbda160eb1\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Very easily, because we have fixed problems, and if further problems arise, we continue to fix them. That is the reality of managing contracts to offer food to 250,000 children at a thousand schools up and down the country, delivering around 36 million meals each year. When it comes to nutrition, as most people who have ever fed a child will know, there is a balance between cost\u2014which is always there, whether we like it or not\u2014nutrition, and getting them to actually eat it. One of the things that the providers have found, Mr Speaker\u2014you\u2019re looking wry, smilingly\u2014as the suppliers, is that if they give things such as butter chicken that may or may not meet the criteria, the kids lap it up. If they start trying to hide a few vegies in there, the consumption rates go down. I think the other 75 percent of parents who have to feed their own children with their own children\u2019s lunch would recognise this as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222e967775cb93bd23f1402abf58514a0b\u0022\u003EHon Ginny Andersen\u003C/span\u003E: Why did documents refer to KidsCan as \u201Cthe preferred provider for ECE\u201D\u2014early childhood education\u2014\u201Cfood programme\u201D before a decision was made about who would deliver it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003559\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e415631b2151fc95579483313789e269\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: In any procurements, it\u2019s often true that you chose the person you prefer, so I guess the reason that they were described as preferred before they were chosen is because we chose the preferred provider, which is what they were.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022869a773a924643cbe583c5e2642fcb79\u0022\u003EHon Ginny Andersen\u003C/span\u003E: Why was there very narrow criteria put forward by his office that led to KidsCan being the only viable provider?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022abf63c0334746fbfcaed06dbe87f02da\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: The office was involved in setting policy direction, and the Ministry of Education selected a provider which has delivered outstanding, outstanding work\u2014the levels of satisfaction, the surveys, the on-time delivery has been absolutely superb, and we put that down to specifying a very good contract that has been met by a very good provider. I think it\u2019s important just to pause for a moment and recognise that because of the savings that we\u2019ve made on primary, intermediate, and high school lunches, we have been able to fund another 10,000 three- and four-year-old students in early childhood in low-decile communities. That\u2019s actually a wonderful story, and I\u2019m so glad that we got a good provider, according to good specifications, to deliver it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221459e2ad03d6ec125ccb3251322f12a0\u0022\u003EHon Ginny Andersen\u003C/span\u003E: Who is actually facing a credibility issue: the Auditor-General, as he claims; or is it himself, for delivering a questionable tendering process that has served up slop for our kids?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003563\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022121f2a74c05acb97673047bd4a21d6ff\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Given that none of those things are actually true, I choose none of the above, for the member asking the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003564\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00220a9908497c0ff08ed3f9bc6196da7202\u0022\u003EMental Health\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022cc3e47485b672c4d7d4e7eae3c6e934c\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 9\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002288978fb9592a4911a8e47eae04d164f3\u0022 data-id=\u00222e698dc8ee245fd230232695fc62097b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002288978fb9592a4911a8e47eae04d164f3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222e698dc8ee245fd230232695fc62097b\u0022\u003EDr VANESSA WEENINK (National\u2014Banks Peninsula) (14:35)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister for Mental Health\u003C/span\u003E: What recent announcement has he made about supporting parents bereaved by baby loss?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u00223528dcae46cf27f19f07a1964b0925ca\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003567\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223528dcae46cf27f19f07a1964b0925ca\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (14:35)\u003C/span\u003E: Losing a baby is a deeply traumatic and heartbreaking experience. Before today, on top of dealing with that grief, families had to complete stillborn registrations through a process designed for parents welcoming a live birth, which was causing more pain. Grieving parents who are coping with stillbirth will be able to register their baby through a dedicated website. Every year, around 700 to 900 New Zealand families experience a stillbirth or baby loss shortly after birth, while many thousands more are affected by miscarriage. We\u2019re committed to ensuring those families receive support, care, and compassion at one of the most difficult times in someone\u2019s life.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003568\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002288978fb9592a4911a8e47eae04d164f3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fc722a546a05ca599180492205d0af26\u0022\u003EDr Vanessa Weenink\u003C/span\u003E: What support and services are available through the new pathway?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003569\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223383c1318de974d39f87d7e1c8a75f2a\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY\u003C/span\u003E: The website provides parents with a dedicated place where they can now register the birth of their stillborn baby, obtain a birth certificate, and get access to timely and appropriate mental health and wellbeing support. Importantly, families will retain the choice of using either the website or the traditional pathway, allowing them to select the approach that best meets their needs. Some families may prefer to use the current process and register the birth through the Department of Internal Affairs, while others may find this dedicated bereavement pathway better reflects their needs during a difficult time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002288978fb9592a4911a8e47eae04d164f3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220b752dfb5a3b94d79a9486902df3e4b0\u0022\u003EDr Vanessa Weenink\u003C/span\u003E: How was the new pathway for registering baby loss developed?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003571\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220b35edb581215cf73f20d328540e666e\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY\u003C/span\u003E: This work was guided by people with lived experience of baby loss. We heard that aspects such as the language used, the imagery displayed, and how the information was presented can make a significant difference for grieving families. That\u2019s why the work is focused on reducing distress, minimising complexity, and creating a better experience for families navigating grief. I also want to acknowledge those who contributed to the bereavement pathway that identified the need for this important change.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003572\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002288978fb9592a4911a8e47eae04d164f3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224c476924c4d09a5cc56efeda935464fc\u0022\u003EDr Vanessa Weenink\u003C/span\u003E: What further support is the Government providing for families experiencing baby loss?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003573\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e799a65e640e549301c26a3f39f907e8\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY\u003C/span\u003E: The Government is also investing in the wider maternal mental health support available for families following a loss. Budget 2026 invests $5 million to go further and support implementation of the mental health component of the new bereavement pathway. It will ensure parents and families experiencing baby loss have faster access to mental health support. Today\u2019s change is a simple but meaningful way to reduce harm and show compassion at one of the most difficult times in someone\u2019s life.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003574\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022517bf8f3e819eab6983a69a5eed2831d\u0022\u003EEducation\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003575\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00227bfb522252e83494408d9cbd922f0c90\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022106c74b95ca5479b07e7cbca61fdbbb5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022106c74b95ca5479b07e7cbca61fdbbb5\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (14:38)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EAssociate Minister of Education\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022cmn\u0022\u003E\u4F17\u9662\u8BAE\u957F\u4E0B\u5348\u597D\u3002\u003C/span\u003E, and happy Chinese New Year. Does he stand by his statement that the school lunch programme \u201Cwill offer nutritious meals to around 242,000 students, every school day\u201D; if so, why?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022 data-id=\u0022e0a0a201a3dd863fd58916839457f658\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003577\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e0a0a201a3dd863fd58916839457f658\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education) (14:38)\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022cmn\u0022\u003E\u65B0\u5E74\u5FEB\u4E50\uFF0C\u606D\u559C\u53D1\u8D22\u3002\u003C/span\u003E Happy Chinese New Year to the member. Yes, I absolutely stand by that statement. Why? Because that\u2019s what we\u2019re doing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003578\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b3186379a724792a3f23a6f83074f3d1\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Is he satisfied that, according to the Ministry of Education, only 50.5 percent of School Lunch Collective meals met the nutrition standards in 2025, when the contract specifies that 80 percent must meet the standard?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002249ffca618dba9ce2b39c55cedf98b3b2\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: No, I\u2019m never satisfied with 50 percent. We need to do better, and we are. In fact, by term 4 of last year, I understand that that level had reached 75 percent, much closer to the 80 percent target. Nonetheless, we wouldn\u2019t rest on that amount of progress. I continue to manage the project and the contract, which has a quarter of a million children in it, 1,000 schools, and 36 million meals a year. It\u2019s a pretty big food project. It\u2019s the biggest food programme in the country\u2019s history. And, of course, whenever challenges crop up, we get in and fix it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f2030024b082affe187f9410d99f8aa8\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Then is he satisfied that the School Lunch Collective is not delivering on its contractual requirements of 80 percent; if so, on what basis?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229e279aff7ead76fb143b13c5a2d0f8d9\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I guess you\u2019ve got to get into the numbers. If the contract\u2019s 80 and they\u2019re doing 50, then I guess that would be a smaller number, because 80 minus 50 is 30. Yet, as I say, we\u2019ve improved it closer to 75\u2014that lessens the gap\u2014and we keep working on further improvements so we can meet our standards. But I think it\u2019s also important to recognise that while you have standards for contract management purposes, you also are doing a lot better by getting food into children\u2019s bellies, by easing hunger, and getting food that they will eat and consume, as I addressed in an earlier question. So I would regard the programme as a success, having saved $360 million, hit most of its targets and being subject to continuous improvement, and, most importantly, getting children fed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e59ddf12f99d396084ffa50b03c69ac5\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Which of the following measures, then, in the School Lunch Collective contract have they met: nutritional standards, student satisfaction, surplus lunches, or waste management; and if it is none or some of these, how can he then be satisfied that his model is working?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003583\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223e1fea2721cbc739cd370e3e51adf5bd\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: First of all, you have to put it in the context that the previous school lunch programme cost twice as much and yet didn\u2019t measure those sorts of criteria. If you\u2019re criticising us for measuring our performance and striving to meet our targets, then we accept that criticism and we\u2019ll keep getting better. In answer to the series of specific questions that he asked, at different times they\u2019ve fallen below some targets\u2014for example, on-time delivery in the early weeks was quite poor, but we got on top of that, we changed the way we do things, and the on-time delivery they\u2019ve achieved has been outstanding. There are certainly cases, at some schools, at some times, where surplus has been excessive. We manage that. We get on top of it. There are also times when they haven\u2019t met the nutritional criteria, but those, sometimes, are the times that the kids are happiest with the meals they get. So I would say that altogether, in terms of the biggest food programme in New Zealand\u2019s history, we\u2019re doing a pretty good job.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003584\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c6e6fbe0033a9fd96b8c6560f22a3c87\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Does he think it\u2019s a sign of satisfaction, then, when with his changes to the scheme, the scheme produces over 10 tonnes of food waste per day?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fc2d5a227123f483f596f0b5df9b48d5\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Well, you\u2019ve got to start with your basics. I mean, if you\u2019ve got a quarter of a million children, well, that\u2019s 250,000. If you had, for example, a kilogramme each, that\u2019d be 250 tonnes, so you can easily see, with these kinds of numbers, that you can get to that level very easily. Big numbers in themselves are part of this programme. There\u2019s a lot of children and a lot of food, and so a small amount of waste compared with the number of meals can easily sound like a big number. It doesn\u2019t make it important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003586\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228d929b08c575040ba3650d481595b2cd\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Why should parents and students trust his changes to the school lunch programme when it is consistently failing to meet the minimum nutritional standards and many are left open but uneaten or partially eaten?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003587\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002231ad8213c1b2de5fac141d8441344e5a\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Well, that has always been the case. The reason that they should trust the way that it is operating now is that we actually measure these things; when there\u2019s a problem, we fix it, whereas previously that wasn\u2019t true. For example, there was a picture of the school lunch programme put up by a member of this House saying that it was all terrible because this food looks so bad, but unfortunately for that member, she was the former Minister, and the food that she put a picture up of was food delivered when she was the Minister. The other thing is I think it\u2019s important to look at the real information. For example, not so long ago, I was engaged in a television interview with Green Party co-leader Chl\u00F6e Swarbrick, who said there\u2019d been many incidents of children being burnt by the lunches. She was told that it was one. She subsequently tried to deny that she\u2019d said \u201Cmany\u201D despite it being said two minutes earlier, so she managed to tell two lies in two minutes. That\u2019s a real shame. Now, I think it\u2019s important that people have the right information, and when they have that, they can have great confidence in the scheme.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002204c3a8959cff42e8b8f0050354fbb532\u0022\u003EBuilding and Construction\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003589\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b00a1466a566381661c93ac7e1617431\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b7cff05e64f346e68983b2fdbfba3ad8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002217109dd3c9a9d04270acef3194e46534\u0022\u003EDAN BIDOIS\u003C/span\u003E: To the Minister for Building and Construction\u2014thank you, Mr Speaker\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002293e2ee63ad1ebfb408b8160100542cf8\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Hold on. There\u2019s only one person speaking when a question is being asked.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b7cff05e64f346e68983b2fdbfba3ad8\u0022 data-id=\u00228d228d0d404b0527cdc3288bc32bc72f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003592\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b7cff05e64f346e68983b2fdbfba3ad8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228d228d0d404b0527cdc3288bc32bc72f\u0022\u003EDAN BIDOIS (National\u2014Northcote) (14:45)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister for Building and Construction\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. How will the Building Amendment Bill make building easier and more affordable?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022 data-id=\u002237342f1252ad4abd852cd1e23aee49ee\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003593\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002237342f1252ad4abd852cd1e23aee49ee\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (14:45)\u003C/span\u003E: Later today, or perhaps tonight, we expect this legislation will receive its first reading, and it is the most significant change to the building system since the Building Act 2004 was first passed. It makes a series of changes to improve efficiency, reduce delays, and ensure that responsibility and risk are allocated more fairly, including by introducing proportionate liability to replace joint and several liability settings, so that parties are only liable for the defects for which they are responsible; introducing stronger consumer protections, including mandatory home warranty requirements and professional indemnity insurance to protect homeowners; and, finally, removing barriers to the voluntary consolidation of building consent authorities, or BCAs, making it easier for councils to share resources, allowing them to benefit from economies of scale and to reduce inconsistency of consenting services across New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b7cff05e64f346e68983b2fdbfba3ad8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221a8664e58145ec83ffa07740e29b856a\u0022\u003EDan Bidois\u003C/span\u003E: What other the changes are included in the bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222e2af62cf41269a28cb8faed91900db8\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS PENK\u003C/span\u003E: The bill makes a number of other changes, as well, to make building easier and more affordable. These include fast-tracking building consents for homes with solar or other sustainable features; making it easier for the offsite construction of granny flats and allowing for the use of structurally insulated panels; halving the time for councils to provide project information memoranda, or PIMs; and, finally, modernising the building research system to create a more transparent and contestable model for the funding of building research.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002256ec0064e5bf0d4196cf2a597c9d4a33\u0022\u003ETrade and Investment\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003597\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002243585076ec68baab49696a74a8a23f5c\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 12\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022 data-id=\u00220d9c231207c64a230097f37d00e15764\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220d9c231207c64a230097f37d00e15764\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR (Labour) (14:47)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister for Trade and Investment\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by all his statements in relation to immigration commitments made under the New Zealand-India Free Trade Agreement?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022 data-id=\u00225f16f10fe9e374372f139754318b518d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003599\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225f16f10fe9e374372f139754318b518d\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage) (14:47)\u003C/span\u003E on behalf of the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister for Trade and Investment\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, this is a high-quality agreement, good for all New Zealanders, and has received wide support by New Zealand exporters. New Zealand always honours its commitments, of course.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003600\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b7077c674cf1702594de09029a0f71a6\u0022\u003EHon Damien O\u0027Connor\u003C/span\u003E: Did he or his officials, acting on his behalf, inform the Indian Government during negotiations that New Zealand intended to apply more restrictive settings to Indian citizens?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003601\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229a2b68e3c55beb0be79c8f1fbe7cddd8\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I can\u2019t precisely locate the exact conversation I had, on behalf of the Minister, but I would say that there are no discriminatory decisions in any of this agreement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e7fca859c40a3b3678bfd333fee2008f\u0022\u003EHon Damien O\u0027Connor\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker, I hope he might be better at this one: does the Government have any intention to adjust commitments made in relation to the temporary employment entry visas provided for under the free-trade agreement (FTA)?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cc711c1e52e8ec86590298cc4390ff36\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, we\u2019re focusing on getting this free-trade agreement into place as it is, as soon as possible, because there are huge opportunities for New Zealand exporters in this, and if we\u2019re going to grow this economy and provide better living standards for New Zealanders, finding new markets and expanding them is very much front and centre of what this Government is about to do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221ea1ec50199bfe1640eedd160592725f\u0022\u003EHon Damien O\u0027Connor\u003C/span\u003E: Why do immigration settings for Indian temporary employment entry visas differ from other visa holders from other free-trade agreement partners?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003605\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222c0206c21d10c6b0b695db55e45a6d28\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, every FTA is different and has different requirements.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a9234a1a6a4e4bd83d716d07249dd9f1\u0022\u003EHon Damien O\u0027Connor\u003C/span\u003E: Who is correct: Winston Peters when he said \u201Cimmigration policy settings are being made more restrictive in a way which targets India and India alone\u201D; or Todd McClay, who said Peters\u2019 claim was \u201Cpromoting misinformation for the sake of gaining votes\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003607\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223d492bcc976a75f42ced67fe9bf28938\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH\u003C/span\u003E: On behalf of the Minister, what I\u2019d say is that both of those Ministers are very positive about the opportunities for New Zealand to continue to grow our exports. There\u2019s been a longstanding, slight disagreement around the nature of free-trade agreements between some of the parties of this coalition. I think that\u2019s been well understood over the years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003608\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f7ac8da8efd84d5365ef3ed90b30dfa2\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That concludes oral questions. We\u2019ll take 30 seconds for those who have to leave the House to do so, quickly and quietly and without conversations on the way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022dab925f4693949da8b5f68da44a886e3\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022380f4bb5ab6aeea69f58ade688b5e20f\u0022\u003ERegulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022542f1aec092329f1de717c761a37b8b3\u0022\u003EThird Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003612\u0022\u003EDebate resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003613\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022354796cc5bde2944bdfea0abd4ebb6c6\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Urgency has resumed. We have the interrupted debate on the third reading of the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u0022ade4305b51f68eedcddbc389f271686c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003614\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ade4305b51f68eedcddbc389f271686c\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (14:51)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Speaking to the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill, we will be supporting this bill, as has been telegraphed. There are some notable parts of the process around the bill that I wanted to articulate to the House. We felt that the debate this morning was going very well. There was a good exchange of questioning between the House and the Minister, but a slightly enthusiastic change in adjudication meant that we missed a big section of the bill because our call was not recognised. It\u2019s an interesting note that, during urgency, when we\u2019re doing these extended sittings and summoning the energy to deal with a very substantive omnibus bill that has a lot of potential consequences\u2014and it is right that we should scrutinise those\u2014it\u2019s a pity when there\u2019s not enough time allowed to do that. A particular section that was impacted by that was a section to do with the fisheries. It would have been useful to be able to ask more questions around the impact of the fisheries section, given that fisheries is a contentious issue right now and there\u2019s a bill that\u2019s been delayed till March because of a lack of agreement amongst the coalition parties. That\u2019s just a note on that point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003615\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also wanted to refer to the repeal or the removal of the Forests (West Coast Accord) Act 2000, which is part of this bill. The effect of that is to complete, you might say, or lock in for history a process over time which began with the 1986 West Coast Accord. On 6 November 1986, it was passed. It was an agreement between foresters and conservationists brokered whereby it was recognised that a certain percentage of forests on the West Coast would be allowed to be logged and a certain other percentage would be protected in perpetuity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, a decade later, in 1996\u201430 years ago now\u2014a number of activists of a younger generation thought that the compromise was unreasonable, given the exceptional ecological value of those lowland rainforests on the West Coast of the South Island and remembering we have but 6\u00A0percent of our lowland rainforest left in New Zealand. We very diligently and recklessly cleared most of our lowland rainforest. What remains mostly exists in hill country and in the highlands. Those activists sought to get the forests that have been designated for logging protected. That was a matter of debate, over some years, that members of this House will remember. The member for West Coast - Tasman at the time, Damien O\u2019Connor, remembers it well, and I happened to be part of that campaign myself\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003617\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002211e9e1f818754d97b60bba4b18e5dc03\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cf87d56cc98466bfa91c1f1e44911cd1\u0022\u003EHon Mark Patterson\u003C/span\u003E: Tell us the story, Steve! Tell us the story!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003618\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226fc7303f701abd922aec094caa546387\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: Mark Patterson\u2019s asked me to tell the story. I don\u2019t want to, really, but people occupied trees, and some other more reckless characters, passionate about the issue, lock themselves to logging helicopters and got convictions as a result.  Those convictions have subsequently been wiped through the clean slate legislation passed by Nandor Tanczos, who happens to be another Green member. That legislation that brought an end to the West Coast Accord was passed when the new Labour Government came into power in 1999 and formed a coalition with the Green Party, and the Act was passed in 2000.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003619\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe reason I give you all that history is that this bill extinguished that West Coast Accord Act 2000. The question might be asked: what effect does that have on the conservation status of that 137,000 hectares of forest that were put into conservation estate, and we did indeed ask the Minister that directly during the committee of the whole House, and he assured us that it has no effect in so far as the West Coast Accord is now redundant as a piece of legislation because those forests aren\u2019t to be logged and those parts of the forest that are now in conservation estate are covered by that legislation\u2014of course, a piece of legislation that is at risk or in discussion right now because of amendments being proposed to the Conservation Act itself.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003620\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat is not the subject of this bill before us, but I did want to touch on that interesting bit of history that comes to its conclusion, you might argue, in a sense, with the passage of this bill 30 years since those activists first occupied the forests on the West Coast. There was one member of Parliament at the time who said that the chap who was locked to the logging helicopter should have been left locked to the logging helicopter and he should have been taken out and dropped in the Tasman Sea. That member\u2019s still in this House and he happens to be on the same side of the House as me now. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003621\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThese sorts of omnibus legislation that tidy up laws so that they are more effective, more practical, and up to date\u2014one of the sections in it required that no longer did a notice need to be given through local newspapers, but it could be given by other means. The Minister rightly pointed out that the prevalence of local newspapers has sadly declined over years, and now the way that people receive communication is numerous but it is often not by newspapers. This sort of a bill allows us to update the means by which people are notified of, in that instance, the air dropping of substances so that they know it\u2019s happening. It could be by \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsTerm\u0022 style=\u0022font-style: italic\u0022\u003EGazette\u003C/span\u003E, it could be by posting on the Ministry for Primary Industries website, or it could be by notification electronically. These are the sorts of things that are sensible things to do with legislation so that it\u2019s up to date and we take no issue with it. It is important that we are clear that there are not unintended consequences or that the changes become consequential and require more scrutiny.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003622\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne final point on that is that I was somewhat concerned that in regard to the changes to the Organic Products and Production Act 2023, there hadn\u2019t been direct consultation with the organics sector on that. I think in the instance where there\u2019s a piece of legislation that is very specifically for a particular cohort or sector of our society or community, then even where it is the view of the officials that the changes are nominal, it would be appropriate for there to be a direct check in with that impacted group\u2014in this instance, the organics industry in this country, which is now worth $1.2 billion to our country, $600 million of which is in exports. It is a valuable sector, one that has a huge growth opportunity, and we should be clear that with a piece of legislation like this, that sector is happy with the changes made to the Act that they specifically requested and worked on over many years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003623\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOther than that, we will be supporting this bill. We supported the process through the select committee. We asked a lot of questions about some of the details of the impact of the clauses in it to the officials, and on the Primary Production Committee\u2014which is, just for clarity, the best select committee in the House\u2014we were sure and confident that there was not significant effects. They were not consequential in terms of the primary intent of those pieces of legislation that are impacted by it, and so it was doing the job that it was set out to do. So at this point, we commend the bill to the House. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022440a125e85954bae9f5d470b7551e4f3\u0022 data-id=\u0022c4f2d87d7927e66425b3195e8fba0208\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003624\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022440a125e85954bae9f5d470b7551e4f3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c4f2d87d7927e66425b3195e8fba0208\u0022\u003ECAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (15:00)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As a not-a-member of the Primary Production Committee, I was glad to see their diligent effort in going through this piece of legislation, the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill, and supporting it unanimously. It shows a bit of cohesion across the House, which is good to see. Who couldn\u2019t get behind removing duplication, inconsistencies, errors, and gaps, and getting a more efficient system?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019m pleased to see some amendments to the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act, something that\u2019s been holding back New Zealand\u2019s importation and use of chemicals and compounds for a while, and also the Animal Products Act. Just bringing that up to date is going to be a great boon. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002211e9e1f818754d97b60bba4b18e5dc03\u0022 data-id=\u0022807df5870d99c7814930321dfa263175\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002211e9e1f818754d97b60bba4b18e5dc03\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022807df5870d99c7814930321dfa263175\u0022\u003EHon MARK PATTERSON (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (15:00)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First for this Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill. A really good, thorough, administrative tidy-up of our primary industries legislation. I think 19 different Acts are covered here. There\u2019s just a couple that I\u2019d like to touch on, which are important to portfolios controlled by New Zealand First.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003627\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Fisheries Act: I know Minister Jones and under-secretary Marcroft were working on that and the changes to the deemed values system. Technology now applies with the cameras on the boats, and that\u2019s to continually update those balances and entitlements, rather than it needing to be done manually on an annual basis. So that\u2019s very good. There\u2019s some tidying up around some of the M\u0101ori fishing rights regulations that had to go through M\u0101ori Land Court process. Now, by general consensus, they do not have to go through that process. So that\u2019s a real tidy-up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003628\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other one I just wanted to note was the Wool Industry Restructuring Act 2003, which is the end of a highly contentious, I guess, part of New Zealand\u2019s agricultural history, the winding up of the New Zealand Wool Board. The final balances were distributed around 2011, so it\u2019s well time this was taken off the statute book. But it does mark the very last day that we dead and buried the wool board, which to a lot of New Zealand farmers will be significant. Although it was pointed out in the select committee process, we never did find the Wool Board art collection, which mysteriously disappeared. It was known for its largesse, which helped the Wool Board in its ultimate demise, but it did have a significant art collection, which seemed to disperse. Anyway, with that, I will commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003629\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022947c021bc71f0a0b4967f1ccc3d6f1ae\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The next call is a split call. The first is Mike Davidson.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022 data-id=\u002244cf95d2e4843a66ff67bb387e24415d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002244cf95d2e4843a66ff67bb387e24415d\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (15:03)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of the Green Party\u2014delighted to speak on behalf of the Green Party. I came in during the committee of the whole House. Scott Willis and Steve Abel were doing a great job through that. I think Scott Willis was a little bit disappointed that he couldn\u2019t do this call, but that\u2019s just the life of being in the House. So I\u2019m happy to rise and take this call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003631\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs I sat down, I looked across to Steve Abel, who had the bill in his hand. I noticed he was on Part 14, the amendment to the Kaik\u014Dura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management Act 2014. I thought it strange, because, as we know, these systems improvement bills are tidy-ups, a bit of housekeeping to make sure everything\u2019s up with the play. They were doing some changes, but one of the big things they had not changed in this Act was actually correcting the spelling of Kaik\u014Dura. So I did ask a question around that: the fact that the \u201Co\u201D in the title of the Act was missing the macron over top of it. So Steve Abel and myself asked a couple of questions around that point, suggesting that potentially the Minister may want to put an amendment to ensure that was fixed up. It was good to hear that the Minister, after speaking to his officials, said that we didn\u2019t actually need to move an amendment. It was noted that it was a minor editing thing that they could actually pick up. So it\u2019s really good to note, in the third reading, that the correct spelling of Kaik\u014Dura will be put into the Act, so that, therefore, it is actually right. So that was really, really good.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003632\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen also, it was quite interesting to be in there for a little bit more. We went through to, I think, Part 18, which was the amendment to the Wine Act. It was a pretty simple one, but again, it was around the interpretation of \u201Cfruit wine or vegetable wine\u201D. We found it quite interesting that when they actually defined \u201Cfruit wine or vegetable wine\u201D, the definition was \u201Cis prepared from the complete or partial fermentation of any fruit, vegetables, grains, cereals, or any combination or preparation of those foods\u201D. We were querying\u2014why is it then called \u201Cfruit wine or vegetable wine\u201D and not \u201Cplant-based wine\u201D?, but, apparently, that\u2019s the definition. I did think it was a little bit strange that we have a \u201Cfruit wine or vegetable wine\u201D, but if you read the interpretation of that, actually, it went into a lot more different food groups than just fruit or wine. We thought we potentially could have fixed that up, but, no, we didn\u2019t get any changes there\u2014which is fine. I was quite pleased to get the change to Kaik\u014Dura.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003633\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart of that reason is I was actually born in Kaik\u014Dura. I wasn\u2019t there for long. I was only there for\u2014probably until I was about 18 months or two years old, before we came down to Christchurch. I know you\u2019re familiar with Christchurch. Some would say that it\u2019s the new best city in the world\u2014definitely the sporting capital of New Zealand; definitely a fantastic place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003634\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ed1a9809ecc7e6ef72e6419fc51ba207\u0022\u003EHon Matt Doocey\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003635\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221da40eed9de6c3824371aadc4866caa8\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON\u003C/span\u003E: Matt Doocey agrees. I\u2019m sure the Speaker would agree.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003636\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022802b097d2d5f7d56defcf7825c8916fa\u0022\u003EHon Matt Doocey\u003C/span\u003E: Give him an extra five minutes!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003637\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d259dea80cc871e25b019fe5063bd8f2\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Thank you, Matt Doocey.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003638\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223f23736ce907b1e70146a7b22e12ddca\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s available.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003639\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b4a2b0bb22e34d7657b5a636c84c1456\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON\u003C/span\u003E: Although, obviously, my loyalties lie down in the mighty Christchurch, I\u2019m always interested to see what\u2019s happening in the place that I was born, Kaik\u014Dura, so it was really good to actually have a positive exchange with the Minister during the committee of the whole House and the assurance that that spelling error would be fixed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003640\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is not the first regulatory systems amendment bill that I\u2019ve been on. I\u2019ve actually done quite a few speeches in my short time in this House. I think one of the good things about this is we all agree. It\u2019s not often, I\u2019ve found, since I\u2019ve been in this House for, I think, seven months, that we all sit around and actually vote the same way on a bill. So it\u2019s always good to stand here and support something that the Government has put forward. It was really good to see some really positive exchanges during that committee of the whole House stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003641\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOnce again, I will stand on behalf of the Green Party in supporting this bill. Kia ora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226aa6725740ef48a8bd0e0d084ac074fc\u0022 data-id=\u002252770a2d065f125df82139ed0df2025b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003642\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226aa6725740ef48a8bd0e0d084ac074fc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002252770a2d065f125df82139ed0df2025b\u0022\u003EMILES ANDERSON (National\u2014Waitaki) (15:08)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill. At this stage, I\u2019d really like to thank the Primary Production Committee and the clerks and the officials that advised us throughout the process of this bill. I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022 data-id=\u0022e769090fba24698ee294291916ca7e2d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003643\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e769090fba24698ee294291916ca7e2d\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR (Labour) (15:08)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Can I say this bill has been around for a wee while. It indicates, I guess, the speed that the Government does good things, which is a long time, and the speed at which they do bad things, which is a very short time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003644\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis came in originally in June 2023. To be fair\u2014sorry, the new incoming Minister added some things to the bill in, I think it was March 2024, but it has taken quite a while to come through Parliament. So we welcome it, and, for the most part, it\u2019s not contentious, but it is really important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003645\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESpeakers before me have indicated some areas of progress, you might say. Acts that have been removed. I\u2019d like to briefly mention the West Coast Accord, the West Coast forest accord, and, I guess, the baptism-by-fire that that delivered for me as a new MP for that region. Things that, thankfully, have moved on, and the region is now doing pretty well through goldmining. But we have a lot of forest that would otherwise have been slaughtered. So I think we\u2019re better off.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003646\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMoving right along to, I guess, the substance of the bill. It is an administrative streamlining bill for the most part, but it covers a lot of very important areas for our economy. The primary sectors, as we know, are absolutely critical to the past and the present, and will be to the future. If you look at the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act, it\u2019s a reasonably innocuous kind of bill. People say, \u201CWhat\u2019s the importance of this?\u201D. There are new products that are being invented and developed for different things\u2014one of them being to try and reduce methane from our pastoral agricultural system\u2014and there were some challenges trying to get these new, innovative products through our systems. The changes in this bill will streamline some of that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question that I ask\u2014because a lot has changed from the time that this bill was introduced under a good Labour Government to it now being passed by a bad coalition Government. The \u201Cwhy\u201D has shifted quite dramatically. The why when we introduced this was to genuinely streamline but provide secure backstops in all of these changes. When it comes to changes in the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act, we need some of them. But making sure that the door is not left wide enough for mistakes to be made or for our exports to be discredited, polluted, or whatever you like is critically important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003648\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn passing this and supporting this in Opposition, what we do say to the Government is that this will require ongoing monitoring, good regulation through the changes made here to ensure that in that one area of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act, that in the utilisation of these products, we don\u2019t pollute our good exports. That\u2019s one area that was raised by the people in the select committee, and that\u2019s great.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003649\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe next area, of course, is the Fisheries Act. Again, people are applying for individual approval to get disposal methods for unwanted catch. If you put out a net, you can\u2019t always guarantee what you\u2019re going to get, and there are ways that you have to dispose of that. It has been a bit clunky and a bit bureaucratic. This piece of legislation will assist with that. There might be, as the Government spouts on, an ability to reduce some regulations. We\u2019ve got to be careful that we don\u2019t go too far and deregulate and destroy some of these really, really important areas of Government responsibility.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003650\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Animal Welfare Act\u2014again, this is an interesting one, because time has moved on. It was originally designed to be able to take an exporter\u2019s history into account when deciding whether to issue an animal welfare export certificate. Actually, the Government in its wisdom\u2014there haven\u2019t been too many smart things they\u2019ve done, but that\u2019s one of them\u2014has said that they will not reinstate live cattle exports from the country. It\u2019s a smart thing to do. We can use the animals here, protect their animal welfare, and protect our reputation. The changes in the Animal Welfare Act under this have deemed to be, effectively, unnecessary. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003651\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt does a lot more of course. The Walking Access Act is renamed the Outdoor Access Act. The Walking Access Commission that was set up under Labour coalition Government prior to 2008 was a very successful process to get access to the waterways in this country, as people had assumed was always their right but actually wasn\u2019t being delivered, through blockages. That Walking Access Commission has done a great job, but it\u2019s now got a wider mandate, and, indeed, they should be out there to assist people who get bikes and horses and go out for hunting to work collaboratively with landowners to make sure that New Zealanders can get out and enjoy the wonderful country that we have. That is a smart change.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003652\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Biosecurity Act\u2014again, technical changes but ones such that the authorised person could only intervene to investigate a Biosecurity Act breach with the assistance of a policeperson\u2014policeman; man or woman. Clearly clunky, bureaucratic\u2014it just removes that obligation. There will be some questions around protection for those people who may be walking into some fairly challenging situations. Again, it\u2019s not something the Government was able to answer. It will have to step up and provide additional resources for those authorised persons to check on what might be suspected breaches of the Act. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOrganic Products and Production Act\u2014again, something the Government hasn\u2019t traditionally been very enthusiastic about. The economic realities of opportunities in organic have become apparent to a lot more people, and we certainly as a Government under Labour introduced the Act that then guaranteed certification and verification of the systems within New Zealand. Making sure that the changes here provide flexibility is indeed what has been supported.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003654\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnother area of real importance to the primary sector is the Commodity Levies Act and extending the levy orders from five to six years. These are orders that are voted on by the majority of producers, and so redefining what is a majority\u201450 percent of land or production or the numbers of growers\u2014is really quite important. And so this bill\u2014or this Act, as it will be\u2014will move that forward and extend those commodity levy cycles out to six years, which will help people. Labour supports this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003655\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOther areas are the Food Act. Stepping back from our marriage with Australia when it comes to food safety regulation does come with its risks, so the Government has to ensure that in bowing down to pressure either from sectors or from businesses, they don\u2019t throw the baby out with the bathwater and then deregulate to the point where our products are not trusted in the international market place. Deregulation is a fine mantra that we hear all too often from that side of the House. In these areas of exports\u2014particularly in food\u2014we need to ensure high standards of food\u2014consistent, safe, and free from contaminates. So it\u2019s really important that the Government doesn\u2019t cut back in those areas as it has cut back on just about every other area of Government responsibility. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003656\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s why things have shifted from June 2023 to July 2026. The Government, as I say, is taking a long time to get through good stuff. It seems to rush through in urgency the bad stuff. But this is one piece of legislation that we will be supporting because we on balance believe that we\u2019ve moved forward with some of the technical glitches that we\u2019ve had in legislation. It should, if the Government follows through with resourcing, provide a better system for the primary sectors. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003657\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI will state on the record that if we continue with this current Government and the way it is cutting all these areas of Government responsibility, then this bill can potentially expose our exporters to failure and the destruction of our international reputation. It is upon the Government to properly resource and follow through on this piece of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022 data-id=\u00223e624032fcea67713f4312e23e51ef76\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003658\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223e624032fcea67713f4312e23e51ef76\u0022\u003ESUZE REDMAYNE (National\u2014Rangit\u012Bkei) (15:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill makes minor, technical, uncontentious changes across 19 Acts. It\u2019s about improving efficiency and cutting red tape. We are fixing the basics and building the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022 data-id=\u0022c6aaea6126a96fa42c6ee48a85a73130\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003659\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c6aaea6126a96fa42c6ee48a85a73130\u0022\u003EDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (15:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It\u2019s a pleasure to take a call on the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill. As previously mentioned, Labour will be supporting this bill at this third reading. This is not a bill that will generate a lot of headlines, but it\u2019s the sort of legislation that helps keep important systems working properly. It updates a range of laws that affect farming, food production, forestry, fisheries, biosecurity, animal welfare, and horticulture as well. It tidies up legislation, removes duplication, and fixes those technical issues that are being traversed throughout the House today. It makes regulatory processes work better for the industry and regulators. Minister McClay actually earlier today likened it to a car: changing the tyres, changing parts to make it more efficient, and so on and so forth\u2014and that\u2019s what this bill, essentially, does.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003660\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s had a long journey. It was originally introduced as part of a package of regulatory system bills in 2023. It has been through the full select committee process, and I\u2019d like to thank the Primary Production Committee for their efforts. There\u2019s a lot of detail in there. It\u2019s been a very pleasant committee when I\u2019ve subbed in on it, and it feels very amicable when I\u2019m there. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003661\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThey did some consultation.  Further amendments were proposed, and that\u2019s important, because even technical changes deserve that proper scrutiny and public input.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the things I like about this bill is that it focuses on the practical improvements. The individual amendments might be small, but together they remove those unnecessary hurdles and make compliance easier for businesses that are already dealing with enough paperwork and costs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003663\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFor example, under the current law, companies with agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines can find themselves having to go through a full application process when their registration expires. That can be time-consuming and expensive, and this bill allows a straightforward renewal process instead. That\u2019s a sensible change that helps maintain access to products that farmers and veterinarians, and so on and so forth, rely on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003664\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill also streamlines some fisheries administration. Rather than requiring fishers to apply individually for approval to use certain alternative disposal methods, regulations can seek methods to apply it more broadly. That means less paperwork and fewer delays and a more efficient system overall.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003665\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere are also changes that improve the clarity of the law. One example is the Animal Welfare Act, where officials will be able to consider an exporter\u2019s compliance history when deciding whether to issue animal welfare export certificates. Most New Zealanders would expect that previous behaviour should be relevant when assessing risk. This amendment makes this clear.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003666\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnother example is the renaming of the Walking Access Act to the Outdoor Access Act. We heard, during the committee of the whole House, about how that\u2019s kind of a signature of New Zealand and being able to get access to our beaches, to our waterways, for a whole range of outdoor activities. It\u2019s only the name that\u2019s been changed, however. The components of the Act remain the same, and so many Kiwis will be happy with that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003667\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill also contains a number of improvements relating to biosecurity. We all know how important strong biosecurity protections are to our economy and our environment. Changes that help authorised officials respond more quickly and effectively at the border are absolutely worth supporting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003668\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also want to acknowledge some of the additions made during the select committee process. One in particular will be welcomed by many growers. Following the experience of Cyclone Gabrielle, amendments to the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act will allow fee waivers, exemptions, or refunds in circumstances where exporters suffer losses because of a major event and cannot benefit from those export services. That\u2019s a common-sense response to a situation that many growers found themselves in, through no fault of their own, in the aftermath of Cyclone Gabrielle.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003669\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s a good bill. It\u2019s well overdue, and I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c96149a439844ecfa86967f9caf5f50d\u0022 data-id=\u0022f1eade24a22b80b27a56afd96cc94561\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003670\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c96149a439844ecfa86967f9caf5f50d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f1eade24a22b80b27a56afd96cc94561\u0022\u003EKATIE NIMON (National\u2014Napier) (15:23)\u003C/span\u003E: This sounds like a highly pragmatic bill and it\u2019s something very much that the National Government would do. Within fixing the basics, this is very much part of that, and so now we get on to building the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003671\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220bc40b11207ab33c3db855a7c04c722e\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Ah\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003672\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002242067e22c7a349218b3b868f58eda79d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022989b13c934638e908429da25fc5b3202\u0022\u003ERachel Boyack\u003C/span\u003E: Rachel Boyack.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003673\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221b72e43701359c400121678a7ee8be83\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah\u2014no, I know that, but I thought we\u2019d come to the end of it. But, anyway, Rachel Boyack.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002242067e22c7a349218b3b868f58eda79d\u0022 data-id=\u00228d76a8632a4954e04b1d0d17c4aca525\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003674\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002242067e22c7a349218b3b868f58eda79d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228d76a8632a4954e04b1d0d17c4aca525\u0022\u003ERACHEL BOYACK (Labour\u2014Nelson) (15:24)\u003C/span\u003E: No, we\u2019re not quite at the end, sorry, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003675\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226587a76e3a1ad433061aab431f513121\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002242067e22c7a349218b3b868f58eda79d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002265f5c2d7414ec2c0efc6ad311c4c1b8e\u0022\u003ERACHEL BOYACK\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s a pleasure to rise and take a call on a third reading of the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill. Just noting that this was a Labour Party bill that was introduced in 2023, and it has now, eventually\u2014three years later, and through a select committee process\u2014made its way back to the House for its final reading. So it\u2019s great to see that things are happening quickly in this place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003677\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is a sensible bill that is an omnibus bill. It covers across a number of different Acts and it\u2019s a wide-ranging piece of legislation. It strengthens and modernises the regulatory systems that underpin some of New Zealand\u2019s most critical sectors: our farming and food production systems, forestry, fisheries, biosecurity, and animal welfare settings. This bill in total amends 17 Acts of Parliament and repeals five outdated Acts. It contains more than 300 clauses and over 250 substantive amendments. So there has been a significant amount of work put into what is a detailed piece of legislation. It was introduced in 2023, it had its first reading in 2024, and now it\u2019s come back to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m going to talk through some of the changes that have come through as a result of both the bill and the select committee process. The Acts being repealed reflect early eras of industry, structure, and policies. These include the Animal Products (Ancillary and Transitional Provisions) Act 1999, the Food Safety Law Reform Act of 2018, the Forests (West Coast Accord) Act of 2000, the Hop Industry Restructuring Act 2003, and the Wool Industry Restructuring Act 2003\u2014who knew all these Acts existed? These frameworks are either no longer in use or have been fully superseded by more modern legislation. There are an extensive number of Acts being amended. They span the breadth of the primary industry system, from biosecurity and fisheries to food safety, forestry, animal welfare, and export systems. A few other Acts were added to this bill through the select committee process, including the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Act 2023, the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act 1987, and the Organic Products and Production Act of 2023.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003679\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill can be grouped into four clear objectives in terms of its intent. The first is around reducing administrative burden. It reduces the unnecessary administrative burden on industry and regulators. For example, under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act, companies previously faced full re-registration of trade name products when approvals expired. That process is costly, repetitive, and discouraged companies from maintaining products in the New Zealand market. This bill introduces a renewal pathway that removes unnecessary duplication and helps maintain access to safe agricultural tools for farmers and veterinarians.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003680\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESimilarly, under the Fisheries Act, commercial fishers currently must apply individually for approval to use alternative disposal methods for unwanted catch. This creates delays and inefficiencies for both industry and officials. The bill allows for standardised regulatory settings, reducing hundreds of individual applications and improving operational efficiency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s a further change to the Fisheries Act which was quite important, given that the Government has chosen to delay the Fisheries Amendment Bill, as that bill would\u2019ve dealt with a legislative cliff that would\u2019ve been occurring in September of this year. Under the Fisheries Act, there are rules that require commercial operators to land all of their catch. There are some fish species that are currently subject to some transitional landing exceptions, and those are listed in Schedule 1AA of the Act. Those transitional landing exceptions were due to expire in September of 2026, and that would have been dealt with, as I\u2019ve said, through the Fisheries Amendment Bill. The Minister in charge of the bill, the Hon Shane Jones, has therefore proposed extending those transitional dates for landing exceptions through until 30 September 2028, and so that\u2019s a further two years to give that time for the full impact of Labour\u2019s on-board camera roll-out to occur, because those two parts actually operate together, the landing rules and the cameras on board boats. So this is a pragmatic decision to continue with that exemption for a further two years while more work is done in that space.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003682\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second objective of this bill is around clarifying and updating legislation. This bill updates outdated provisions to better reflect how systems operate today. For example, under the Animal Welfare Act, decision makers will now be able to consider an exporter\u2019s compliance history when issuing animal welfare export certificates. This is a topical issue at the moment and an important one in this Act. It closes a gap in the current law and will strengthen animal welfare oversight through a more practical and risk-based approach.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003683\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Walking Access Act is also renamed the Outdoor Access Act, reflecting the broader scope of the commission\u2019s work beyond walking alone. This provides clarity for landowners, councils, and the public about the true nature of its functions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003684\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThirdly, this bill fixes errors, gaps, and inconsistencies, and that\u2019s probably why it\u2019s quite a long, omnibus bill that we\u2019ve got in front of us today. Under the Biosecurity Act, for example, authorised persons will be able to seize unauthorised goods without requiring the presence of a constable in certain situations. This strengthens front-line responsiveness and removes unnecessary procedural delays that can hinder the effectiveness of our biosecurity system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003685\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, the bill ensures our regulatory frameworks remain modern and adaptable. Under the Organic Products and Production Act, for example, the bill introduces the ability to make minor or technical amendments, where the statutory test for minor or technical change is met, to delegated legislation without requiring a full statutory process. This reflects the fast-moving nature of the organics sector, where small technical updates must be made efficiently while maintaining appropriate safeguards. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003686\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnother example is the Commodity Levies Act, where levy orders have been extended from five to six years. This reduces administrative burden on industry bodies and supports stability in levy-funded programmes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003687\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, I want to talk to some other updates in this bill, namely amendments around the Horticulture Export Authority and Cyclone Gabrielle. Not only does the bill reduce administrative burden, clarify and update legislation, fix errors, gaps, and inconsistencies, and ensure our regulatory systems remain up to date, it is also the product of responsive policy making driven by recent events. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003688\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the most important changes in this bill relates to the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority. The devastation caused by Cyclone Gabrielle is still fresh in the minds of many New Zealanders, especially farmers and growers who are still recovering from that devastating event. Orchards were buried in silt, infrastructure was destroyed, and families who had spent generations building their livelihoods saw that work swept away in a matter of hours.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003689\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESection 62 of the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act empowers regulations relating to the fees the authority can charge licensed exporters. However, it did not clearly empower regulations to provide for exemptions, waivers, or refunds of fees. There were policy proposals in 2023 to allow fee relief for exporters affected by the North Island weather events, but under the existing legislative settings those proposals could not be implemented. So growers may have had nothing to export, but under New Zealand\u2019s current legal settings, they still faced fees or obligations, even where they had been unable to benefit from the authority\u2019s services. That isn\u2019t fair, and it raised concerns around fairness and flexibility. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003690\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill addresses that by enabling the authority to grant exceptions, waivers, or refunds where climatic or other events result in loss of export produce, and ensures the system can respond appropriately in times of severe hardship. With the increasing frequency of extreme weather events across the country, including in my area of Nelson-Tasman, it is important that the legislation does not become a barrier to what is fair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003691\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe select committee gave a lot of detailed consideration to this bill. One of the changes that came back was on the National Animal Identification and Tracing information-sharing system (NAIT). Submitters raised concerns that wider sharing of data with police could weaken privacy protections. The committee agreed, and the proposed amendment was removed, ensuring farmers retain confidence in the protection of their personal and commercial information.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003692\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOn agricultural compounds and inhibitors, submitters highlighted concerns about delays in approvals and regulatory uncertainty. New Zealand farmers operate in a highly innovative and competitive environment. It is essential that they have timely access to new technologies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003693\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn conclusion, the bill isn\u2019t about radical change. This one is not a world-changing, front-page headline - driving bill. But it is about ensuring that the systems that govern our primary industries are efficient, coherent, and fit for purpose. It is important for the sector.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003694\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EImportantly, it ensures that New Zealand\u2019s primary industries\u2014our farmers, growers, fishers, foresters, and exporters are supported by a system that is responsive, practical, and future-focused. Labour was proud to introduce this bill to the House, and we\u2019re pleased to see it reach its conclusion, today, three years later. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221a8ff6e3602c492880b65258f59645c0\u0022 data-id=\u0022352ee4e9fcf54449e6d68675d6efcb4f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003695\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a8ff6e3602c492880b65258f59645c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022352ee4e9fcf54449e6d68675d6efcb4f\u0022\u003EDANA KIRKPATRICK (National\u2014East Coast) (15:34)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I just want to firstly recognise the members of the Primary Production Committee who spent some time on this. It is an efficient bill that gets red tape out of the way\u2014which is what we call fixing the basics in the National Party\u2014for a better future, which is what we\u2019re building. I\u2019m particularly pleased that it will help our horticultural sector in areas like Tair\u0101whiti. I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003696\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003697\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003698\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022fb4a484b3be0a05b4d0ae02b52489587\u0022\u003EBuilding Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003699\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00222e673ba1192fe14c12a71576506ec555\u0022\u003ELegislative Statement\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022 data-id=\u00229de7d3bb97dd4e0a4174ed6188634639\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003700\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229de7d3bb97dd4e0a4174ed6188634639\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (15:34)\u003C/span\u003E: I present a legislative statement on the Building Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003701\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eff5aa611c26d55a2c87a3f7af907c58\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House. It can be found on the Parliament website.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003702\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022abd37b54f014afb48418b22a70df4308\u0022\u003EFirst Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022 data-id=\u00224f99e1c1a56b42b29ea0d4d5460c2b49\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003703\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224f99e1c1a56b42b29ea0d4d5460c2b49\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (15:35)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Building Amendment Bill be now read a first time\u003C/span\u003E. I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003704\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBuilding in New Zealand has become more complex with risk averse practices, limited accountability, and slow, costly consenting processes holding the sector back. This bill supports the Government\u2019s objective to promote and enable a more efficient and productive building system\u2014one where it is more quick and affordable for Kiwis to build. It delivers major systems reform, including a fundamental change to liability settings, removing barriers to building consent authority (BCA) consolidation and modernising the building research funding system. It also includes two targeted measures: a fast-track consent pathway for homes with solar generation and other sustainable features, and an amendment to support the uptake of offsite buildings for consent-exempt small, stand-alone dwellings, popularly known as granny flats. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003705\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA central feature of the bill is the shift for building and construction from joint and several liability, which prioritises full recovery of the claimant, to proportionate liability\u2014a fairer system where each party can only be held responsible for their contribution to defective building work. Of course, the purpose is to prevent work from being defective in the first place. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003706\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe joint and several setting has held back the sector\u2019s performance for decades. It creates an imbalance where parties with deeper pockets, such as building consent authorities\u2014typically councils, and therefore their ratepayers\u2014can be held responsible for the full cost of defects, even where their contribution is relatively minor, at least in some situations, exposing ratepayers to those costs and making BCAs disproportionately risk averse. This has slowed building progress across New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003707\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is not a new issue. The Law Commission carried out reviews of joint and several in 1998 and 2014 and the inefficiencies it causes and considered whether it\u2019s the right system for New Zealand. This has been raised in the office of various Ministers of building and construction since long before my time, yet nothing has changed, and the issues persist. In that sense, it\u2019s been a team effort, and I\u2019m glad that we are in the process of being able to bring it to a conclusion together.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAustralian states, by contrast, have been operating proportionate liability models for some 30 years. We\u2019ve taken lessons from our counterparts across the Tasman and engaged directly with them as well as local stakeholders, of course, and legal experts in the development of the bill. In April 2025, I attended a roundtable hosted by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. I give a particular shout out to Dr Michael Warren. The roundtable brought together leading Australian liability experts and key stakeholders from New Zealand\u2019s building, legal, and insurance sectors. Their message was loud and clear: it\u2019s time to move from joint and several liability to a proportionate model, with appropriate measures in place to protect consumers. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003709\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhile fairer at a system level, some building owners risk being left out of pocket when building work goes wrong and liable parties are absent or insolvent. To mitigate this, and to help protect the so-called mum and dad homeowners in particular, we are introducing mandatory home warranties for most residential building work and higher value renovations. This requirement will also make it harder for cowboys to operate\u2014yee-ha. Without a track record of quality and accountability, it will be difficult to obtain warranty backing, and that\u2019s a good thing because these measures are about better protecting homeowners taking on significant risk. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003710\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019re also making professional indemnity insurance compulsory for design professionals, such as engineers, architects, designers, and surveyors. These changes formalise existing good practice and have been welcomed by industry. As a precaution, to avoid disruption in the construction sector, we have enabled targeted, temporary suspension of home warranty and insurance requirements should this become necessary in the future. It\u2019s not a signal of concern but a forward-looking safeguard developed alongside the sector. These requirements can be paused in the event of significant disruptions and global market shifts, with home warranties and insurance remaining available on a voluntary basis, if that should come to pass, just as they are now. Taken together, these reforms rebalance the system, moving to fairer allocation of liability while ensuring that homeowners are supported by stronger, more reliable consumer protections.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003711\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnother change introduced by the bill, which is again being welcomed by councils and industry alike, is the removal of legislative barriers that have hampered the consolidation and collaboration of building consent authorities. When the current framework was introduced in 2004, it was expected that smaller building consent authorities would consolidate over time to achieve greater scale, resilience, and consistency. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003712\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn practice, though, this has been limited. Some building consent authorities process up to 3,000 building consents per year, while the smallest handle only a handful.  Many lower-volume building consent authorities rely on rates to subsidise their consenting functions. There are also inconsistencies in how consenting requirements under the Building Code are interpreted and applied, contributing to delays in efficiencies, including across different council borders. The bill enables greater flexibility in how building consent functions are delivered. It removes requirements that currently constrain how territorial authorities arrange their consenting services, including enabling functions to be transferred to another council or a stand-alone BCA, improving competition and giving councils more options.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003713\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAlongside these changes, statutory processing times for councils to provide project information memoranda, or PIMs, are being reduced from 20 working days to 10 working days. This will support more timely delivery of consent-related services by stand-alone BCAs. BCA consolidation is voluntary, I emphasise to fellow members of the House; the changes do not force building consent authorities to change how they operate, but they remove unnecessary barriers for those that wish to do so, supporting a more consistent, efficient, and competitive consenting system. At the same time, the bill modernises the way that building research is funded, improving parliamentary oversight and accountability and alignment with sector priorities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003714\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe current Building Research Levy - funded system, established back in 1969, is no longer fit for purpose. To better support housing and infrastructure development heading into the future, we need to enable greater innovation, promote value for money, and open opportunities beyond the single current provider. The bill repeals the Building Research Levy Act and gives the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) chief executive a new role in funding building research, with funding ring-fenced and collected through a single building levy. The research levy has historically been paid only to BRANZ, the Building Research Association of New Zealand, which has received more than $260 million in levy revenue over the last 12 years. Amalgamating the two levies creates a more coherent and streamlined funding framework, improves oversight and accountability, and introduces new mechanisms to support contestable funding processes and a clearer link between research, investment, and sector needs. A more coherent system and a more coherent Minister for Building and Construction would also be helpful, Mr Speaker!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003715\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn addition to the system-level reforms, the bill includes two more targeted changes to support faster, more efficient, and sustainable building. It introduces a fast-track building consent pathway for new residential buildings with solar generation and sustainable attributes, requiring eligible building consents to be processed by BCAs within 10 working days, compared with the standard current 20 working days. To access this fast track, buildings must meet specified performance criteria relating to solar generation or sustainability, such as energy efficiency, water efficiency, low-embodied carbon, and/or climate resilience. These criteria will be set through a notice issued by the chief executive of MBIE to ensure that they can adapt over time as building practices and technologies evolve. This reform is intended to encourage greater uptake of solar generation and sustainable building design, while speeding up the consenting process and supporting more efficient delivery of new homes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003716\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, the bill also supports more efficient construction methods by permitting the offsite construction of consent-exempt granny flats to take place in advance of receiving a project information memorandum, or, again, a PIM\u2014that\u2019s for the site a home will, ultimately, be located upon. Since the exemption came into effect in January 2026, some 225 PIMs have been issued in the first quarter of this year, representing $34 million worth of potential building work. This is real progress, but I\u2019ve still heard, none the less, that there can be challenges for some offsite construction models where homes are built in advance of receiving a PIM. So, again, we\u2019re doing something about that. The bill allows offsite construction to take place before a PIM is issued, while still requiring a PIM before any onsite building work can take place. This change will support faster delivery of homes under the exemption and allow potential buyers to inspect completed dwellings before purchase, while maintaining the existing safeguards and protections for homeowners provided under the exemption.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003717\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn the closing minute of my speech, acknowledging there\u2019s a lot that we\u2019ve put into the bill, as well as into this 10 minutes, I note that the bill makes a deliberate shift in how the system works, from one that concentrates risk and holds back performance to one that shares responsibility more fairly and supports better outcomes across the sector. It pairs changes to liability settings with stronger consumer protections so that while responsibility is more fairly shared, homeowners remain well protected. Alongside this, the bill removes unnecessary barriers to support a more efficient consenting system, it modernises how levies are collected and allocated, and it makes targeted changes that will have real impacts for Kiwis looking to get on and build.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003718\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is a practical package of reforms that improves system performance and gives New Zealanders greater confidence in the homes they build and buy. For all those reasons, I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u0022652e6ad928da035308e3093299d360e5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003719\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022652e6ad928da035308e3093299d360e5\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (15:45)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister is correct. This is a significant piece of reform and there is a lot in his speech that he has canvassed. He didn\u2019t make it in 10 minutes, Mr Speaker; how shall I make it in five? I will, at the end of my speech, ask you for another three minutes, if you\u2019ll indulge me.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003720\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESupporting this bill is consistent with Labour\u2019s positions under the two Law Commission reviews into the changes from joint and several liability to proportional liability. That is a system we inherited from England. England still has it, but most of the economies that we like to compare ourselves to do not, and they have moved to a proportional system. That is why this bill has our tentative support.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut there will be some bottom lines that we must see progress on, and one in particular is the Building Research Levy. The Minister will not be surprised about this. We feel that it is an important part of the building system\u2014that State-funded and -enabled science research behind the work of the Building Research Association of New Zealand is an incredibly important part of the building system in New Zealand. It is something which not only enables innovation in our building system but is also a contributor to a built environment which deals with our conditions\u2014we\u2019re a long noodle of a country: we shake, we have floods, we are different from anywhere else in the world where we have the same sort of built environment, and it is important that we have a New Zealand system which recognises that and continues to update and innovate on behalf of our industry, with the basic science that we need. No other part of the system will fund that. It is an industry-led science system. The industry buys into it, the industry pays for it, and the industry assets that sit up there in the backblocks of Wellington are an important part of New Zealand\u2019s commercial system around this\u2014it is incredibly important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003722\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe proportionate liability system that we have now is something that has given successive Government cause to pause, because we know, as the Minister has outlined, that there are significant trade-offs here. On the one hand, we have councils that are behaving, rightly, in a risk-averse way. They behave in a risk-averse way because there is a lot of risk in the system. The risk doesn\u2019t go away. When consumers are left with a home which represents most of their life savings and it is not suitable to live in, not only are they significantly affected but their community is significantly affected. The kind of event like the Christchurch earthquake is a different sort of building failure, where thousands of people were left without homes they could live in. That is unlike any other kind of market failure, because you have a system where New Zealand, as a whole, doesn\u2019t have enough places for people to live safely and to raise their children.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHousing market failure is one of the most public kinds of market failure, and that is why the State will always have a role in adequately spreading the risk, not only between consumers, who bear most of that risk but to the communities that share it with them. It is everyone\u2019s problem when we do not have enough houses for New Zealanders to live in. That is what we are trying to mitigate, in this circumstance in the bill, with an insurance product: to meet the amount of risk that is being put back on to the individual homeowners.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003724\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut what is the problem here? And I laugh at this: it is always former chairs of the Regulations Review Committees who love to put in a \u201CHenry VIII\u201D provision, and this one is a big one. This one is one where this House can pass a law which requires insurance products to meet what is a system-designed choice, where consumers are being asked to bear a larger amount of the risk but then to hold insurance products which suit them so that they spread that risk adequately, but, later, Cabinet can make a decision to exempt them from all of that. Why is that? Why has this critical design choice been designed in that way? Because insurers are saying now, in the New Zealand market, that they cannot provide the kinds of insurance products that this relies on. They tell me, and they will tell the Minister, that they cannot provide the product which he is describing to New Zealanders now that will exist in future. Maybe they will have that sort of product in future, but maybe they won\u2019t, and the point is that this legislation is designed to give them exactly that out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003725\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt creates two moral hazards here: one is for the consumers who think they are getting a protection, but one is for the insurers, because the insurers look at this legislation and they go, \u201COK, well, if we don\u2019t offer this sort of product, then we\u2019ll get out of it anyway.\u201D The Government has a role here. It could either have had the Queensland model, which was the State model\u2014which the Minister in his public comments alluded to several times when asked by journalists whether that was what he was looking at\u2014or it could have been the kind of model where you draw a regulatory box and ask the insurers to get in quick or else\u2014neither of those are what we have gone with. I\u2019ll tell you other jurisdictions which have used the second one. Canada\u2019s states, Ontario and British Columbia\u2014Mr Speaker, please can you put a motion to the House to ask that I could have five more minutes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003726\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002296f20be1240341d806c95d4377b74613\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003727\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fb167acd15639d6ffb8a51df80fa49cd\u0022\u003EHon Members: \u003C/span\u003EYes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003728\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223914a6136004d0a18e91b5317d0d22c1\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I call on the Hon Julie Anne Genter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022 data-id=\u0022cd876c5274fc7800c9d8564581bdf2b4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003729\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cd876c5274fc7800c9d8564581bdf2b4\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green\u2014Rongotai) (15:50)\u003C/span\u003E: I don\u2019t understand why Government MPs are so uncharitable. Clearly, Arena Williams had many useful things to say, and it would have been great for her to have more time. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E] But I\u2019ll try to get through my concerns with the bill\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003730\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220a4e0129f1b0abd5ebfafb45ff1d8315\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Hang on, sorry\u2014there\u2019s too much talking around the place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003731\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022574488166ae986cd9d6b66aea07d73c2\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER\u003C/span\u003E: We have a number of concerns with this bill, but I\u2019m going to start by saying that the Minister for Building and Construction accurately describes the problem. There\u2019s no question that there have been barriers to consenting buildings, particularly in a more energy efficient way, using methods that aren\u2019t explicitly set out as alternative solutions in the Building Code. I don\u2019t question the fact that the liability for councils has made them very risk averse, and it has been very costly for local people. To me, it makes sense that risk and that cost would be shared more at a central government level rather than at a local government level. So the problem definition there is accurate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003732\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI should also say that this is a massive reform that was dropped on us in a week of urgency, when the Government is trying to get through a huge number of bills, so we really haven\u2019t had time to look at this in the level of detail that we normally would want to. We\u2019re not in a position to support this bill at this time, even if we support the intention that the Government has in addressing the issue around a more proportionate liability. It looks like shifting away from joint and several to proportionate makes things a bit fairer, but it also could be potentially prohibitive for smaller builders and smaller businesses. Already we have builders who are concerned. I see here in a Radio New Zealand article that there are a number who are raising concerns that this is going to make it impossible for them to keep operating. There are real concerns that I share with my Labour colleagues about relying on private insurance. I think we\u2019d be wanting to look at a model that is more like our ACC model\u2014that\u2019s publicly owned. The other changes in the bill, moving towards a more privatised network of building consent authorities, we have serious concerns around.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003733\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s public-good incentives that need to drive the decisions around consenting. It has to be information, expertise, and the wider public-good incentives, not maximising profit, as will be the case with privatised organisations. We all know that, when you have that profit motive, we\u2019re unlikely to get the public-good outcomes that we need from our buildings. While some states in Australia have proportionate liability, this is often paired with a centralised public insurer or backstop, and that\u2019s what we would want to see in this system. We completely disagree with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment\u2019s (MBIE) analysis on the building research levy. We\u2019re too small; it\u2019s kind of ridiculous. We\u2019ve got this specialised institution with the Building Research Association of New Zealand (BRANZ) that has built up all of this capability, has these really fantastic employees\u2014they\u2019re independently governed, it\u2019s primarily industry led, and they\u2019ve been able to develop real expertise that is specific to New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003734\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhy would we take that away from them so that some policy people at MBIE\u2014and I\u2019m sorry, I\u2019m sure there are really great public servants in MBIE, but there\u2019s no guarantee that you\u2019d get actual experts in those roles. They\u2019re very far removed, in a public ministry, from the practice of the world. Doing this contested approach just makes the funding all bitsy. It makes it harder for us to have really high-quality research. We\u2019re a small country; let\u2019s stick with the institution that has been invested in for 60 years, that has built up fantastic capability, that employs a bunch of scientists, and that is well respected internationally. To me, this seems completely absurd. It\u2019s, like, what is the problem here? We haven\u2019t seen a problem definition of why the building research levy should be taken away from BRANZ and given to policy people at MBIE to decide how it\u2019s going to be distributed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003735\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EEven if we agree with many of the intentions of the bill, we don\u2019t agree with the solution that\u2019s been put forward in this. There\u2019s no way we can support it at first reading, and I hope the Minister will listen to the select committee and make sensible improvements.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022440a125e85954bae9f5d470b7551e4f3\u0022 data-id=\u00223a1aed99114ebde7466d6217559d47d9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003736\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022440a125e85954bae9f5d470b7551e4f3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223a1aed99114ebde7466d6217559d47d9\u0022\u003ECAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (15:55)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a great bill, to be removing the barriers around building consent authority (BCA) consolidation. It does good reforms. I disagree with the previous speaker, the Hon Julie Anne Genter. To the building levy, making it contestable\u2014I mean, anyone who thinks that it\u2019s working fantastically now with one provider should go and talk to someone who\u2019s been trying to get their products certified in a system where there\u2019s only one gatekeeper. But we\u2019ll go there. Making clearer paths and streamlined paths for solar generation, efficiency\u2014it\u2019s fantastic, fixing some of that stuff. We should have maybe picked up on the small standalone dwelling stuff in committee. Maybe we should have been a bit more on to that, but I\u2019m glad the Minister for Building and Construction has come in here and fixed it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003737\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do want to take just a moment to talk about proportionate liability. This is not a simple matter. It\u2019s going to require a lot of the committee\u2019s concentration. Joint and several has got its problems. Proportionate liability is no panacea. The real problem is getting to the real crux of what\u2019s causing the delays and the inefficiencies and the lack of innovation and choice in our system. It really comes down to who pays the piper. At the moment, it\u2019s sitting with ratepayers and council, and Government in really extreme circumstances, but if a private BCA, or any other BCA, was going to come in and start trying to compete and provide a better service, maybe be a bit more open to innovation and finding ways to make sure that that\u2019s safe for consumers, they\u2019re going to have to do that in a way that is open. Right now, you\u2019re going up against a BCA that has the ratepayer to fall back on and doesn\u2019t actually have a charge upfront that anybody can see. It does really get to the core of what\u2019s causing our delays.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003738\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s been traversed\u2014the risk aversion; why would a council take on that risk? Previous speakers have mentioned it, so I\u2019m not going to, but I will just look to Andy Foster, the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, and say he\u2019s going to have to do some good concentration on that. Minister, also a final word for you: well done on grabbing the nettle, working hard with the sector, and finding some solutions and bringing them to this House. I think you\u2019ve done a fantastic job. Thank you, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002248ce26e54d83406399b875df20400dec\u0022 data-id=\u002215936264fdcbaad5a9280161abb321ba\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003739\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002248ce26e54d83406399b875df20400dec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002215936264fdcbaad5a9280161abb321ba\u0022\u003EANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (15:57)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to welcome this bill. It\u2019s a bill of considerable substance. I just want to start off by talking about my experience around joint and several, as a councillor and as a mayor. We got to the stage where this was costing the ratepayer an absolute fortune. It was about $150 million, and that was just on the leaky homes. Then we started getting cases around seismic issues, where people were starting to say, if a building suffered damage in an earthquake, \u201COh, the council should not have consented that building, and therefore we\u2019re going to have a go at the council legally on that as well.\u201D When you start getting faced with those sorts of things\u2014and certainly, I was actively saying to the likes of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, \u201CWe might well want to hand back our building warrant, because it is just a liability for us.\u201D That sits behind my support for joint and several being moved to proportionate liability.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003740\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is, though, if the ratepayer is not the one\u2014at the moment, the ratepayer is unwillingly the one who\u2019s standing behind building consents. It doesn\u2019t make councils money. They barely cover the costs of actually doing the consent process themselves, let alone when something goes wrong. Of course, buildings, homes, are really, really significant. For most of us, they\u2019re the most significant assets we will ever own. It\u2019s interesting that there are some parties around this House who actually want to try and drive down the value of those assets and make those assets more and more expensive\u2014not parties on this side of the House, I might say. I think parties on the other side might want to think about that, because they are damaging the most valuable asset that most people will ever own.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003741\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s really important that somebody is there. Most people who own a home are going to want to know that somebody is there behind them\u2014obviously, you don\u2019t want something to go wrong\u2014and that there\u2019s somebody there who\u2019s going to pick up the pieces if something goes wrong. If it\u2019s not the ratepayer, who is it going to be? If it\u2019s a small sort of product, we\u2019ve got the Consumer Guarantees Act, but that\u2019s not relevant here. Of course, the most important thing is to do the building right the first time. We\u2019ve heard, in my Transport and Infrastructure Committee, about 10-year claims limitations, but this bill is predicated on a system of warranties and insurance. That\u2019s something we\u2019ve already traversed as a select committee and recently as bills through this House\u2014the plumbers, drainlayers, and gasfitters bill, and the overseas building products bill. Those things are about the issue of liability. Warranties and insurance was an important one for both of those.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003742\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s been observed that one thing, if we do go down that track, is that it might well drive out some of the poorer operators who can\u2019t get insurance. So be it, because we don\u2019t want people who are cowboys in our building industry. There\u2019s going to be a lot to consider in that area.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003743\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second thing I wanted to talk about is the ability to join building consent authorities together. I think it\u2019s a really good initiative and I think it will give some scale and hopefully draw them away from councils more. I think it\u2019s a good thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003744\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe third thing I wanted to briefly mention is this issue around long-term research strategy. That sounds like a really good idea, but I do share some of the concerns which I\u2019ve heard about the Building Research Association of New Zealand, BRANZ. I have visited them; I\u2019ve seen some of the great work they do in seismic, fire, and insulation. Obviously, we want to make sure that we keep that research capability in our country and being able to do good work for building and construction going forward.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003745\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe final couple of things I just wanted to mention\u2014the fast tracking of consenting for solar panels, I think, would be widely welcomed. I do note there\u2019s been a lot said recently about what has actually been claimed a central government policy, but it\u2019s actually been something that local government has been asking for a very, very long time, and that\u2019s the ratepayer assistance scheme to be able to use the backing of the ratepayer, in this case, for cheaper-cost loans for people to be able to upgrade their homes by putting solar panels on them. That\u2019s something that, actually, again, when I was Mayor of Wellington, I was part of the National Council of Local Government, and we were working actively on that, saying to Government, \u201CPlease can you come on board with that.\u201D It\u2019s great to see parties around this House supporting that, and I very much welcome it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003746\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe final thing to say is just in terms\u2014this bill will be reported back, I understand, for six months. I\u2019ve just been asking around to say, well, look, there\u2019s a lot in here; one of the things we should do is give the maximum possible time that there is for people to respond to this. Of course, there is not much point in getting responses back some time in mid to late August, because we\u2019re not going to do anything with them. It\u2019ll be a new committee in the new Parliament. I think we should give them more time to do that and maybe get these submissions in maybe some time in November. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022 data-id=\u00228d8d7db216560cf6e44db036a0f75807\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003747\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228d8d7db216560cf6e44db036a0f75807\u0022\u003EDr CARLOS CHEUNG (National\u2014Mt Roskill) (16:02)\u003C/span\u003E: This will deliver a fair and more balanced liability framework. It replaces joint and several liability with proportionate liability, ensuring each party is responsible only for the loss they cause. I think this is a great bill. We are here to fix the basics and build the future. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022 data-id=\u0022a92ee277c73fb10c2899d863a419d5d1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003748\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a92ee277c73fb10c2899d863a419d5d1\u0022\u003EHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (16:02)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. There aren\u2019t many\u2014actually, no, there are a few opportunities in Parliament where you get to demonstrate a genuine desire to work with both sides of the House to get the bill right because it could bring significant benefits to the country. It is therefore disappointing that whilst we are in urgency\u2014and I understand that the Government just want to get through things as quick as possible. I would have thought this bill\u2014of all bills that are on the Order Paper, this urgency motion\u2014would have been one where the Government would have wanted to contribute fully in support of the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003749\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI thought the Minister\u2019s contribution was sound, and my experience with this Minister is that he is eminently reasonable. He has worked constructively with my colleague and friend Arena Williams, his counterpart, our building and construction spokesperson, and, of course, there is some relevancy in this bill to my portfolio of housing\u2014and infrastructure, frankly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003750\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, as Arena said in her unique, enthusiastic style, we support the vast majority of this bill. I think it is important for the construction sector and the infrastructure sector to see that this Parliament is working together to get this bill into a position where all parties can support it, because, frankly, they are sick and tired of the stop-start chopping and changing that we have seen as a country over recent years. It\u2019s got to stop.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003751\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMany of the things that this bill seeks to address have been identified over the previous years, and they do need to be addressed, but there are two main areas that we, as the Labour Party, want to use the select committee process to get right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003752\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs Arena Williams pointed out, the way that this bill is currently written could potentially give insurance companies an out, because a lot of the assurances\u2014and when they\u2019re given, I\u2019m sure they are sincere\u2014to homeowners by the Minister are that there would be an appropriate insurance product to ensure that they are not unduly lumped with a disproportionate level of liability.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003753\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, you\u2019ve got that assurance and you\u2019ve got the requirement in the bill, but you\u2019ve also got the ability for future Cabinets to waive that requirement. It leads to what I think is a reasonable question: why have the requirement in the bill if it can be withdrawn later, and the assurance is reliant on that product, but the requirement of the product might be removed at a later date? What is the potential impact on homeowners in that respect? That is something that we really do want to dive into at select committee and make sure that we can address those concerns\u2014not just concerns that we\u2019re raising; we\u2019re raising them because we\u2019re hearing it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003754\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other thing, too, is the Building Research Association of New Zealand. Now, for 60 years, they have been a credible, respected contributor to the building sector in this country, providing trusted research on the quality of building products, so much so that they are now in demand for overseas clients who are coming to them asking them to test their products. They are internationally renowned, and they\u2019ve been funded by a system that has proven to work. We are confused, I think is fair, at the provision in this bill that suggests that the building levy that has funded them so successfully over that time is then potentially going to be redistributed to other organisations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003755\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019re very serious about this, and if our concerns about this aren\u2019t addressed at select committee, in all honesty, that might be enough for us not to support it. Now, we don\u2019t want to do that. We do want to support this. It is important that it has broad support, because the signal that was sent to everybody is that this isn\u2019t going to change if there is a future change of Government. That\u2019s important. But if we don\u2019t address the concerns in that, we may have no choice. It\u2019s not a threat; it\u2019s just being completely upfront.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003756\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve got a six-month\u2014it is full select committee, Minister? Yep, great. That is a good start\u2014a full select committee process. Those are the two issues that we\u2019ll be working constructively with the Government and the committee to make sure we get those things right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b7cff05e64f346e68983b2fdbfba3ad8\u0022 data-id=\u002261d16b35f7f91ba9fbb80da66f87f512\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003757\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b7cff05e64f346e68983b2fdbfba3ad8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002261d16b35f7f91ba9fbb80da66f87f512\u0022\u003EDAN BIDOIS (National\u2014Northcote) (16:07)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. To the member that just sat down, we will be teasing these issues out in select committee. But this is a good day, because this bill gives long overdue reforms to the Building Act. It rebalances the performance of the system to balance risk and efficiency. It provides a way forward on liability settings that have been much needed to change in this country. It\u2019s all part of our plan to fix the basics and to build the future. I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022 data-id=\u0022aa74e1f40aae5179e9da2d3b7efb8939\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003758\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022aa74e1f40aae5179e9da2d3b7efb8939\u0022\u003EDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (16:08)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I also rise to support this bill, the Building Amendment Bill. I note from several of the contributions to date that there\u2019s a certain amount of excitement, I think, in what this bill can achieve and will achieve, and there\u2019s a certain amount of thought that\u2019s gone into looking over it and seeing some potential fish hooks and some potential changes that certainly need to be advocated for in terms of change. I think that bodes well for the select committee process and for the rest of this process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003759\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELabour will be supporting this bill at first reading. As my colleague the Hon Kieran McAnulty has just said, though, our continued support will be contingent. But at this point, it\u2019s certainly consistent with the approach that Labour has taken when it went through the Law Commission\u2019s two reviews on building risk. Obviously, our objective, as I should imagine everybody\u2019s objective should be, is a building system that does deliver more homes and does deliver better infrastructure, because goodness knows we\u2019ve got a lot of catching up to do in that respect, and also a building system that, ultimately, delivers lower costs, because it aids no one to see cost escalations or for things to be unaffordable. Whilst those are all very good aims and those are all what we should be aiming for, we also have to remind ourselves that it\u2019s important that it maintains strong consumer protection and real accountability in that regard as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003760\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019re going to be absolutely constructive in the pursuit of perfecting this bill through the select committee process. Many of these reforms, as I\u2019ve said, are consistent not only with our previous work that we\u2019ve done through that commission but also with our prospective work that we\u2019re doing in terms of our own policy development, as well. The job at select committee, as I\u2019ve said, will be to strengthen the areas that mostly have been outlined via this process at this first reading, although I note that my colleague Arena Williams didn\u2019t quite get enough time to elucidate fully on some of the insurance issues that she wanted to raise. But I\u2019m sure there will be plenty of other opportunities to tease that out. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003761\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAt the heart of this bill is a shift\u2014and I think it is the number one issue\u2014from that joint or several liability to that proportionate liability. Whilst that might sound technical, it is somewhat technical, but it also matters, because if a builder goes broke or disappears, it could be the homeowner, and not the council or other parties, that ends up carrying that cost. There\u2019s an opportunity for us to figure out not only what products are available but also figure out that potential loophole where insurers may not offer the products that need to be available to make that work. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003762\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe support removing barriers to councils sharing and consolidating their building consent functions, as well. Many councils, I think\u2014certainly, we hear both anecdotally and formally when we sit down with relevant people that councils can often struggle to keep that specialist expertise in-house and keep all the relevant people required throughout that process to make sure that it\u2019s smooth. We welcome faster consenting, also I want to say, for both solar and sustainable homes, and support off-site and modular construction and the ability to do that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003763\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe think those are really good ideas. Again, these are things that Labour has long championed, and a more specific articulation of our commitment to that, I\u2019m sure, we\u2019ll hear more about over coming weeks, given that it\u2019s election year, but there\u2019s no doubt that that is absolutely congruent with our thinking on this. There are a couple of bits and pieces that colleagues have pointed out from having a look at the bill today in preparation for select committee that they will raise there, but I don\u2019t think that will come as a surprise to anybody. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003764\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think it sounds as if everybody is relatively united and is wanting to give this bill a really good shot through the select committee process. In service of that, I won\u2019t hold it up any further, other than to commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022df3e6766443b46819410ad4fedf34077\u0022 data-id=\u0022be256f2cb9bbf7be43760ade9bdbe399\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003765\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df3e6766443b46819410ad4fedf34077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022be256f2cb9bbf7be43760ade9bdbe399\u0022\u003ESTUART SMITH (National\u2014Kaik\u014Dura) (16:13)\u003C/span\u003E: This bill is literally fixing the basics and building the future, and I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003766\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EBuilding Amendment Bill be now read a first time\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003767\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 107\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003768\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003769\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003770\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003771\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003772\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a first time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003773\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00220aaf5303e6c47e4e4331ce4e263a5e6f\u0022\u003EReferral to Select Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022 data-id=\u0022f05d4ab167d732952bab7ebacee78205\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003774\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f05d4ab167d732952bab7ebacee78205\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh) (16:14)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Building Amendment Bill be considered by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003775\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003776\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003777\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00224b3f9713b7c9e52b4aa8a10290cb41d9\u0022\u003EClimate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003778\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ef73d6c2398275757ffff6209105dda6\u0022\u003ELegislative Statement\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022 data-id=\u00221d75f33751854414fed9dd55f47e2b27\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003779\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221d75f33751854414fed9dd55f47e2b27\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (16:14)\u003C/span\u003E: I present a legislative statement on the Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003780\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222b068b7b24acfbd4a14f629177c081a0\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the parliamentary website.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003781\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00228324e1fdc62ff34bc82ff622f865e008\u0022\u003EFirst Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022 data-id=\u00223bba4b08549882a97a5422f86b93456e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003782\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223bba4b08549882a97a5422f86b93456e\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (16:15)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill be now read a first time\u003C/span\u003E. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 30 July 2026 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting in the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193,195, and 196. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003783\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill clarifies climate change laws to provide businesses and New Zealanders with certainty around their obligations. Ongoing litigation in the High Court, where civil claims have been made, is creating uncertainty in business confidence and investment. It risks the development of a new regime that runs in parallel and it may contradict the framework that Parliament has already enacted to respond to climate change. Ultimately, if there is legal uncertainty, there is less investment over time, and that affects us all by making our country less competitive. Therefore, the Government will amend the Climate Change Response Act 2002 to prevent findings of tort liability for activities that cause or contribute to the emissions of greenhouse gas and, through those emissions, may cause or contribute to climate change harm. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003784\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA tort is a civil claim brought in private law in situations where the conduct of one person causes harm or invades the interests of another person. Tort law has primarily been developed through the common law, which arises from decisions made by judges in court, rather than by legislation that has developed in Parliament. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003785\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ESmith v Fonterra\u003C/span\u003E case, the defendant is asking the court to develop a regime to control and reduce the emissions of six of this country\u2019s largest businesses. This would be potentially contrary to the regulatory response set by Parliament under the Climate Change Response Act 2002, which sets out our legal framework for New Zealand\u2019s regulatory response to climate change. This framework includes a 2050 target for emissions reduction and a regime for setting and meeting successive emissions budgets with a view to achieving that target. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003786\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Government\u2019s view is that greenhouse gas emissions and climate change harm are best regulated by Parliament and the executive, who take a whole-of-economy approach that carefully considers environmental, economic, and social implications, rather than having that done on a case by case basis through litigation in the courts. A statutory bar prevents courts from issuing a certain type of finding or considering a particular issue. In this case, the bill will prevent a person or entity from being liable in tort law for climate change or harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions. This will apply to all activities contributing to greenhouse gas emissions directly and indirectly, regardless of when or where they occur. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003787\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHowever, the bill is targeted and will only affect tort claims relating to climate change damage or harm arising from greenhouse gas emissions. It will not affect traditional environmental torts\u2014for example, where a factory burning fossil fuels causes harm through odour or ash residue. This may still be covered under the tort of nuisance. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003788\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill will also apply to the proceedings of \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ESmith v Fonterra\u003C/span\u003E. I acknowledge that care is needed when deciding whether legislation should apply to existing court proceedings. However, these proceedings are still at the procedural stage, and the substantive proceedings have yet to start. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003789\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ECurrently, there is no tort liability for climate change damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions, but this is what Mr Smith is asking to be developed. I therefore consider that the application of the bar to existing proceedings that have not been finally determined is necessary. This will ensure that there\u2019s no risk of a parallel regulatory regime being developed in future which applies to some of emitters and is inconsistent with the Government\u2019s regulatory response. As no rights have yet been identified in the existing case, this legislation will not deprive the litigants of the fruit of litigation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003790\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill clarifies the regulatory framework in which we are operating as a country with regard to climate change. The bill doesn\u2019t change New Zealand\u2019s climate targets or the approach that the Government has taken. Businesses with obligations under the emissions trading scheme will still be required to meet them. We have a good regime in the Climate Change Response Act and the emissions trading scheme, and we\u2019re seeking to make sure this regime is clearly in place without confusion. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003791\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill makes it clear that the response to climate change sits squarely with the elected Parliament and the executive. The bill clarifies the law to ensure that there is certainty around climate change obligations of New Zealand businesses. It also ensures our response to climate change is managed by Parliament and the executive at a national level, rather than on a case by case basis through the courts. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003792\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002249101113176f8733dda64260d85d75d8\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022 data-id=\u002278c978d6ac7b147f3f539ec4daeb4d67\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003793\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002278c978d6ac7b147f3f539ec4daeb4d67\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (16:20)\u003C/span\u003E: Labour opposes this bill, and I announce now that, in Government, Labour will repeal this bill. My colleagues who are lawyers will no doubt take the House through the reasons that, on a legal basis, this is very, very bad law, but I wish to speak to some of the reasons that the Minister of Justice has given for pursuing this course of action.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003794\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere were a couple of major reasons that the Minister gave for pursuing this course of action. One was that the impending legislation creates uncertainty for business. Looking through the advice that the Minister was given, looking through the regulatory impact statement and the background advice, officials pointed out that it was not clear that the impending legal action created any more uncertainty than already exists in business; that, over time, statutory bars tend to be whittled down anyway, so that creates uncertainty; and, in fact, they had not even consulted any business to find out whether there would be uncertainty. It is a very thin reason and one that is not backed up by its own officials.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003795\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second major reason that the Minister gave for this particular piece of legislation was that our response to climate change was best managed through the elected officials, through the Parliament, and through the executive. Let\u2019s look at this Government\u2019s record on climate change. They have reversed the ban on offshore oil and gas exploration; they have excluded agriculture from the emissions trading scheme; they have ended the clean car discount; they have gotten rid of the Climate Emergency Response Fund; they\u2019ve cancelled the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry (GIDI), the fund for helping industries transition away from fossil fuels; they\u2019ve weakened climate reporting requirements for big business; they\u2019ve cut public transport subsidies for young people; they backed out of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance; they\u2019ve refused to sign up to the pathway for transitioning away from fossil fuels; they\u2019ve allowed the emissions trading scheme to fray to the point of collapse; they have diluted the Clean Car Standard; they cancelled Auckland light rail; they\u2019ve added excessive road user charges to electric vehicles; they\u2019ve removed regulations for low-emissions buildings; they\u2019ve cancelled the Lake Onslow pumped hydro scheme; they\u2019ve created an \u201Cindependent\u201D panel to review the methane target; they\u2019ve decoupled the emissions trading scheme from our Paris 2050 targets; they\u2019ve reduced the barriers for coal mining resource consents; they\u2019ve changed the Crown Minerals Act to promote oil and gas exploration; they\u2019ve shut down New Zealand Green Investment Finance; they\u2019ve subsidised fossil fuels through a $200 million co-investment in oil and gas exploration; they\u2019ve changed the deadline for a carbon neutral Public Service from 2025 to 2050; they\u2019ve reduced the methane target in the Climate Change Response Act; and they\u2019ve stripped $6 billion out of the National Resilience Fund.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThey have an appalling record on climate change, and yet, that Minister says that businesses, that New Zealanders, that ordinary people should rely on the executive and the Parliament to manage our climate change response and that is why he is engaged in putting a statutory bar on any tort cases. Now, we cannot rely on this Government to address climate change, as is shown by the way that they have littered\u2014littered\u2014the landscape with cancellations and with backtracks. We cannot rely on them to do that, so one of the only courses of action that has to be available to us is through the courts, and they are cancelling that course of action too. What a wretched thing to do. They are cancelling it on the spurious grounds, not backed up by the Minister\u2019s own officials, that it will cause business uncertainty; and they are cancelling it on the grounds that the executive is the entity best placed to manage our response to climate change. In that respect, they are an absolute failure. As I said, the Labour Party opposes this bill, and we will repeal it in Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u00221ef3870874fffe18b0bea65d4d34440e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003797\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221ef3870874fffe18b0bea65d4d34440e\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (16:25)\u003C/span\u003E: This is a disgusting piece of law, Madam Speaker. It is not a clarification; it is a nullification. It is a nullification of the right of citizens to exercise their equality before the law and hold those who are harming them, through their negligence and through their nuisance, accountable for the harm that has been caused to that citizen. It specifically extinguishes the right of Mike Smith, who is taking New Zealand\u2019s biggest polluter, Fonterra, to court to hold them to account for the harm that they are causing to his wh\u0101nau and his hap\u016B and his iwi. But, in extinguishing his right, it extinguishes the right of all citizens to do the same thing in regard to climate change, the existential challenge of our time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003798\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn Mike Smith\u2019s words, \u201CThe case was always about standing up for our communities. I took this case because these companies have caused enormous climate harm while escaping accountability for decades. Fonterra and other major emitters have already lobbied themselves out of meaningful accountability under New Zealand\u2019s climate laws. Now, after fighting me through the courts for seven years, they are trying to eliminate the right of every New Zealander to challenge them in court at all.\u201D That is, when Fonterra says, \u201CJump\u201D, the Luxon Government says, \u201CHow high?\u201D, because this bill has been directly and explicitly lobbied for, by New Zealand\u2019s biggest polluter, to the highest office in this land: the office of the Prime Minister. Fonterra came to the Prime Minister and said, \u201CHey, we don\u2019t like this citizen expressing their rights to take us and hold us to account for the harm we\u2019re causing. Can you please strike out that right?\u201D The Minister of Justice there, who shamefully looks at his phone, is doing exactly that, right here today in this House of the New Zealand Parliament.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003799\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI said in my earlier speech that this Government needs to be held to account for the accusation of corruption in this regard, because at what point does the direct lobbying by a big powerful company to a politician to extinguish a citizen\u2019s rights\u2014at what point\u2014do we name that for what it really is? The bill explicitly says that a citizen is not entitled to hold a polluter to account for \u201Cclimate change-related risks or threats to the continuation of a safe and habitable climate system\u201D, \u201Cendangering or impairing the life, safety, health, property, or comfort of the public\u201D, \u201Charm, impairment, or loss\u201D to the physical or economic existence of that citizen, \u201Cinterference with use or enjoyment of, damage to, or loss of, property\u201D\u2014these are all the consequences of climate change that we know very well. These have been felt by people across the entire country, across the entire world, and they are caused by climate pollution. There is no regulatory or legislative mechanism that actually holds Fonterra to account for their pollution of methane or their pollution of nitrous oxide, and they make up 25 percent of New Zealand\u2019s total emissions. Mike Smith went to court, and now this Government is saying, \u201CYou cannot go to court.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003800\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe principle of common law is that we are all equal before the law. That principle came in as an alternative to the tyranny of kings, the tyranny of the powerful, the tyranny of the wealthy. This Government is reinstating the tyranny of the wealthy. It is reinstating the idea that, if you\u2019re big enough and you\u2019re powerful enough, you can go and tell the Government what to do. Most of us, most citizens, don\u2019t have the key to the Prime Minister\u2019s office, but Fonterra does, and their own shame is that they hid the fact that they lobbied for this bill. The Ombudsman has come out and found them guilty of having done that. They hid the fact that they lobbied to nullify a citizen\u2019s rights. It\u2019s a shameful day in the House of the New Zealand Parliament.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00223d370ee85c00b0eb1754bf1b333f5d9f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003801\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223d370ee85c00b0eb1754bf1b333f5d9f\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (ACT) (16:30)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Speaker, thank you. I have a far more positive take for those watching and listening at home. The policy that covers New Zealand\u2019s emissions, our emissions target, that sets a cost of carbon\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003802\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a3fe274c77d6f9e1c911996d8a06bff7\u0022\u003ESteve Abel\u003C/span\u003E: It doesn\u2019t. What\u2019s the price for methane?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003803\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224856d30adf7dcfaba6f7e5240942a497\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014is set out in the Climate Change Response Act and the emissions trading scheme. It\u2019s covered by existing policy, Mr. Abel.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003804\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220e66408337d0475771616bb532c785f0\u0022\u003ESteve Abel\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s the price for methane, Simon?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003805\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e753c98c4e3cba40be3ba60e0b35c56a\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Abel, you\u2019re grandstanding. Your climate alarmism, your donation-harvesting doomism, and your cult-like fearmongering about climate doesn\u2019t change the fact New Zealand has\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003806\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dad570edc2cc22e886e4916064581508\u0022\u003ESteve Abel\u003C/span\u003E: What donations are you getting from Fonterra?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003807\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022de2a34b3ece22534c624a4ff65821b59\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014well-thought-out policies and ways to address climate change in line with international obligations. And Mr Abel says, \u201CWhat about those lobbying me?\u201D They don\u2019t need to Steve; I\u2019m a civil engineer. I understand science\u2014I understand science. We do not need to be lobbied. And I\u2019ll tell you what, all of this narking and nasty commentary and behaviour about that policy guru Matt Burgess, who came from the New Zealand Initiative\u2014we had the benefit of that gentleman working in the New Zealand Government\u2014and I\u2019ll tell you what, every time somebody writes to an MP or a Minister or a Minister\u2019s office and shares a problem that their sector faces around flawed policy or regulation or legislation; that\u2019s normal and it should be encouraged. And do you know what staff members in Ministers\u2019 offices should do? They should say, \u201CIf there\u2019s really a problem here, let\u2019s fix it.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003808\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s the difference between the harping goblins of the climate doom left and this Government, which says, \u201CYes, we\u2019re going to play a part in climate change, but we\u2019re not sending New Zealanders to penury. We\u2019re not extinguishing the last lamp and going back to live in a cave. We\u2019re going to get on with business, with farming, with producing high-quality milk and dairy products that we sell to the rest of the world, and we\u2019re going to get our energy out of the ground\u2014whether that\u2019s coal; whether that\u2019s gas.\u201D Hopefully there will be some nice juicy wet condensate coming out with that gas. Debbie Ngawera-Packer would know all about that; she\u2019s from Taranaki. It\u2019s the wet gas that makes the money, Debbie Ngawera-Packer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003809\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnd it makes perfect sense that people who are concerned about an activist, somebody who, in their past, cut down the tree on One Tree Hill to make some kind of flawed point, I don\u2019t know, about sovereignty or whatever it was at the time, is now suing some of our largest corporates with the claim that they\u2019ve damaged\u2014what was it? His mana or the mana of his iwi and hap\u016B, or their health. When in fact\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003810\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002229eefb5ec361b56e108c732a3cd071fa\u0022\u003ESteve Abel\u003C/span\u003E: Don\u2019t be a racist git.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003811\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002284b8bbeafe1035c6daa53002dbaeb3bb\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s that Steve Abel? Say it again\u2014when, in fact\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003812\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220eda983189944b0d92143db238a063d3\u0022\u003ESteve Abel\u003C/span\u003E: I don\u2019t need to. You responded so it\u2019s in \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003813\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ce98213bb807a5f289448b8271ed5f2a\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: What is helpful in this bill, is making sure\u2014that\u2019s what this Government is doing\u2014that that pending litigation could lead to a finding that causing or contributing to the emission of greenhouse gases results in tort liability. That would create a parallel and contradictory regime to the one provided in, say, the Climate Change Response Act and others.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe cannot have activists taking New Zealand businesses to court and then trying to force costs on them that are out of all proportion to their liability. We know that\u2019s out of all proportion\u2014what Mr Smith was trying to do\u2014because these businesses already pay for their carbon emissions under the emissions trading scheme. Furthermore, any emissions that are paid for in New Zealand but equivalent emissions are not paid for in another equivalent emitter, just results in carbon leakage. You can squeeze the emissions out of New Zealand, you climate doomers; they\u2019re simply going to pop up somewhere else. That is called carbon leakage, and that is what New Zealand law and policy is designed to avoid. So seeking to punish the few, rather than accepting there are actually some very effective policies that deal with climate change, just ignores reality. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003815\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EACT supports this bill and we commend the Minister for bringing it to the House to clarify this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003816\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002272f57539f79128471e78de291711fbbc\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Just before I take the next call, can I just refer members to Speakers\u2019 rulings 55/4 and 55/5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002211e9e1f818754d97b60bba4b18e5dc03\u0022 data-id=\u00229e3a2b757a2ad9b73885d4e68dbdd287\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003817\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002211e9e1f818754d97b60bba4b18e5dc03\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229e3a2b757a2ad9b73885d4e68dbdd287\u0022\u003EHon MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) (16:36)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in this Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill. A very important bill, creating a statutory bar for climate change litigation. It restores the sovereignty of Parliament in dictating a climate change response. It adds certainty for business that must operate under New Zealand climate change settings.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003818\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt has been targeted by activists who are seeking to set up a parallel system, which, if allowed to stand, would create a Wild West out there in terms of litigation. And it is important this Parliament gets a grip on this situation. Climate change targets are set by Government. We have an emissions trading scheme to reduce emissions or create incentives to reduce emissions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003819\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere is significant investment\u2014Deborah Russell\u2014going into science to reduce our methane emissions. The fast-track legislation sees 400 megawatts of generation of renewable energy flooding into our market and under development. We are taking action, but we\u2019re taking action driven by Government policy, not being driven by activism. This would have had a chilling effect on our business. We are already in danger of de-industrialising in this country because of the high cost of energy. And the irony\u2014the irony\u2014of Smith taking on Fonterra, the most carbon-efficient farmers in the world and the most carbon-efficient dairy in the world, we\u2019re just going to drive that offshore. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003820\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of having the keys to the Prime Minister\u2019s office: Fonterra is a $25-billion-a-year company for New Zealand; if they couldn\u2019t get access to senior politicians, there is something seriously wrong. This is a very important company for everyone in New Zealand. Fonterra needs to be doing well for New Zealand to do well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003821\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo New Zealand First absolutely supports this law. It is totally necessary to sort this out. It will create certainty in law. It is common sense, and New Zealand First commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022 data-id=\u00225a471d694cc98385274b16a3aa66510f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003822\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225a471d694cc98385274b16a3aa66510f\u0022\u003EDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader\u2014Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori) (16:38)\u003C/span\u003E: I also stand to take a call on the Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill first reading. Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori also join the sensible members in this House here that can see this full as atrocious for what it is and the way that it is proposing to remove any type of accountability. The Government is gaslighting members of Aotearoa in saying that this bill is about certainty. It means certainty for some of the biggest polluters of greenhouse gases in Aotearoa, in saying that they can no longer be held liable through the courts for anything\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003823\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d8042900a9acc55de14c4c9bf208a659\u0022\u003ESimon Court\u003C/span\u003E: Madam speaker, point of order. I don\u2019t mean to stop the member in full flight\u2014I\u2019m sure she\u2019ll get to say her part\u2014but accusing the governing parties of gaslighting impugns the reputation of members by suggesting\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003824\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227624a9a38652d9f82684998b9bfe35cd\u0022\u003EHon Members: \u003C/span\u003EHa, ha!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003825\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db7aafbd50b6ba1b4124b06e766c6ce7\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Points of order are heard in silence. Come on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003826\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ad090bd2dec04e99465aa5824212dcba\u0022\u003ESimon Court\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll make the point again: accusing governing parties of gaslighting impugns the reputation of members because it directly accuses members of not believing what they are saying. And that, Madam Speaker, is a breach of Standing Orders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003827\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002262f519294e480f5688a0696c6e39044c\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Which Standing Order is the member referring to?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003828\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b7cff05e64f346e68983b2fdbfba3ad8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d0e595733f7e843fcb7a48ece941c4e7\u0022\u003EDan Bidois\u003C/span\u003E: 55.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003829\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022de94925cd8f77eb9fd2e85a462ed900f\u0022\u003ESimon Court\u003C/span\u003E: 55.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003830\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b7cff05e64f346e68983b2fdbfba3ad8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226aae3dffff33c3c15b4ccdcae53bca39\u0022\u003EDan Bidois\u003C/span\u003E: Speakers\u2019 rulings.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f4b8cd88800c6ab4a01b1759a32e2136\u0022\u003ESimon Court\u003C/span\u003E: Speakers\u2019 rulings 55, Madam Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003832\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224e9752e8ca02f494be7719667ba56528\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order, there is a world of difference between suggesting that there is undue influence, as outlined in Speakers\u2019 ruling 55/5, and pointing out that the Government is gaslighting somebody. This is from the same member that thought in his speech that he was being clever by calling people climate change doomsayers and all this nonsense, and by suggesting that the speech was to do with donations. Now, if he\u2019s going to make those sorts of claims but then cry foul when someone says something as mild as \u201Cgaslighting\u201D, I think that it\u2019s wasting the House\u2019s time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003833\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022acf47d0dd2d2e7bc5e36a4f439631fa7\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: In light of the heated debate and the backwards and forwards across the House, I think that\u2019s a fair cop, on your side.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003834\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d11f6f0c1b1bf87c08b1b2ef29198ae4\u0022\u003EDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. So going back to my comment, what we are seeing is not only are we hearing from the Government that activists are not to be respected but that then tells us where this Government would have been in terms of the activism of anti-apartheid, the activism of anti-nuclear, and, indeed, today, in the activism of anti - climate destruction. What we believe is at the centre of the debate is a credible environmentalist whose w\u2019akapapa has deep respect, and that shouldn\u2019t be dismissed by members of the House just because they don\u2019t respect w\u2019akapapa.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003835\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe have Mike Smith, in his experience as a long- and well-known kaitiaki, who has asked the courts, and the Supreme Court has decided that his claim should proceed to trial. It is a decision that the evidence should be heard, and this bill changes that more specifically so that that evidence could not happen. That should concern every member of the House and, indeed, every member of Aotearoa, because the question is that if the Government can change the law to stop one court case today, what stops them doing it again tomorrow?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003836\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat is what\u2019s hugely concerning. It is not the Government\u2019s job to interfere in court processes; it\u2019s the Government\u2019s job to argue that climate policy is strong enough to be able to withstand scrutiny, that it has good evidence, and that, in fact, the existing climate framework is sufficient, should it let the courts test that proposition. If the Government was so strong and adamant in its policy, then it should have been able to withstand that scrutiny. Instead, the Government has decided to remove the question altogether. That is avoidance, and that\u2019s what\u2019s so concerning.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003837\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAgain, the bill shows a great deal about the Government\u2019s priorities. When M\u0101ori ask for climate justice, we are told no. When communities ask for stronger environmental protections, we are told there are competing priorities. But when major polluters seek certainty, legislation arrives so quickly, and that\u2019s the political choice. The Government has decided in this instance that it is above the law, but it has regularly been telling us for the last three years that no one is above the law, and that\u2019s the principle that\u2019s at stake here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003838\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAgain, we keep saying to our people that when we have harmful policies like this and our people on the ground are being ignored, we are concerned because\u2014worse\u2014this bill is a part of a much wider pattern. We\u2019ve seen Te Tiriti obligations removed from legislation, we\u2019ve seen M\u0101ori health protections dismantled, we\u2019ve seen environmental protections weakened through fast-track legislation, we\u2019ve seen the return of offshore oil and gas exploration, and now we\u2019ve seen another piece of legislation that removes accountability when environmental harm is alleged. That, again, is the same direction that this bill is continuing to do for this Government, and we continue to see the people\u2019s rights for climate justice compromised because, again, the Government puts the needs of the lobbyists and the bigger polluters ahead of anyone else in Aotearoa. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003839\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is an agenda that we\u2019ve had to live with for the last three years, which is that corporate exploitation and corporate polluters are way more important than those communities that are forced to live with them, and it is the experience that we are living with. The bill is asking Parliament to protect those contributing to that environmental harm. Those members are asking Parliament to protect the largest polluters in Aotearoa, which are contributing to that environmental harm, and they are saying that they are beyond any legal scrutiny.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003840\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe have never seen this happen in the history of Aotearoa before, and that is why we are so extremely concerned not only by what has happened, how it has happened, the lack of accountability for how it happened, and the ridiculous way that there was this round and round about within the media\u2014because there was no integrity in the way that this has landed in front of the House. Therefore, we must stand with our communities that are seeking not only climate justice but climate accountability from the Crown. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003841\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe stand with kaitiakitanga, we stand with accountability, and we also stand with Labour, who will repeal this. \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EKia ora r\u0101.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022 data-id=\u0022495da136524d2b5ae7325f85d385ce20\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003842\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022495da136524d2b5ae7325f85d385ce20\u0022\u003ETOM RUTHERFORD (National\u2014Bay of Plenty) (16:45)\u003C/span\u003E: Let\u2019s remove a little bit of the dramatisation out of the debate. Parliament\u2019s job is to set the law, and the Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill does exactly that. It\u2019s designed to ensure that New Zealand\u2019s regulatory response to climate change is managed through the Climate Change Response Act, not through the courts, and that is why we are doing this\u2014so that there is no parallel regime that can be developed through common law. We set the law in this place, and this is exactly what this bill is doing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022154727523a59431ab210aea1cf707272\u0022 data-id=\u002221dfa0cf3ee30067bd5e5dfeee3972cb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003843\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022154727523a59431ab210aea1cf707272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002221dfa0cf3ee30067bd5e5dfeee3972cb\u0022\u003EHon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (16:46)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think it\u2019s really telling that members opposite stand up and are at pains to say that there\u2019s nothing to see here and that it\u2019s all dramatics from the other side of the House. \u201CThis is normal.\u201D, said Simon Court. Well, I find that incredibly interesting, and I will lay out exactly why.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003844\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESomething on the first page of the regulatory impact statement (RIS)\u2014and a shout-out to the Government for actually having a RIS, because it\u2019s become increasingly rare that they actually bother to produce a regulatory impact statement that we can turn to for further information, particularly when they rush through a number of bills under urgency. But, anyway, on the first page of the RIS, what are the policy objectives of this piece of legislation? It says\u2014and I quote\u2014\u201CSecond\u201D\u2014so the first is about the whole thing around certainty, and so on and so forth, to protect businesses. The second one is: \u201Cseek to protect the stability of New Zealand\u2019s constitutional institutions and core legal principles, including public and individual rights\u201D, which supports public trust, and that is the bit that I would like to spend a little bit of time teasing out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003845\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat a joke! I\u2019m sorry\u2014what? Public trust? I am absolutely with Chris Hipkins, who called that entire debacle around the private emails something that \u201Cstinks to high heaven\u201D\u2014because it absolutely does. But nothing to see here: all dramatics. It\u2019s normal, according to Simon Court. Well, listen up, Simon Court: the Chief Ombudsman does not agree with you. He found this particularly concerning, and, frankly, so should members on that side of the House if they care two hoots about good legislation or public trust, which they claim to care about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003846\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat does this legislation actually do? As colleagues on this side of the House have pointed out, and, actually, the Government\u2019s own departmental disclosure statement says that it overrides the Supreme Court\u2019s decision not to strike out Mr Smith\u2019s High Court action and removes his expectation of continuing this proceeding\u2014again, nothing to see here, but it prevents access to justice. I would have assumed that that would be something that members opposite would care a little bit about, and there\u2019s actually so much more in the RIS that is interesting. But is this a mistake? Is this a deliberate ploy? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003847\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAgain, members opposite have said that it should be the expectation that businesses and others who want to get the law changed are able to reach out or to get in the ear of Ministers. No one is saying that they shouldn\u2019t, but why hide it? Shouldn\u2019t it be above board? Why hide it in personal emails? This seems to be a bit of a pattern. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003848\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis isn\u2019t the first time that Ministers or their offices have been obfuscating things by using their personal emails. So what is the use of a Prime Minister who then huffs and puffs after the fact and says, \u201COh well, we need to do a little bit better here.\u201D, but actions speak louder than words. So on the first page of the RIS, when it talks about public trust\u2014where, and how, I ask this Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003849\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of the rest of what it does, the rest of the bill talks about the fact that consultation has been so limited, once again. This bit, the policy process, has not involved any engagement with M\u0101ori.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003850\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Crown has obligations, under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, of good governance, of at least engaging, let alone partnering, in good faith with M\u0101ori, under article 1, to respect the rights and interests of M\u0101ori to make decisions over resources and taonga. That\u2019s what the regulatory impact statement says under article 2. They have said quite clearly that Mr\u00A0Smith\u2019s claim relies in part on tikanga M\u0101ori, and climate change is an area where M\u0101ori have consistently expressed significant concern, given its impact on land, on waterways. I mean, we don\u2019t have time to go into this Government\u2019s track record on destroying the environment and not protecting biodiversity, which, of course, exacerbates climate change. We also have this marvellous piece of work that my colleague the Hon Dr Deborah Russell has done to show this Government\u2019s track record on taking us backwards when it comes to climate action.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003851\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAll of that is egregious, but they also haven\u2019t bothered to talk to anyone about what they\u2019re doing here. What they\u2019re doing is pulling the rug out when it comes to accessing justice. They\u2019re not even living up to their own expectations about trust and engagement. It\u2019s an absolute travesty.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022739b3bbed7fe4186aa30494700144b3a\u0022 data-id=\u0022e7b980eddbde27b8c426ba38e89dae2b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003852\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022739b3bbed7fe4186aa30494700144b3a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e7b980eddbde27b8c426ba38e89dae2b\u0022\u003EPAULO GARCIA (National\u2014New Lynn) (16:51)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Speaker, thank you. I rise to speak about the Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill. The Climate Change Response Act 2002 already establishes the legal framework for New Zealand\u2019s response to climate change.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003853\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen Mr Smith brought the action to the High Court, the High Court found that the courts were not the place to consider a tort case based on a defendants\u2019 performance and the resulting climate change. The same happened with the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Appeal found that the courts are not the proper venue for a law to be made. The Supreme Court itself, even though it has allowed the case, has found that the fact of the matter is that having no legislation that prevents the lodgment of a common law claim in tort is the reason why it has upheld the case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003854\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe fact is that the legislation part is our part, and we are doing that now. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u0022494a939ff269299ef41fcb7d0939a71d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003855\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022494a939ff269299ef41fcb7d0939a71d\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (16:52)\u003C/span\u003E: This bill is absolutely reprehensible for two reasons. Firstly, this Government does not have a leg to stand on when they talk about climate change. When they talk about the fact that the reason they\u2019re doing this is to support business, well, let me tell you, I can smell the carbon on their breath from here. They are doing this because they do not care about bringing down New Zealand\u2019s climate emissions. I don\u2019t need to go through it again; my colleague Deborah Russell, my colleague Priyanca Radhakrishnan, and my colleague Steve Abel have gone through the many, many attacks on the steps that various Governments have tried to bring in to reduce climate emissions in this country\u2014that this Government has repealed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFirst of all, this is a bad idea from a constitutional perspective. We have heard comments based on such ignorance of the knowledge of the separation of powers, today in this House. It is shameful. Parliament makes our laws, and the courts interpret them. What is happening here today is that Parliament is stopping the courts from doing their job. I wish I could say this was totally unprecedented, but this is almost unprecedented within our constitution. Usually, when it is put in place, it would be because there was something urgent to do, some definite reason to cut across people\u2019s democratic right to challenge the laws of this country in court. Let me explain as well, the common law is part of our law. It\u2019s not made-up law. It is part of our law, and our entire legal system is based on the fact that judges can make common law, and that common law is enforceable in the courts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003857\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf the Government wanted to do this the proper way, if they did have legitimate concerns about what the courts were finding, they wouldn\u2019t bring a bill like this to the House that lists, distastefully, the names of an existing claimant and their proceedings in court. It doesn\u2019t list just that person\u2019s name; it says \u201Cany other proceedings\u201D which might relate to a tort law in relation to climate change. Those on the other side of the House will say we already have an emissions trading scheme. Well, that is not what is being argued in the courts. What is being argued in the courts is a very simple premise: it is simply the right to be possibly able, if the Supreme Court agrees, to bring a claim in tort under three very normal actions: nuisance, negligence, and a novel climate change tort.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003858\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat is all Mr Smith is asking for, and it is very rich to hear from the other side, to hear from the Minister of Justice today, dancing on the head of a pin and saying, \u201CWell, because proceedings haven\u2019t started in the Supreme Court\u201D\u2014even though they\u2019re allowed to start and it\u2019s procedural\u2014\u201Cwe\u2019re not actually stopping a court case from proceeding.\u201D That is blatantly ridiculous. The entire point of this bill is to stop a case from proceeding. They don\u2019t know what the outcome of that case would be. They are not allowing a New Zealand citizen to take the law as it stands today and ask the courts to interpret it. That is a breach of the separation of powers, and this Government should be absolutely ashamed of what they have decided to do. The other thing about this bill is that the Minister has said that other tort claims will not be affected. Well, I mean, why would anyone bother to take a claim on a common law tort and negligence around climate or anything else? They would just think, \u201CWell, what a waste of time and money. The Government is possibly going to bring a new bill to the House and stop me from actually having my case heard.\u201D That is a terrible indictment on this democracy\u2014that we are doing this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003859\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELet me be clear: there is no established right that businesses have yet to fear in relation to their liability for tort in climate change. It has yet to be established. This Government is jumping the gun by bringing in this retrospective law that stops a New Zealand citizen from having their day in court. For a Government that says it sticks up for law and order, it is absolutely hypocritical, to say the least, that they are going to stop a New Zealander from having that heard. It\u2019s a breach of the separation of powers, and it\u2019s unacceptable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b27d8609c612411686d517d0f9b09b28\u0022 data-id=\u0022904b7c9aebe2565e1f5c6488ec12199d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003860\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d8609c612411686d517d0f9b09b28\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022904b7c9aebe2565e1f5c6488ec12199d\u0022\u003EDAVID MacLEOD (National\u2014New Plymouth) (16:58)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Any Government of the day has the right to be able to create law, to repeal law, or to change law. This bill here is all about the Government of the day correcting what they believe is a bad outcome for our country. This is our Minister of Justice grabbing the bull by the horns and getting it under control. I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003861\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill be now read a first time\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003862\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003863\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003864\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003865\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003866\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003867\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a first time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003868\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d244be409718e2f07cfb2d1dc4d8e0f1\u0022\u003EReferral to Select Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022 data-id=\u002213ef56b28812d92805eab3316e928b97\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003869\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002213ef56b28812d92805eab3316e928b97\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh) (16:59)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003870\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003871\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill referred to the Justice Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003872\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00227170d355f0a808cd630ac07d0c675058\u0022\u003EInstruction to Select Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022 data-id=\u0022856a4a51602d32f92dc9c97c5c6523e7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003873\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022856a4a51602d32f92dc9c97c5c6523e7\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (16:59)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 30 July 2026 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003874\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe Government is keen to resolve the uncertainty on this matter in a timely fashion, but it does think it would benefit from a select committee process. Hence, we\u2019ve allowed for a shortened select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003875\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223559c2f7a925c6397fa9a35a93bf3fec\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022 data-id=\u0022c8acf1d6f413930256aab3958385145c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003876\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c8acf1d6f413930256aab3958385145c\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (17:00)\u003C/span\u003E: We oppose the motion to have a shortened select committee period for this bill. Let me just walk through some of the issues with that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003877\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Minister has said he wants it finished in a timely fashion. Well, that\u2019s implied by the fact that it\u2019s a shortened report back. That\u2019s a very, very open reason, and, in fact, it\u2019s no reason at all. It\u2019s a circular reason. There has been no good reason given as to why we ought to have a shortened report back on this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003878\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere are a number of issues that will need to be canvassed by the select committee. I want to speak to the content of some of the issues that need to be canvassed by the select committee and which will require a pretty robust select committee process. Now, in his opening speech on this bill, the Minister said that amongst the reasons for putting in place law to, in essence, stop a court case was to resolve business uncertainty. Here\u2019s the problem with that argument. In the Minister\u2019s own advice given to him by officials and in the regulatory impact statement (RIS) prepared by officials it\u2019s not clear that the business uncertainty exists in the first place. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003879\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ll start with what is said in the regulatory impact statement. The problem definition for the Minister starts on an assumption that the ongoing \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ESmith v Fonterra\u003C/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ECo-operative Group Ltd\u003C/span\u003E court case has a negative impact on business confidence. Then the RIS goes on to say that there has been some consultation with legal experts, and I\u2019m sure that my scholarly colleagues will investigate that a little. There has been no business perspective. The RIS goes on to say that the justice RIS panel considers that a lack of any business perspective means that the underlying question of the impact on business confidence has not been adequately tested. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003880\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EDespite the Minister saying that a significant reason for taking this course of action is business uncertainty, in fact, there has been no consultation with business. They have no good evidence that business thinks that there is going to be significant uncertainty caused by the court case. In fact, elsewhere in the RIS, they point out that having the legislation creates uncertainty in itself because statutory bars often get worn down over time so it just creates uncertainty as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003881\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut let\u2019s go back to that very short select committee process. The Minister has not consulted business. That means that, ideally, the select committee will need to consult business. As a select committee, the select committee will need to talk to businesses and find out how much uncertainty is really being caused. Let\u2019s remember, the Minister\u2019s own officials think there\u2019s no clear evidence on it. We will need to talk to businesses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003882\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, that is going to be tricky. It\u2019s a four-week select committee process. The House has agreed that the committee can meet out of the usual select committee hours. It can meet while the House is sitting. It can meet on Fridays when the House has not sat. It can meet outside of Wellington\u2014all those sorts of usual things that happen when we have an extraordinary select committee process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003883\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut given that it\u2019s a four-week process, the very new chair of the Justice Committee\u2014and congratulations to him on having that role\u2014is going to have to open for submissions. There is no select committee meeting scheduled yet for the Justice Committee I think until two weeks\u2019 time. Somehow, the chair of the Justice Committee is going to have to open for submissions and get approval for that. He\u2019s going to have to think about how long to open for submissions and we\u2019re going to need the notice for that to go out today if at all possible. Here\u2019s the reason for that. In order to give businesses adequate time to respond, it\u2019s going to have to be the case that that call goes out now. Perhaps submissions are going to have to be in in a week\u2019s time. Then after that, we\u2019re going to have to find time to hear from submitters.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003884\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s a whole lot of process to happen that will take considerable effort to put in place. The Justice Committee is going to have to consider whether it is appropriate to ask the businesses who are named in the particular case that is before the courts\u2014whether it is appropriate to call those businesses in. The committee is going to have to find some way to test whether or not business uncertainty is really an issue in this case. Let\u2019s remember, the Minister has stated it\u2019s an issue; his officials have said it\u2019s not necessarily an issue. It\u2019s going to be up to the committee to sort it out. That is one of the first hurdles that the select committee is going to have to work through, and it\u2019s going to take time: get the submissions out, get them back in, schedule hearings with the submitters. I challenge the chair of the select committee to do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003885\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut the point is that if we had even the truncated select committee process that this particular Government is fond of\u2014a four-month select committee process\u2014even that truncated process would be a lot better than this four-week process. That would at least give some time for select committee members to consult with businesses. In the scale of things which are good, better, best, bad, worse, or worst, it\u2019s not great to have a truncated select committee process. We\u2019ve seen over and over again in this House that select committees who are working with those truncated processes have had to come back and ask for extra time. But at least a four-month process would be better than this very, very short four-week process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003886\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOn those grounds, I think that this shortened process is inappropriate. Given the Minister has said that it is really important to look at business uncertainty, that suggests that the select committee must ask businesses to come and talk to them. That call needs to go out tonight. That means it\u2019s a very short time. Perhaps the chair will say we have to have submissions back in perhaps by maybe next Thursday. That would be a week, but that\u2019s a very, very short time for businesses to consider the issues in this case, to consider how they would respond to them and to get their submissions in. So there is a whole lot of business uncertainty here. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003887\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, this doesn\u2019t address what I\u2019ve spoken to. It doesn\u2019t address any of the legal uncertainty or anything like that. My learned colleagues\u2014I\u2019m trusting Professor Dr Duncan Webb might have something to say about that. I\u2019m focusing on the business uncertainty. So with that thought, then, I really have no more to say on the business uncertainty, but that is a major issue that we need to consider before we could endorse this incredibly short select committee process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022ad8e7ffdc2a9124a4179132e98697ecd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003888\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ad8e7ffdc2a9124a4179132e98697ecd\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:09)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, this just seems like business as usual for the Justice Committee, to be perfectly honest. But I do want to hear what the Hon Dr Duncan Webb has to say, as the area of law is something that I\u2019m very interested in, as a member of the Justice Committee but also in terms of the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s expertise around this area.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I\u2019m not going to touch on businesses because I think the Hon Dr Deborah Russell has covered that part reasonably well and I know that others may have additional things to say. What I want to say in terms of this referral motion\u2014let\u2019s start with the procedural aspect, and I think then we can get into the kind of submissions that we will need to prepare ourselves for as the Justice Committee. What we\u2019re looking at is a four-week reporting back\u2014not a submission or a hearing period; a four-week reporting back period\u2014which, even by Justice Committee standards, is incredibly short for a bill of this level of significance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003890\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat we will be seeing in terms of the sitting week calendar is a two-week non-sitting week followed by a two-week sitting week. At first, I had questions around whether what the Minister has moved\u2014in terms of the wavering of Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196\u2014was perplexing, because a large portion of that is going to be in non-sitting weeks, but I guess with the two sitting weeks coming up afterwards, it would make sense.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003891\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think, for one thing, when you\u2019re looking at a bill of this level of significance, the first thing we need to consider is the volume of submissions that we\u2019ll potentially receive and the duration of hearings that we will need to have. Four weeks\u2014when we take into consideration the drafted report, officials\u2019 advice, and all of those, that normally knocks out about a minimum of two weeks in a normal select committee process. Then we are limited to submissions opening as well as the hearings within two weeks. Within a four-week process, we\u2019re probably going to be looking at a four-day submission time frame, and we are going to be working on how we can maybe extend on that, because it\u2019s a significant bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003892\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen we have the hearings. Now, we have had no, at this stage, indication from the select committee\u2014and we have had a Justice Committee meeting just today\u2014on even how many hours we\u2019re going to have in terms of hearings.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat brings me to the type of submissions that we will have. Fundamentally, when it comes to this, obviously, we disagree with the Minister in terms of uncertainty and all of those, because the fact is that in the New Zealand legal system, we have tort law, which sits under civil law for a reason, and that is extended from England all the way back to the 11\u003Csup\u003Eth\u003C/sup\u003E century. It has enormous historical significance. When it comes to civil law between individuals and individuals, or potentially individuals and companies\u2014tort law is one of them; contract law being another\u2014it does speak to the type of submissions we will expect to receive on such a short submission.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003894\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Hon Dr Deborah Russell has already inferred that we will be hearing from businesses on one end of it, but what about from an individual end? This is something, for me, that is incredibly puzzling. For a side that talks about people\u2019s property rights, they seem to forgo people\u2019s right to their property in the context of nuisance under tort law. That is a huge deviation from the very core and essence that that side of the House is supposed to promote, because the whole point of tort law\u2014and this case came about because of, in some ways, an individual or group of people\u2019s personal enjoyment of their property and of their environment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003895\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022766d93ab40cdca3d0efd61d29d5ebbac\u0022\u003EHon James Meager\u003C/span\u003E: The problem is it\u2019s not a nuisance tort\u2014that\u2019s the problem.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003896\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002260625243f942c105762f8f7fd0535b11\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Well, tort\u2014I mean, that particular member will also know, but both nuisance and negligence can be expanded under the scope of tort, it\u2019s my understanding. But if the member does feel like I have misspoken, that member can also get up and contribute to this referral motion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003897\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, when it comes to that, then what we are going to be seeing as a part of the submission process is the individuals that will be coming out, because this bill fundamentally undermines the tort law system that we have here in Aotearoa New Zealand. You will get not only legal experts, but individuals will come out in droves to submit on this bill, whether for it or against it\u2014but individuals.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003898\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen you add on the angle of \u201Clex Aotearoa\u201D when you\u2019re looking at the context of the legal system here in Aotearoa New Zealand, where we\u2019re looking at the interaction between our legal system and Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Then what we\u2019ll see is, considering the context of this, hap\u016B, iwi, M\u0101ori experts coming out in submission to this very truncated select committee process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003899\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn saying that, I think, then, it is a concern when we are looking at the first tranche, the first leg, of that referral motion in terms of a four-week submission period.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003900\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I do want to move on to the second tranche, which is something we often see as part of a referral motion debate, which is that the committee has the authority to meet at any time when the House is sitting except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders, 193, 195, and 196.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003901\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EUnder urgency, we have already seen this week as well as last week that there have been a number of bills that are progressing alongside when the House is sitting. The disability services bill being one of them; another social security bill will be another one. All of these happen to happen in the Social Services and Community Committee, and that has been a very hard-working committee, going well into the evening for this on those bills.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003902\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, no offence to the two larger parties, but this puts an enormous strain on smaller parties and the membership of those smaller parties, because not only do we fulfil our requirement in this House in terms of covering for leave, in terms of bills that are progressing; we also need to make sure that we have enough people on those select committees to be able to progress through those bills. If that\u2019s the case, what we are going to be seeing is not only additional strains being placed on four out of the six smaller parties in this House\u2014others could argue that some may contribute more than others during the select committee process, but nevertheless, the membership will need to be there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003903\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229790389e43551c41ed5ebc75d11ba47a\u0022\u003EHon James Meager\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll sub for you, Lawrence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003904\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228c4d889d7469be8366c76e6019e8331d\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: I actually genuinely very much appreciate that offer. Thank you very much.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003905\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut at the same time, what we\u2019re seeing\u2014this week being a very good example\u2014is when you have the House going under urgency from 9 a.m. to midnight, select committee progressing at the same time, select committee then meeting on the Friday, and then the House also sitting on the Friday, that then adds extra burden. Again, not only does it add extra burden for the smaller parties; it will also add extra burden for electorate MPs. I think that is something that also should be considered as part of this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003906\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENot to mention that when we\u2019re looking at how select committees are able to sit outside of the Wellington area, I think the final question that I want to raise regarding this particular problematic referral motion is if we are going to be doing that, is the Justice Committee prepared to actually go to those areas that potentially are affected and are a part of the current cases progressing through Parliament, the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ESmith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd\u003C/span\u003E case? Are we actually then going to visit those areas? I think that is another question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u00227fb72123cdd0a802d45b3856ab6add08\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003907\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227fb72123cdd0a802d45b3856ab6add08\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (17:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Now, it\u2019s disappointing that the Minister, in putting this motion, gave no substantial reason. His reason, in fact, was, \u201CWe\u2019re keen to resolve this in a timely manner.\u201D, which is no reason whatsoever. As we\u2019ve heard, there is concern around the wording used. That is why I do move\u2014I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the motion be amended by removing all words after \u201C30 July 2026\u201D be deleted\u003C/span\u003E, which is, in fact, not very grammatical, but I think it works. I can see some frowns from some of the people with the Clerk\u2019s Office, but that\u2019s all right, because we were given no notice that this would occur, so it\u2019s not surprising that things aren\u2019t perfect. That\u2019s exactly what happens in this kind of situation: people rush things, and when people rush things, they don\u2019t get them right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003908\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, the Minister should come back down here and give us an actual reason why there are only going to be four weeks to consider this, rather than just saying, \u201CI\u2019d like to get it done.\u201D, which is no reason at all. He needs to come down here and say, \u201CWe want to get this done because Fonterra\u2019s asked us to do it quickly, and we do whatever they say.\u201D, or something like that\u2014whatever the actual reason is that he thinks he\u2019s got to get it done within four weeks.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003909\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s particularly concerning because this is a bill which affects litigation which is currently under way. If you look at the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee guidelines, or if you ask the Ministry for Regulation\u2014God forbid\u2014they will tell you that one of the most invidious kinds of retrospective legislation is when you take away a right which is already crystallised. Now, Mr Smith has a right to go to court\u2014a right he\u2019s exercised; a right that has had considerable expense, trouble, and work undertaken to progress\u2014and that is being taken away. Now this Government has chosen\u2014and we\u2019ve heard some arguments in the debate as to why they\u2019ve chosen to do that, but they have chosen to deprive Mr Smith of that right by a personally directed piece of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, there\u2019s good argument there that this should be a private bill, in fact, because that\u2019s what that\u2019s doing here; it\u2019s affecting private rights. But the fact that it\u2019s doing this is actually of great significance, and just like the legislation itself is rushed, they\u2019re now rushing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003911\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELet me say this: one of the things that has plagued this is a lack of transparency: the disappearing document, the Gmail account used, the meeting that didn\u2019t appear in anyone\u2019s diary, and now they\u2019re slipping it through again as quickly as they can. That is the opposite of transparency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003912\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other thing is this: this Government has chosen to use urgency time and again, and here we are using it again. One of the things that that does is it makes it difficult for an MP to discharge those other duties which are part of the role of every good MP: constituency work, engagement with stakeholders, so on and so forth. Now, we get it: we\u2019re all going to be here tomorrow and Saturday and so on\u2014not Sunday; that generally isn\u2019t the rule, but we\u2019re happy to be here and do our job because that\u2019s what we\u2019re required to do. But if, now, members of the Justice Committee have to not only be here under urgency but they also are unable to do their constituency work because of the out-of-cycle meetings of the select committee\u2014incidentally, the busiest select committee in this House by a considerable margin already. Not only that: when we come back to Parliament and this House, the House of Representatives, is deliberating and debating important matters, we\u2019ll be sitting in a select committee room listening to submissions. We will be unable to discharge one of the primary duties of an MP, which is to come here and debate, robustly, the legislation before this House in this most public of forums.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003913\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat is why I have moved a motion, because there is an ability to meet whilst the House is sitting. Indeed, in some ways, I hope our young chair does exercise the power to call meetings at 6 o\u2019clock on a Thursday night, because that\u2019s the power that he has: to sit on an evening of a day that the House has been sitting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003914\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPerhaps my children don\u2019t need the care and attention that they previously did, but this House has come a long way in recognising that members have duties outside of this place. and I think it\u2019s important to recognise that some members, on both sides of the House, are caregivers. This kind of proposal, this kind of motion, ignores that, because those people who are caregivers won\u2019t be looking after their kids or their other loved ones who need their attention; they\u2019ll be sitting in select committees listening to submissions, and that\u2019s really not appropriate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat is the further reason why the Justice Committee is not the appropriate committee, because that committee, which has been meeting pretty much non-stop\u2014and, in fact, will be meeting, I think, next Monday\u2014simply doesn\u2019t have the capacity to consider yet another important piece of legislation, and this is an important piece of legislation which is changing the balance of power, essentially, around our climate legislation. It\u2019s saying that the courts have no role in considering whether the actions of someone in negligence or nuisance ought to be given a remedy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003916\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELet\u2019s just remember that the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ESmith\u003C/span\u003E case, which is named in the legislation, is actually just asking whether they\u2019re able to bring that case\u2014it\u2019s a case about a case. So the question isn\u2019t \u201CIs he entitled to damages?\u201D; the question is, \u201CIs this a possible course of action?\u201D And do you know what? Isn\u2019t it a funny thing that this Government is scared to know? They\u2019re terrified to let the courts do their job. The real reason it\u2019s four weeks is not because Minister Goldsmith is keen to resolve this in a timely manner; it\u2019s because he\u2019s terrified to hear the full force of the truth, which is what we would get through a robust select committee process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003917\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI hope Mr Smith comes to select committee, and I hope our lawyers for climate change come to select committee and give fulsome submissions. I hope that our select committee will open the door and won\u2019t be giving them simply five minutes here or 10 minutes there. One of the reasons we need a full process is because we want to hear the full story, and if we\u2019re going to shut down Mr Smith in the Supreme Court, we should be opening up the door to him in select committee. If we\u2019re only given a few weeks to do it, with pressured MPs with other duties and other commitments, there\u2019s a real challenge that we\u2019d be like, \u201COh, Mr Smith, you get your five minutes.\u201D Well, that is not fair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003918\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve heard the other side of the House sometimes call this place the highest court in the land. Well, if we\u2019re going to give Mr Smith a full hearing in the so-called highest court of the land, then let\u2019s not cut him off. Let\u2019s give him as much time as he needs, and let\u2019s not listen to Paul Goldsmith, who would truncate this process and not want to listen to these most important statements from people who he is depriving, through his abuse of power, of their fair day in court.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003919\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s important to note that the Minister\u2019s forever just throwing a few extra things in\u2014can meet after 6 p.m. on a sitting day. Now, look, we\u2019re all going to be here till midnight tonight and probably, I hope, midnight tomorrow night, and I\u2019ve got to say that the quality of the debate at midnight after a couple of days of urgency is not the highest. If we\u2019re going to be sitting at 6 p.m. or 7 p.m. or 8 p.m. or 9 p.m. or 10 p.m. on a Thursday night, I\u2019m not sure the quality of our deliberations and consideration will be of the highest quality either.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003920\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere is a reason that select committees default to six months: because it enables reflection. In some of the work we have done in various committees that I\u2019ve been on, but especially the Justice Committee, we have improved bills immeasurably because we\u2019ve had enough time to wrestle with them, to talk to each other in private sessions of select committee, and to reach a consensus. No such opportunity\u2019s been given here, and it\u2019s time for the Minister to come back down and give us a real reason as to why this is a truncated select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003921\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002245a1e5a422ae9a74d94d37f1177d45ae\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the question before the House for debate is that the amendment be agreed to. The amendment is now debatable together with the motion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022 data-id=\u002207649f4a483c71b7b0ce3864f9d7c02e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003922\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002207649f4a483c71b7b0ce3864f9d7c02e\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green) (17:29)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move that, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThe motion be amended to replace the words \u201C30 July 2026\u201D with \u201C4 April 2027\u201D\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003923\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI move that for the following reasons. The reason why I want to move that revolves around four substantial considerations, the first being the case that the Ombudsman\u2019s office heard around the record-keeping of the Prime Minister\u2019s office; the second being the potential court hearing around \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ESmith v Fonterra\u003C/span\u003E; the third being the select committee process, which my colleagues across this side of the House have already articulated really well, so I won\u2019t belabour that point too much; and the fourth, something that no speaker has spoken about yet, being the constitutional conventions that surround important decision-making and appointments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003924\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, before I move on to that, I wanted to reply to some of the debating points that were raised in the first reading speeches, and I\u2019m seeking this opportunity to reply to them because there was no opportunity to do that during the debate, because, of course, those contributions were after the contribution made by our member, Steve Abel. There were two contributions that I wanted to offer rebuttal to. The first was that we had some sort of objection to Fonterra being heard by the\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fa115bd2370c22623ee29025209f83d2\u0022\u003ESimon Court\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker, point of order. I understand that this debate is confined to the referral motion and any amendments, and that does not include debating points raised during the first reading. Could you, please, clarify that for the House, particularly for this member?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003926\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224e7ee11560d2c5847e9bfc5229f2c60c\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, I do take the member Simon Court\u2019s point; however, when you\u2019re looking at the referral motion, particularly for such a truncated select committee process, I think it is important for the House, and also for the New Zealand public, to understand the broader context and the implication of that referral motion, which is what my colleague Francisco Hernandez is trying to express before getting cut off by that particular member.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003927\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221f721f93ff7d53770702b59a619b0a04\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll make a ruling. If I can ask members to focus on the motion and the amendments, and to refer to other things only as long as they actually relate to the motion and the amendment. If members could focus on that, that means we will proceed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003928\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ee2435e6c75ab7af524fc479990737be\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will move on to the four points that I wanted to raise in that case then, but it does relate to the rebuttal of some of the debating points.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003929\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe reason why this legislation is coming to the House in the first place\u2014I think it\u2019s well documented, and it was referred to, actually, by speakers during the first reading\u2014is the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ESmith v Fonterra\u003C/span\u003E case. I think it is relevant to mention. When we\u2019re talking about why I moved my motion for moving it from 30 July 2026 to 4 April 2027, it\u2019s because the potential for that case is something that\u2019s still live and active. Therefore, it is relevant, and it is in context to mention that. We don\u2019t have an objection per se to Fonterra being able to be heard by members of the Prime Minister\u2019s office. We don\u2019t have any objection to any person being able to actually meet with Ministers or meet with Minister\u2019s offices and lobby their point that way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003930\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the things that we have objected to is the secrecy that has surrounded that case. That\u2019s linked to the second point\u2014well, it was actually the first point that I raised, but I\u2019ll make it the second point now because I reshuffled the order and put \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ESmith v Fonterra \u003C/span\u003Efirst. The Ombudsman\u2019s office found that the Prime Minister\u2019s office actually did not act as appropriately as it should have. I think this is relevant to mention because such a truncated period, having it be reported back by 30 July, might prevent further instances of that, or further instances of other Ministers being found to be doing that sort of thing, from being used as consideration in this case. Now, that would be unfortunate because we do know that conventions exist for a reason, and it\u2019s really appropriate that all staff and all Ministers are acting appropriately.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003931\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of the select committee process, that\u2019s been well traversed\u2014I won\u2019t belabour that point any more than I have to\u2014but I do want to introduce another potentially relevant point to mention during this period. The period where the submissions might open and the period where the submissions might be taking place\u2014depending on when the chairperson, of course, opens it\u2014is during the school holiday period, and that is a period where us members rightfully do take a recess, and that recess has been scheduled deliberately to take into account that school holiday period. The potential for us to have hearings in that period puts constraints on the ability of people who might otherwise be able to make submissions. There will be people who might be away; there might be people who won\u2019t be at their usual place. There might be people who will be taking summer jobs during that period. Particularly with such a shortened period of time, the double load of asking people to make submissions during a period where we ourselves are on recess is something that might tax people. The second is that the people who might be making submissions might be doing seasonal jobs, for example, or taking a well-earned semester break. I just think that we should give a little bit more time for people, and that\u2019s why I\u2019ve pushed it out to 4 April 2027.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003932\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPotentially the most important reason why I\u2019ve asked for this House to consider my amendment is that it\u2019s really important that we actually recognise that the election is just four months away at this point. That\u2019s a significant thing to consider, because from 7\u00A0August 2026 onwards, we enter what\u2019s called the pre-election period. Now, that means, for us, there\u2019s constraints on what we can advertise and the activities we can undertake using Parliamentary Service money. That real constraint is a recognition of the fact that there might be a change of\u2014and it\u2019s not something that applies just to this Government. When I say there\u2019s a potential for a change of Government, I\u2019m not referring to any specific circumstances or any specific thing to do with this current Parliament. The pre-election period is a recognition of the fact that, as the election period draws near, there is a potential for a change of Government, and that\u2019s why the constitutional convention exists.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003933\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think it is important to reflect on what a convention means, because a convention means that it\u2019s not actually drafted in legislation. It\u2019s not in any way. It\u2019s just part of the thing that successive Governments have chosen to respect. That constitutional convention is restrained. That means that Governments sometimes, not in every case but sometimes, refrain from making significant appointments in that period of constitutional restraint. Some Governments have even gone so far as to refrain from undertaking significant policy decisions or making big Government decisions that might serve to bind future Governments in that period. Another big restraint during that period is that there is restraint around Government advertising campaigns.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003934\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, why is that important in the context of this case? Because we know that this bill has potentially huge constitutional ramifications. We are literally using the power of the State to extinguish an individual\u2019s right to have their voice heard in court; and not only that individual, it also constrains future actions. It is an action that is quite arbitrary, and rather than something that will aid and assist in business confidence, it will actually potentially dull it, because we know that business confidence relies on a number of factors\u2014the rule of law. The rule of law is upheld by an independent court and an independent judiciary. If any business or any individual can find that they can be stripped of their right to have their rights heard in court at any instant by any Government, I do not see how that will aid in the rule of law, or business confidence, or something that will underpin the prosperity of our country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn wrapping up, I want to appeal to the members of this House to vote for my motion to move it to 4 April 2027. The reasons I\u2019ve already articulated are the need to see what else is turning up in terms of the ministerial record-keeping and the Ombudsman\u2019s office, to see what the potential progress of the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ESmith v Fonterra\u003C/span\u003E case might be, to allow people to have their full voice in the select committee process, and to respect the constitutional conventions of this House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022 data-id=\u0022e0e09c1472e1bbbb2b03627223cfb7fe\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003936\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e0e09c1472e1bbbb2b03627223cfb7fe\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono) (17:40)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, thank you for the engagement in terms of focusing on the motion and the amendment. Just to note that the amendment moved by Francisco Hernandez to replace \u201C30 July 2026\u201D with \u201C4 April 2027\u201D\u2014this amendment is out of order as it would move the select committee report-back date to beyond the dissolution date for this Parliament. It would have the same effect as voting against the motion. The motion that we are continuing to debate is the referral motion from the Minister and the amendment moved by the Hon Dr Duncan Webb.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u0022117e97509c0edc67223e3457b63a1cd6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003937\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022117e97509c0edc67223e3457b63a1cd6\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (17:41)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was going to move an amendment to replace the closure date on 3 December, but I take advice from what you\u2019ve just told us that that would not work. I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsTerm\u0022 style=\u0022font-style: italic\u0022\u003EThat the motion be amended to replace the words \u201C30 July 2026\u201D with \u201C4 October 2026\u201D\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003938\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002231888d640b7b22f5bb9872760a276823\u0022\u003EHon Member: \u003C/span\u003EWon\u2019t help\u2014it\u2019s September.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003939\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bb33eeb1b60b2f391e721942e6c95adf\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: Pardon me\u20144 September 2026. I move that the motion be amended to replace the words \u201C30 July 2026\u201D\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003940\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002238dfdafc2dc46b95045979f84e345db8\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: You\u2019ve already moved that; you can\u2019t move another one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003941\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f52e27cfd35044f263238c299e99ef83\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: I was just getting it correct.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003942\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222177d3ea568331487178f02f72d5c527\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah. I think just\u2014you are still able to talk to the referral motion and the amendment moved by the Hon Dr Duncan Webb.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003943\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228b197c53dada68ab51bdf0721ffd5a4f\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: OK, I\u2019ll speak to that one, thank you, Mr Speaker. I think there are a couple of additional things that I would like to add to the points made by Mr Duncan Webb on the grounds for his extending the process around this very important question of the bill before us\u2014a bill that could reasonably be called the \u201CFonterra Citizen Rights Extinguishment Bill\u201D. It is indeed Fonterra who has asked for it and Fonterra who is specifically named as the beneficiary of the bill because proceedings are to do with taking away citizen Smith\u2019s rights take Fonterra to court.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003944\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is notable, the ignorance, even in this House, as to the scope of this court process, as to the nature of the legislative regime that supposedly takes account for climate change emissions in this country. It\u2019s quite surprising to me that even members on the Government side don\u2019t know that the primary gases emitted by Fonterra\u2014methane and nitrous oxide\u2014are not covered by the emissions trading scheme. In fact, there is no legislative regime that is dealing with our most polluting company. Therefore, there has been a court case taken, and that\u2019s exactly why the court case was taken, because of the insufficiency of the Parliament\u2014not just this Parliament but the previous Parliament and subsequent Governments\u2014to deal with the consequences of emissions from climate change.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003945\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe benefit of having a more fulsome process in the evaluation of this legislation, allowing the time for substantive submissions and hearings to actually understand why this particular right is an important one to be upheld by the Parliament, not to be extinguished.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003946\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFurthermore, the question of equality before the law\u2014the right of the citizen to express their equal right to take on even the biggest company in the land. The orientation of the law throughout history has sadly been to favour those who have power and those who have disproportionate influence, but we hold, as a principle, in a nation that recognises citizen rights, that we have a universal right of access to the courts and recourse through the law; that we uphold the principle that the citizen can take even the biggest company in the country to court. That is another question that needs to be more thoroughly understood and canvassed through a proper process, a process that allows those with an understanding of legal history, of legal principles, of jurisprudence, of the processes of common law, and the logic and principles that underpin that common law\u2014we need to hear from them and we need decent time to do so. This is a very consequential piece of legislation in so far as it impacts on that basic right that all New Zealanders enjoy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003947\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs well as that, there is the point\u2014and I speak in support of that point that Mr Duncan Webb says\u2014about the cessation of a legal process, a process that has been going for seven years. This is an unfortunate habit of this Government, because it also nullified and stopped the legal processes in the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 earlier in this term; it stopped the legal right of pay equity for women. This is a recidivist assault on basic citizen rights that this Government is guilty of. It is time that we have a decent conversation about it through a thorough select committee process, and for that reason I support Dr Webb\u2019s motion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003948\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, I wanted to make a point, because there seems to be a fear\u2014a terror, as it was said by another member\u2014on the part of this Government that the power and impact of this court case that is being stopped by this legislation is that it might be a hamper on business; it might have a chilling effect on business. In fact, my colleague Dr Deborah Russell made the point that no business has actually come forward and made that point. There\u2019s no evidence of that aside from, you could argue, the evidence of Fonterra directly lobbying for it to be got rid of.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003949\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the things that came up in the court case\u2014I was fortunate enough to be present at one of the hearings in the Supreme Court\u2014was when the bid was made\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003950\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d18f8f9d2f71a0b57b4c2339491c6371\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Can you relate it to the referral motion, please.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003951\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d48d7bd19993df061404b0f82852fc53\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. In terms of the referral motion, the importance of us understanding what the actual risk is of allowing this court case to run its course is clearly something that needs to be elucidated through a thorough select committee process. The example of that, specifically, is that it was specifically asked what the expectation of Mike Smith was by Justice Joe Williams in the Supreme Court. One of the options presented that could be considered by the Supreme Court in making a judgment\u2014or the High Court, for that matter\u2014is a declaratory judgment, i.e., a judgment that doesn\u2019t award any penalty or doesn\u2019t award any relief to the particular person bringing the case, but actually recognises the substance of the point of that is made.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003952\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThose are the sorts of things that we would benefit from hearing more evidence on and making proper determinations on to test the veracity of the assumptions behind this nasty piece of legislation. So I support the amendment of Dr Duncan Webb.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u00229cccfcdd45afea478b2f43a6363da85d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003953\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229cccfcdd45afea478b2f43a6363da85d\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (17:49)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It\u2019s good to have the opportunity to contribute to this referral motion, because as a member of the Justice Committee, this is something that we are dealing with a lot\u2014the fact that it seems that most of the Government\u2019s bills seem to be referred to the Justice Committee. One of the things that I was considering when I heard the Minister make the referral motion was if he was going to send it to the Justice Committee. I think a Minister can send it to any committee that they like.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003954\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnother option would have been the Environment Committee, and I hadn\u2019t heard an amendment made to a referral motion in the House before that\u2019s changed the committee, but I do wonder if that\u2019s something that the House could consider. We do have, I think\u2014last time I checked, we had 13 bills at the Justice Committee. Let me take this opportunity to congratulate the new chair of the Justice Committee, Tom Rutherford; I look forward to working with him. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003955\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAlso to acknowledge the service of Andrew Bayly who\u2019s the recently retired chair of the Justice Committee, to which this bill is referred as well. It was a pleasure working with Andrew and I wish him all the best. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003956\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill has a very short referral motion. As we\u2019ve heard, usually the referral motions to a select committee are six months. To be honest, when you are on a select committee\u2014and that might be news to those watching this debate, if in fact anyone is watching this debate\u2014that may seem like a long time, but when you\u2019re actually in the select committee and you\u2019re hearing from experts and you\u2019re going through the process that we go through which is receiving submissions, calling for submissions, receiving submissions; dealing with queries, sometimes, about the submission process; dealing with issues around who can have oral hearings and who can\u2019t; how long those people will be able to have oral hearings for; the dates that the committee will sit for oral hearings; the initial briefing that we have. We then move on to having a revision-tracked version of the bill that we have to instruct separately; then we do also do our own report. So it\u2019s quite an extensive process\u2014of course, reading the submissions and hearing the submissions goes in there as well, so a six-month process actually does go quite quickly. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003957\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is unusual in the sense that we have got used to having short report-backs\u2014usually around four months\u2014from this Government, but this has been even shorter that; less than four weeks. This will create some problems for the Justice Committee because of that short report back. There are some key people who deserve to be heard through this process. Mr Smith is one of them because this, as Duncan Webb has said, is almost akin to a private bill. I\u2019m happy to support Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s amendment to the motion to actually delete the time frame that would make it four weeks, effectively making it, as I understand, a six-month process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003958\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI didn\u2019t hear the reasons from the Minister, when we were listening for them. It was a self-fulfilling prophecy, really, that he wanted a short process, so the process would be short. I think that was, essentially, the reason that he provided. I don\u2019t think that is sufficient reasoning. I do think that when the Standing Orders were enacted and a Minister was compelled to provide reasons for a shortened report back that what was envisaged was a more substantive reason than simply wanting the process to be shorter. In fact, I don\u2019t think that that would be at all acceptable, and that\u2019s something I think perhaps the House should consider. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, we can speculate as to what the reasons may be that the Minister may want a shortened report-back process. We can speculate that that might be to do with the fact that the Minister may wish to end these court proceedings that we have discussed for Mr Smith before the election. He didn\u2019t say that, though, and so we are just being purely speculative. It\u2019s a shame, actually, that we have to stand here speculating as to what the Minister\u2019s intentions are in relation to a shortened report back because he didn\u2019t have the time, inclination, or preparation to provide the House with sufficient reasoning to allow us to actually know what was in his mind and what his actual motivation was for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003960\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve heard some people say that this would be a wild west situation if this case of Mr Smith was to go ahead. Well, quite the contrary: this process that the Government has gone through\u2014and that does include the original process of formulating this law because we are talking about referring this law to a select committee. This law has originated through a process that has been criticised by the Ombudsman and we\u2019ve only received that report this week. The Ombudsman doesn\u2019t usually use very alarmist language, but did use the word \u201Csurprising\u201D in relation to the conduct of the Prime Minister\u2019s office, which is actually a very strong word for an Ombudsman to use. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003961\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat did show, I think, and should indicate to the Government that when they look to do things like refer a motion to the House or actually have something go through a select committee process, I think the prudent thing to do when you have an Ombudsman that is looking at whether a law has been complied with\u2014the Official Information Act, and you have some quite strong recommendations\u2014I would have thought that the impetus on the Government would have been to actually state, well, because there\u2019s been some not ideal, to say the least, processes that have gone in place before this law has come to the House, then the process that they undertake should be exemplary. It should be the absolute fullest process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003962\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat is just compounded by the actual content of this law and what the law actually does which, as everyone in this House will be aware, gets rid of a right of an individual\u2014a citizen of New Zealand\u2014be able to take their right to take a case to court on the facts as they are at the moment. It\u2019s retrospective; it takes those rights away. That, in and of itself, should have led the Minister and should have led the Government, when they brought this referral motion to the House, to think, \u201CWell, because of this controversy surrounding the nature of this case, we should follow a fulsome process.\u201D I would have thought that would be the absolute minimum that the New Zealand public could have expected from this Government, but unfortunately that is not the case. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003963\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe do have a situation here which is significantly important and I think that this is related to the motion, Mr Speaker. The fundamental issue in this case, and the action that Mr Smith has taken, is based on a very fundamental premise of law, which is those who cause harm should be held accountable. That is the premise of Mr Smith\u2019s action. Those who have caused harm to the climate should be able to be held accountable, and he\u2019s used common law for that. That is why this case has been brought. It\u2019s a shame that the Government has decided to bring in this law that circumvents his rights to be able to take this case, and because of that, we would have expected a referral motion that would have been detailed in its reasoning if it was to be shortened. We haven\u2019t received that today and that is very disappointing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003964\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002251d5c0c06a1b8ac3d7d050d44cff2902\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (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 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003965\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterItalicsCentred\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003966\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c1c08c0a0befa24e63504f82ded0f9c9\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Welcome back, members. When we suspended for the dinner break, we were discussing the Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill and the instruction to the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00222b8625464c41283e3211cea720011837\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003967\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222b8625464c41283e3211cea720011837\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (19:00)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the motion be amended to replace the words \u201C30 July 2026\u201D with \u201C17 September 2026\u201D\u003C/span\u003E. Just, also, for transparency and clarity, I have given a contribution on this referral motion debate, but I have not spoken on the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s amendment, which is what I\u2019ll be specifically focusing on in this contribution. I want to start by saying that I support the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s amendment to the referral motion, and then I\u2019ll speak to my amendment, as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003968\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s amendment fulfils two requirements. Number one is\u2014as we heard from the contribution, this is going to be, despite the size of the bill, an incredibly complex bill. We\u2019ve heard from previous speakers already in terms of the complexities it brings, not only in terms of our own judiciary system but the fundamental constitutional arrangement here in Aotearoa New Zealand when we\u2019re looking at our rule of law\u2014the fact that, in general, the very foundation of the basis of our rule of law is that we don\u2019t target a specific person, which seems to be the case here. I think that a longer period of time, as suggested by that amendment, will allow us more time not only just to hear from experts and from people, from the New Zealand public, but also will allow more time for us to ask officials. Even if you\u2019re looking at some elements of the regulatory impact statement, the officials looked at other options to address this, such as reforming elements of public nuisance, which falls under such tort law, but, also, reforming corporate liability, specifically around strict liability, which also falls under tort law. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003969\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, all of those are incredibly significant aspects and I think the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s amendment addresses them. I think that, in terms of the other aspects of this\u2014and I will just want to speak quickly to my amendments\u2014I think it is important, on one hand, that, as a balance, what the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s amendment is doing is allowing there to be a fuller consideration without having the amendment being thrown out. What I\u2019ve also heard is, because of the dissolution of Parliament, we actually cannot give an amendment after the date of the dissolution, because otherwise it will be, effectively, a \u201Cno\u201D on the referral motion in general. I think the way that the amendment by the Hon Dr Duncan Webb is very timely, or very appropriate, is because what it does do, by not giving a date, is avoid some of that altogether, which means that we are going to be seeing, potentially, the next Parliament considering some of the ongoing aspects of this bill, which I think is good. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003970\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHowever, in saying that, should the Government wish to finish this before the end of the term\u2014I\u2019m not sure how long this bill will be in effect, because we have already voiced that such bills will be repealed with a change of Government, but should the Government want to have all of these done before the end of the term, my amendment of 17 September 2026 will allow for a report-back date with one additional week of House sitting\u2014presumably, there will be some form of urgency in that week\u2014to get the rest of this bill through the House and have it take effect, if the effect is, indeed, the day after Royal assent, which I believe it is. I think this is a nice in-between, where we get to hear from both experts and members of the public without having to wait until the next Parliament to do that. I do want to encourage the Government side to support my amendment of 16 September 2026. And with that, I think I am done with my contribution. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003971\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002285aa1b0d6666d825e6170b05c8621f06\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Before we move on, I\u2019m just quoting Standing Order 129, which sets out that a member who has spoken prior to an amendment being moved may speak a further time but may not move a further amendment. OK\u2014is that OK? Do you understand?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003972\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a1b6bb40a1c54eabcacdc4d7c5bbf910\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. Yes. Just to clarify\u2014sorry, Madam Speaker\u2014my understanding is that a member can only move an amendment once and cannot move on a subsequent amendment. Is what you\u2019re saying, Madam Speaker, that if a member then gets up and speaks on an amendment, then they can no longer move an amendment of their own? Is that my interpretation? Because I thought that you can only move it once, but you can speak to other people\u2019s amendments, as well as moving your own. No? You can only\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003973\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022365e0cabde83a9874bcefb4d8d5e1da6\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003974\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022529fb78fd3aebbaa681af3b7b03fffcb\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: OK, cool. Just the clarification is helpful. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022 data-id=\u0022b48f1743a324bc36f110b642b021c620\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b48f1743a324bc36f110b642b021c620\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (19:06)\u003C/span\u003E: After that confusion, trying to sort out the arcane rules of the way we do things around here, I wish to speak in support of my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s motion to extend the date by which the select committee must report back to 17 September 2026.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003976\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222e7f9d25474d98c22718e3d43038202f\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: But that\u2019s not actually\u2014no.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003977\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227a9c439b938aa7fc4bc8fc9b8a8d4272\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL\u003C/span\u003E: Oh. In that case\u2014I really don\u2019t understand what\u2019s happened. It is just so complicated trying to sort my way through this. I do have a particular issue I wish to raise, so perhaps if I speak in support of Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s amendment, that might do the trick.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003978\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d24c828d400084fec47ba686a5614b33\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: That would be useful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003979\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c2b299e9d8a3f09aa8934fecb3c2ca3d\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much for your help with that, Madam Speaker. Look, I have no strong views as to the report-back date except that the four-week period is far, far too short, and I do support the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s proposal of just having no report-back date so that the standard time applies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003980\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe reason I support this is to do with the matter of consulting with experts and, particularly, with legal experts as to the desirability of this move. What I found in the various releases of papers from the Minister was that a bit of work the Minister had done had asked for consultation with experts and, in particular, with legal experts as to what the pros and cons were of this move of disallowing this tort and disallowing the particular court case and putting this statutory bar in place\u2014litigation bar, whatever it is. I\u2019m not a lawyer; I find it hard to find my way around these words. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003981\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELooking at the summary of the consultation with experts and the advice that was given to the Minister, it says that some experts think there might be some benefits of a statutory bar on emissions-related tort claims, but several other experts say it might be speculative. That was on the costs or benefits. Then, in terms of the design features of the statutory bar, some of them said it was going to be very, very difficult and then they said it should be drafted very, very narrowly. Some of them talked in terms of the policy and international implications, and they said that there were concerns raised about the absence of alternative legal remedies. In terms of constitutional perspectives, some noted that climate change is a complex social issue better addressed by Parliament than the courts\u2014that would be the Minister\u2019s view. But others said that, actually, the environment is a taonga and that blocking claims could breach the Treaty of Waitangi. So it\u2019s a back and forth and a back and forth and a back and forth in terms of the legal expertise. Some experts thought that the removal of judicial scrutiny might erode public trust and corporate responsibility. Some thought that the concern about business confidence should be addressed with alternative approaches. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003982\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn other words, what I\u2019ve got here from the picture of reading the advice to the Minister is that experts were divided. The difficulty was that in terms of the advice that was given to the Minister, there is no sense of which were the weightiest concerns; where there was the most agreement amongst experts; whether the officials, quite properly being careful about how they referred to these experts, said \u201Csome said this\u201D and \u201Csome said that\u201D, whether they mean nine were against the move and two were for it. That would \u201Csome\u201D covers a multitude, or very few narrow.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003983\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, that\u2019s a real problem for the select committee. It\u2019s a real problem because, as a select committee, those of us who sit on it\u2014or join the committee for the purpose of this particular bill\u2014are going to have to try to work our way through the pros and cons of this move. We are going to need to consult the experts. We\u2019re going to need to be able to quiz them. And importantly, we\u2019re going to need to try to form some view of the weight of views from experts, where they are most held. Now, this very short select committee process, I think, won\u2019t allow us to properly engage the experts. So we have some advice sitting here, where, frankly, we just don\u2019t know what it really means\u2014it said that plenty of people seem to think this is a bad move. Then we move on to the advice from the Minister\u2019s own officials who consistently, in terms of their own advice, have advised the Minister not to do this. They said it\u2019s the wrong thing to do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs a select committee, somehow we\u2019re going to have to pick our way through that. I think one of the only ways we are going to be able to do that is by having a talk to some of the experts ourselves. The trouble is we\u2019re going to need submissions from those experts. Now, we\u2019ve got people who regularly comment on the law for us here in New Zealand. In particular, we\u2019ve got a number of academic experts who, on an ongoing basis, will put in submissions around some of the legal technicalities in the laws that are in front of us. I\u2019m thinking about people like Dr Eddie Clarke, and I just have to think\u2014who\u2019s the guy down at Otago University who\u2019s really good on this stuff?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003985\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cf8b0f44b5622a6527553495c98374fe\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Andrew Geddes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003986\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c0096d020dfab98fcd09ac05fea1229d\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL\u003C/span\u003E: Oh yes\u2014Professor Andrew Geddes. There are a variety of others who actually often\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003987\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002267db38cf60bfbdb48beb3dc88550dd8d\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Dean Knight.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003988\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223447e29c4e3456301ea00ac181ab4f7a\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL\u003C/span\u003E: Dean Knight is another great\u2014give us their expertise. You know, I hope those gentlemen are watching tonight, because actually, we\u2019d like to hear from them. But I actually happen to know that it\u2019s a busy time of the year, the semester is just starting up. They have other concerns\u2014they\u2019ve already been very busy submitting on other pieces of legislation. Yet, we are going to want their expertise, if they can lend it to us for this piece of legislation. I think that this very shortened report back of four weeks is not going to allow enough time for those people to write to us and to give us their submissions. I\u2019m hoping\u2014I\u2019m hoping\u2014that some of the experts who were consulted by the Minister\u2019s officials a year or so ago might also come and lend us the value of their expertise, and so on. But again, getting those people in is going to be quite hard.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003989\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThis shortened report back period is very, very difficult for the select committee. Some of our colleagues have previously talked about, in terms of the volume of work and so on, and obviously, well, there goes our recess. We\u2019re all working anyway; it\u2019s not exactly a holiday, is it? But it\u2019s going to complicate things. But my genuine concern here is that we need more time to enable the select committee to consult experts and to form our own opinion on the merits of this law change. To really understand the implications of it and to be able to move beyond the interesting advice that has been given to the Minister earlier, but one which we really have no idea as to how to weight that advice. So for those reasons, I think that we do need to extend the time available to us for the select committee process. That\u2019s the reason why I am supporting Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s motion. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u002272992ce05dbf1b93b55939ef45f0dde8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003990\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002272992ce05dbf1b93b55939ef45f0dde8\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (19:14)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am speaking to the amendment proposed by the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, to extend the referral to the select committee. Four weeks is not a select committee process in the way that Parliament has generally understood the deliberative process, which is a part of the Constitution Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003991\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe reason why we should extend this process for this particular issue is that given the Minister has said it is simply because he wants to get this done quickly, I don\u2019t think it really meets the standard for what giving a reason is intended when the Minister is meant to give a referral motion to the House. It is clear, then, that the worry from many Parliaments before us, that this use of a shortened select committee process to four weeks concentrates power within the executive in a way which was unintended, in using the deliberative processes within that Act, is quite clear. It was alluded to by the Minister, and confirmed then by the then executive, that that was the intention. Because there are other mechanisms that allow the executive to use this kind of concentration of their powers to move legislation quickly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003992\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne is all-stages urgency\u2014that is not this\u2014but then there are other checks. If this bill was proceeding without a select committee process, it would be referred to the Regulations Review Committee for a review of the powers\u2014not only in the primary legislation but also in its secondary legislation\u2014to give due consideration to the kinds of impacts that primary legislation would have on not only the courts but the regulation-making bodies within our legal system. In some ways, that is a thorough check when you have a piece of primary legislation which does something like this, which has impact on secondary level decision makers. That\u2019s not a part of this process, if it\u2019s avoided because of the four-week select committee process. The four-week select committee process is then asking a select committee to do all of that\u2014and all of the advice from officials and all of the submissions\u2014at the same time. It doesn\u2019t even have the robustness of some of the Parliaments that we like to compare ourselves to, let alone that they have an Upper House and a written constitution which courts can refer to when negotiating these kind of sub judice issues\u2014which, by the way, we are generally discouraged from considering in this House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003993\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThese sorts of cases, where Parliament deliberately decides to legislate over the top of active proceedings, are particularly difficult when trying to negotiate the independence of the courts from the parliamentary system. But that aside, we have no way of actually checking that the courts will be properly empowered to undertake the work that they are otherwise given within our constitutional framework, given this four weeks select committee process. That\u2019s why the referral to the select committee should last for the entire period. The entire period then allows not only those submitters to have their say but also advice from organisations like the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee. This is a group of well respected lawyers who practice in New Zealand\u2019s constitutional system, and who regularly advise Cabinet, to be able to also make their submissions in public. That is their only chance to make their submissions in public, because they are not a body which would otherwise, say, take a position in the media against the Government; that is not something we want to be encouraging in our legal system. So using the select committee in that way is important for their access, to raise these issues.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003994\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s also part of Crown Law\u2019s remit, that they would be able to give advice on those pieces of this legislation which impinge on individual\u2019s rights. This is one where you might expect a Crown Law vet, because where there is one person impacted by legislation, or a small group of people impacted by legislation, that is often a good candidate for the Attorney-General\u2019s view of whether individual rights are impacted by a particular piece of legislation. I think a good example of this happened in the last term, were 16 people were affected by a piece of Corrections legislation, and that was where Crown Law gave particular attention to the circumstances of each of those individuals. In this case, it is one individual whose rights are being impacted, and instead of legislating in the normal way\u2014where one person\u2019s rights would be impacted, which would be a private Act\u2014the Government has chosen to do this using a public Act, which does warrant further scrutiny by Crown Law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003995\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019re also curtailing the ability of those groups, that act as sort of soft checks within our constitutional system, to do that. They do come back to my point, which is that to curtail the select committee\u2019s role here, when we\u2019re also dealing with a parliamentary system which doesn\u2019t have an Upper House, doesn\u2019t have those extra checks and balances\u2014that any legislature that we would compare ourselves to when doing this kind of process to maintain the independence within Parliament and the courts\u2014has. You have to have special regard to the role of the select committees in that deliberative process. But deliberative in the sense of the mechanics of Government, not just deliberative in the sense of parliamentary democracy. Deliberative in the sense that when you give the different arms of the legislature, of the Executive, of the court systems, their ability to respond to something which Government has brought to bear. Because the way that the courts do there is that there is time for Crown Law to represent the views of the Government within its deliberative processes. But there is no ability here for any of their advice to be presented in a public way. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003996\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo what does that mean? It means that it all has to happen behind the scenes. This is an issue of public trust and confidence in the system, because what we have here is a Government that has, through the use of different legal instruments in this term, had a number of instances where rights that had been taken to the court process, and in some instances to a second court process, have been curtailed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003997\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAn example of this was the ANZ-ASB case, which was heard by the High Court and which will continue to be appealed by one of the complainants. It was a case where Cabinet had made decisions which would have curtailed the rights of thousands of complainants to seek damages against their banks that was owed under consumer law, and the way that that select committee process played out is the perfect example of where a deliberative process actually brought those issues to bear. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003998\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBefore the select committee got hold of that, it was quite unclear to the public what the changes proposed by Government would actually mean for those thousands of New Zealanders. But once it came to the select committee\u2019s attention, and once there was a public forum where not only people but the other arms of Government, in Government departments\u2014in that case, it was the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and Crown law\u2014and the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee (LDAC) was able to advise on what the effect of the use of Crown power in that way would mean for individuals. That was when it became clear that this would really undermine public trust and confidence in the way that the executive is using their power, and, ultimately, the executive sanctioned a different sort of use of that power which saw those complainants to be able to take their rights to the court. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30003999\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat was a good thing. It was an example of an executive that listened, in that case, to the submissions made by the people and made by LDAC and Crown Law. It would not have otherwise happened if we had had four weeks in that case, and that was only six months ago. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004000\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m not raising the issues that we have debated in this House today that date back to 2009 about the Auckland super-city. I\u2019m talking about just this year, when the Government listened to people who were raising their ability to bring proceedings in the court, as you can in any other Westminster jurisdiction like ours, when Parliament respects the role of the courts in the system and where you, as an individual, have rights that you want to seek against a large company. These rights are difficult to demonstrate and they are expensive to demonstrate. If you are somebody who wants to bring a case against Fonterra for these sorts of matters, you need to be very, very determined, and that is what we have here. It is a complainant who has sought to crystallise the rights that they think they have. To be able to pursue those, it has meant a huge amount of work and investment in this case, and so it\u2019s right for the Government but also the Parliament, separately, to give due regard to that seeking of rights. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s an equity law. It\u2019s the concept of coming to the issue with clean hands. We have that here with the plaintiff, who has done everything in their power to pursue rights that they should have under the law and to clarify those rights in the courts. For the Government to look over the top of that, you might expect that the complainant was not doing that with clean hands in that concept of equity law, and yet that is the case here. So it\u2019s right for us to consider and properly debate the amount of time that the complainants and New Zealanders will be able to bring these matters to the committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004002\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere is one more issue that I wanted to raise with members. I started this contribution focusing on the Constitution Act, but there is also a decision for the Standing Orders Review Committee right now to determine how we deal with pieces of legislation which move very quickly through the four-week report-back period for select committees. In Parliaments past, attention has been given to all-stages urgency legislation, and we have a new rule in this Parliament where the Regulations Review Committee plays that sort of check and balance role that\u2019s missing in our system to review legislation, which has a sort of wide-reaching impact, especially for regulatory bodies after it has passed. I want to raise\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=\u00223d52c571cdb246f6abf50a39de1a66f7\u0022 data-id=\u0022e7d0e760bda9a2d649b30d7b1e321b8a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d52c571cdb246f6abf50a39de1a66f7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e7d0e760bda9a2d649b30d7b1e321b8a\u0022\u003EGLEN BENNETT (Labour) (19:24)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As we stand here this evening in this room, where the calendar says it is 30 June, it actually is 2 July. The report-back date, obviously, is 30 July, and I have an amendment on the Table\u2014which I will move shortly\u2014about that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI just really want to be really clear and come back to Speaker\u2019s ruling 115/3, which is around where a Minister talks about a shortened period, and it says that they are to give the House a good reason, or to give a reason, I should say. As has been spoken about before, I think that that Speaker\u2019s ruling is really important. I see the Minister is in the room and he\u2019s more than\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f0a56b1ba15e7e4fcdee3d439401323f\u0022\u003EHon Member: \u003C/span\u003EHe gave a reason.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d52c571cdb246f6abf50a39de1a66f7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223b254f81debbc811eaff03a2284aaebf\u0022\u003EGLEN BENNETT\u003C/span\u003E: He gave one sentence. I think was that the Government is keen to resolve something\u2014that was the reason\u2014which I think they should expand on and explain it a bit better, because having it completed in a timely fashion actually isn\u2019t a good reason. The expectation we\u2019ve heard from many a Minister in this House\u2014because I\u2019ve been through this process many a time in this Parliament, that other Ministers have taken the time to be thorough and thoughtful in terms of listing the reasons why a shortened report back time is needed, and I think we need to come to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat I heard from the Minister was the \u201Cwhat\u201D and the \u201Chow\u201D in referring to Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196, which is often talked about around sitting during any time except for question time, after 6 p.m., and that can be done when the  House sitting\u2014all of those types of things, which are around the \u201Cwhat\u201D and the \u201Chow\u201D. But, actually, the \u201Cwhy\u201D is the real challenge we have here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI have the paper on the Table. I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the report-back date be replaced with \u201C1\u00A0September\u00A02026\u201D\u003C/span\u003E. I don\u2019t think that is unreasonable. The House will rise\u2014is it 24\u00A0September, I believe, that the House will rise? That gives at least some time for some of the experts to engage with and spend some time thoroughly considering this legislation. I think it should be longer, but that is just, I guess, the fact of this Government that it moves at pace with legislation. We\u2019re talking about, I think, 29 days for this\u2014if I\u2019m correct with my maths\u2014and, generally, it is six months, and so 180 days is what normally would be expected when it comes to the select committee process in order for it to be thoughtful and thorough. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut if we look back, time after time, we\u2019ve had report-back times of 71 days, we\u2019ve had 28 days, we\u2019ve had 43 days, 81 days, 83 days\u2014it just goes on in terms of how shortened our report-backs have been when it comes to select committees doing what? Doing their job of engaging, trying to find the issues, trying to hear from the experts, and doing what is right to ensure that when the legislation ends up back in this House, it has, hopefully, been shaped in a way that, potentially, is more palatable. Sometimes, for us in Opposition, we don\u2019t like the legislation, but I believe that we try to be as constructive as possible\u2014knowing it\u2019ll potentially pass\u2014to try to make changes within the space of select committee in order to find a way through that will make the legislation less bad.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI really want to note this, and I say to the Minister that I don\u2019t feel that the sentence he gave was enough of an explanation\u2014hence that Speaker\u2019s ruling makes it very clear that either they are welcome to get up and have a more fulsome explanation, or we will continue with the debate on the report-back time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFour weeks is very short, and this is a serious change in terms of what is going on. I won\u2019t go into too much more detail in terms of it, and I know my far more learned colleagues have mentioned things around the current court process that is being gone through, which is acknowledged in the legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut my amendments sits on the Table. I have now put it forward, and I hope that this Parliament can discuss and can consider that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fd7af1692f8356dab65783246332724c\u0022\u003EHon Members: \u003C/span\u003EMadam Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f79a6938d39167e8af5cbef2551f335c\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is\u2014just a minute. There is an amendment being moved, and so I just want to make sure that I get the wording correct in putting that, just so that the House knows what we\u2019re doing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe question is that the amendment to the motion is agreed to. Glen Bennett\u2019s amendment is now debatable, alongside the amendment and the motion. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u0022cb5bd52550456bb9330e3aa30a23a969\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cb5bd52550456bb9330e3aa30a23a969\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (19:29)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat \u003C/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003Ethe motion be amended to replace the words \u201C30 July 2026\u201D with \u201C17 September 2026\u201D\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI support also the other two amendments that are being put on the Table, and I wanted to present a bit of a rationale for mine as well, which is\u2014and I hope that the Government can take this with a conciliatory and good-faith approach. The 17 September date that I am proposing still leaves a week for this bill to be, basically, debated in its second and third reading as well as the committee of the whole House stage, which, in my view, would still meet both the intent of a good democratic process on something that has constitutional impacts as well as the Government wanting to fulfil its agenda\u2014which, obviously, we disagree with. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think with something so significant, an amendment like this one would allow a broader range of members of the public to be able to adequately contribute to the select committee process. Other members noted that otherwise, without the date being changed, you would have, effectively\u2014well, some members calculated\u2014potentially, a one-week submission period, which would not be good enough.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI wanted to touch on\u2014and I haven\u2019t seen it being touched on by others\u2014who are we limiting by, effectively, creating a process where the submission period is so short? I would make the case that the very same people that are most impacted by climate change and climate policies are some of the ones that would likely be least able to find the avenues and the time, the resources, or have the ability to be able to make a submission, let alone actually, probably, do an oral submission to the select committee, if we are not to amend the motion. My amendment would allow the select committee to create a bit of a longer submission period for the committee as well as to have more flexibility over the period in which we hear oral submissions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, when I talked about the demographics that I think the current motion, without amendments, would disproportionately negatively impact, I am thinking of people who have to work, for example, multiple jobs to make ends meet. When I have worked with constituents who deeply care about the legislation that this Government is putting forward, some of the feedback that I often receive is: \u201CWell, I could submit, and I would love to be able to present to the select committee, but often the dates that are given to me conflict with the fact that I\u2019ve got multiple responsibilities\u201D\u2014potentially multiple jobs\u2014\u201Cto juggle.\u201D I would assume that if this is a Government that backs working people, they would want to support an amendment that would enable the greater participation of working people, particularly those who are on lower incomes, have to work multiple jobs, and on top of that, potentially, juggle caregiving responsibilities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other group that I wanted to mention is disabled people. Disabled people\u2014there\u2019s quite a lot of literature that speaks about the fact that climate change will disproportionately impact disabled people. As we have seen in other select committees on bills that disabled people are disproportionately affected by, tight time frames really hinder adequate participation. If you want to create a process that is genuinely accessible, my amendment would enable a more fulsome select committee process that would allow that broader participation of people as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other group is parents with young children and caregiving responsibilities to generations\u2014they will be disproportionately impacted by this piece of legislation. Therefore, I think caregivers who are having to juggle caregiving responsibilities will not be so able to participate in the oral submission process that the current time frame would allow.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAgain, to me, this speaks to and it\u2019s sort of a bit of an attempt to offer an olive branch to the other side of the House when it comes to the process, not the substance of the bill, to genuinely commit to be able to include as many groups of people who will inevitably be impacted by the consequential impacts of this bill in the process. I would say that if what the Government wanted was to create a mandate, and they were confident that they had a mandate on this specific policy, they would want to invite and create a process where as many people as possible are able to contribute. I would assume that what they\u2019re hoping for is that by the end of the process, the Government will find itself with a select committee report that tells them that the majority of submitters actually supported their bill. I think they can only achieve that, if they genuinely believe in that, by extending the select committee process to one that actually enables that broader participation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI back the other amendments. I wanted to briefly speak on Duncan Webb\u2019s amendment as well. One of the things that I find particularly concerning about the fact that we are able to sit in select committee while the House is sitting is that you end up cycling through quite a lot of members in that select committee. I know others talked about the impact on smaller parties, but I want to speak more to the fact that I don\u2019t believe and I don\u2019t think any party will claim that they\u2019ve got a caucus full of people who feel fully competent and have expertise on this specific area of legislation, right? We want to enable our caucus members who do have expertise on this issue to be able to participate in all the select committee sessions while also being able to meet whatever other responsibilities they may have to their electorates, to their other portfolios, or just other party responsibilities that they have.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWithout being able to have, I guess, just a bit of greater certainty of when the select committees are more likely to meet, I think you will likely end up with a process where you\u2019ll have members sitting in and out of the select committee, where their participation will be through proxy contributions that are presented by the spokespeople to that member subbing in. I think that creates a process where collaboration is less likely to happen, where fulsome engagement with submitters is less likely to happen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, the other argument I would want to make to broaden this is that when you have quite shortened report-back dates, one of the things that you end up not really enabling is cross-party collaboration. When amendments are being proposed, for example, in the select committee process, it is normal that respective parties would want to take those amendments to their respective caucuses. When you have such a short report-back date, you really limit the number of caucus meetings that happen in that select committee process, particularly if there are recess weeks that are in between those. That means that even sometimes when you may find changes that you may want to propose, and you can tell that maybe other members of other political parties are in agreement as individuals, those amendments may end up stalling just by the nature of a really rushed process that does not allow for those members to consult with their party during their caucus meetings.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think that would be a shame, if members want to work collaboratively around this bill\u2014I don\u2019t know if that\u2019s the intent, but I would assume that we would want to enable as much of that as possible. My amendment would support allowing that to happen, if there is cross-party work to identify, for example, how this bill could be improved, or if in between, even, coalition parties, they find a way that they want this bill to better align with their Government objectives.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI hope that the Government is able to consider the 17 September report-back date in order to allow them to build a mandate of public support, as they assume, they claim, they have, as well as to have a broader range of population groups being able to present to the select committee on something that, ultimately, is of great significance to people of this country, as a country that I think has often had a big range of the population who ranks climate change as one of the issues that they care about. I would include in this people that do not vote for our political party. I would assume that across most of our political parties, voters and supporters of those parties care about climate issues as well. With that, I will end my contribution.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cb0a48d2f293dbded29ecf5f58198421\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the amendment to the motion in the name of Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March be agreed to. The amendment is now debatable alongside the other amendments and the motion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u00220b20451571987ac8cada6df8923fab62\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220b20451571987ac8cada6df8923fab62\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (19:38)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to go back to what the purpose of select committee scrutiny is, because what we have at stake here is quite significant. The fact that we are able to take fulsome arguments to debate the referral motion shows the level of seriousness that this Parliament takes about making sure that we follow process. Whether we\u2019re going to get the outcome we want is a different question, but the very fact that we are having a debate on this shows that this is a significant matter, when we are wanting to truncate something that is inherently part of the lawmaking process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf we look at the Standing Orders, Standing Order 338A talks about the purpose of scrutiny being \u201Cto hold the executive to account, to contribute to good governance for improved outcomes, and to strengthen confidence in public institutions.\u201D I think it\u2019s really important to mention that when supporting the amendment that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb proffered in the first instance, but otherwise also in the alternatives, those proffered since then, including the one by the Green member to extend the period out to September. There are a number of really significant words in that Standing Order that are worth looking at. I\u2019d also like to point out to people at home who might be wondering what\u2019s going on with this that the Standing Orders were amended. Standing Order 338A shows that this was an amendment at some point in time, where it was felt needed to clarify the significance and importance of select committee scrutiny.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOther members have touched on this when it comes to the question of the public interest and the public confidence in the parliamentary process. That is what is at stake here, along with the fact that the very matter that is being referred to select committee for a shortened period of time is not a trivial matter; it is a matter of great constitutional importance. While the Green member talks about climate change and the specific substantive nature of that and what that means, what I\u2019m turning my attention to is the implications that that particular law would have on the broader lawmaking powers of this House and what it means constitutionally.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf we look at select committee scrutiny, the word \u201Cscrutiny\u201D by its very nature means to scrutinise, to be forensic, to hold up into the light. It\u2019s important that the committee has the time to do all the elements of that that it needs to, including, should it decide to, to appoint an independent adviser. Professor Andrew Geddis has been mentioned. But certainly with a matter of such great constitutional import\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db2b8a7a941e46d5eae8bebaf4ea473e\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m sorry to interrupt the member. The two Green members are meant to be seated while you\u2019re in the House, not wandering around talking. If you do want to have a conversation, please take it outside.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e51a67c22303c2a2d760cb9293abee75\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY\u003C/span\u003E: For a matter of such constitutional importance, it might well be the intention of the committee to get an independent adviser to understand the ramifications of what the particular bill would have on the broader area of constitutional law. For members at home, we do have statute law, like the laws that are made and passed in this House that are written down on bits of paper and that are scrutinised and go through a process. But we also have common law, which is known as tort law, and that is what this particular bill is looking to override.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETort law has been what makes our country different and distinctive from the motherland, from the UK. We have developed our own tort law. We have seen that come under threat with the Treaty principles bill and we saw the level of response to that. We saw that people understood the significance of what was being proposed because Te Tiriti had become part of our tort law and suddenly there was this move to rewrite history and rewrite all the laws that were there and put it into a written law, and there was a huge backlash to that, quite rightfully. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, in a smaller sense, this is purporting to do the same thing. In that case, there may well be a huge public interest in what is attempting to be done, but we cannot gauge that with the effective one-week turnaround at the select committee. We cannot gauge what the impact will be, necessarily, on other parts of the law if we don\u2019t have an independent adviser or the level of scrutiny that the Standing Orders require. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen I look at Standing Order 338A(2), it says, \u201CFor this purpose, select committees examine, assess, and express views about the executive\u2019s strategy, policy, expenditure, administration, performance, and results.\u201D  It is about scrutinising the executive.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, Sir Geoffrey Palmer has said that we\u2019re the fastest lawmakers in the West. We probably are, perhaps apart from Fiji where I used to live, where they equally use urgency to a great degree, but in that environment where we are making laws so quickly and where there are numbers on the executive who outnumber the Opposition MPs, which is how our Westminster parliamentary system works, we want to ensure that the public don\u2019t think of the select committees as just a rubber-stamping exercise. The disdain that the Government members are showing by flicking this off to a select committee for about a week shows that they don\u2019t take the role of select committees seriously and that they don\u2019t have regard, in fact, to the views of the public. They know they have the numbers to get this over the line and so it feels like their attitude is \u201CWell, who cares, because we\u2019re going to do this anyway.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, that may or may not be their intention, but it is certainly the message that they are sending to members of the public. That does not instil confidence in the democratic process. If we look at other legislation that has passed\u2014Arena Williams spoke about some of it. If we look at the protest on the parliamentary steps today about the disability bill, where that was done in a very quick way\u2014we saw changes to Ministry of Social Development entitlements done under the House under urgency late at night. If it wasn\u2019t for the forensic work of Opposition MPs, that may well not have had any level of scrutiny or any level of media highlight. That seems to be the point of this exercise. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf the Government wants to prove that that\u2019s not the case, and if they have a good business case for sending this to committee to make this fundamental constitutional change, they should at least be confident in their business case or confident in the law they\u2019re proposing and they should ventilate it and let it endure that scrutiny so that they can take the public with them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think we stand to lose a great deal in this House if they continue to show this level of disdain for lawmaking. We\u2019ve had record numbers of sessions in urgency. We are becoming like a steam train when it comes to just pushing bills through. I had a meeting with a Minister today where the invitation at the meeting was if we could talk about bits where we could move faster through the committee stage. That is not the spirit of the parliamentary system that we should be encouraging and nor is it what we should be communicating to the members of the public who put us in this House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELet\u2019s not forget that. We are here, put into these positions by the people we serve. We are only here by their grace and only here by their trust and only here by their confidence. Every time we don\u2019t follow process correctly or we show disdain for process, we are doing the middle finger to the public that put us here. No wonder they are losing faith in politics. No wonder young people are disengaging. It\u2019s on all of us together to rebuild the confidence in the democratic process because that is a flawed process, but it is the best process that we have. When we go to do things that are going to reduce, using the words of section 338A, \u201Cthe scrutiny to hold the executive to account, to contribute to good governance for improved outcomes\u201D\u2014every time we do that, we are losing the public\u2019s trust and confidence. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think that\u2019s what this debate is really about. As I say, it\u2019s not a trivial matter. We\u2019re not wanting to put something to select committee that is an operational change. This is about a fundamental piece of constitutional law. Let us not forget the separation of powers. Let us not forget there is the Parliament, the judiciary, the executive, and, of course, the fourth estate, the media. There must be a balance of power of all of those. We have seen a diminishment, in my view, in this House through the waka-jumping law. We cannot afford to diminish it any further by treating select committee processes as a rubber-stamping exercise. We are in peril of falling into the type of democracies that have very low engagement across the world, including the US, which is in the 30 percent. In my electorate of Taieri, we enjoy something like an 89 percent turnout at election, but every year that is going down across the nation, and so there\u2019s a lot at stake with this referral motion. It is not a simple matter. For that reason, I fully support the amendment by the Hon Dr Duncan Webb in the first instance and any of the amendments that push out the time to give people their say in the second.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022 data-id=\u00229f3408c01878f7072804961c7b8a7136\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229f3408c01878f7072804961c7b8a7136\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (19:49)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Speaker, thank you. I hadn\u2019t intended to take another call, but I am going to take another call. I\u2019m speaking at this time in support of Dr Xu-Nan\u2019s amendment. Here is the reason that I am going to take this call. It\u2019s because of an interjection from the Minister, who said, I think, something like he had offered perfectly good reasons for this shortened select committee process, but in the Minister\u2019s speech, right the start of this referral debate, he said that we needed a four-week process because he wanted this business, this work done, this bill through the House on a timely basis.  There\u2019s a hell of a lot of circularity in that argument. \u201CWe\u2019re going to do it in a quick time because we want to do it in a quick time. We\u2019re going to do it fast because we want to do it fast.\u201D, is the essence of the Minister of Justice\u2019s argument. I do submit that the Minister has, as yet, not offered a good reason as to why this particular piece of legislation should go through fast. I\u2019m going to take his word that he wants it to go through fast because he wants it to go through fast, have a look at some of the dates that are sitting in the advice that has been given to him, and the process that has gone on until now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt turns out that the work that the Minister wanted quickest kicked off in June last year. That\u2019s the date of the first advice he got from officials on this, dated 4 June 2025, as to the ongoing process here. The process then was\u2014and it\u2019s set out in the Minister\u2019s advice\u2014that the officials would undertake some targeted consultation, they would brief him by 7 October, and some policy decisions were needed by 16 October. As it turned out, the officials got their briefing paper back to the Minister by, I think, 1 October\u2014so they did very, very well\u2014but I can\u2019t tell when the Minister actually responded giving his policy decisions. It\u2019s hard to know.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe point is that, in terms of this going to Cabinet, it didn\u2019t get to Cabinet until March. That\u2019s a real shame because they had been aiming, as far as I can tell, for this paper to get to Cabinet by mid-January or late January, maybe some ministerial consultation around there. This work that the Minister needs to get done so quickly, in the next four weeks, because he wants to get it done so quickly, because that\u2019s his reason\u2014he\u2019s going fast because he wants to go fast\u2014in fact, he was going quite slowly at one stage. Suddenly, now, the Minister, because he went slowly earlier this year, wants to go fast now because he wants to go fast now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI just don\u2019t think that\u2019s a good enough reason. If there was genuine urgency behind this, the Minister would have been chasing this along all the way through, and we are now ending up with a shortened select committee process because the Minister was tardy in doing some of his work. Now, I appreciate that things get crowded in the Cabinet Office, that things get crowded in the Parliamentary Counsel Office, that there\u2019s a whole lot of timing issues to consider, but I think the Minister needs to do rather better when asking the select committee to work fast because he has been tardy, to either be upfront about that or perhaps give us some better reasons as to why he wants the select committee to go fast on this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn fact, there is no particular reason to go fast. The case that the Minister was concerned about was not due to be heard until April next year. There\u2019s a bit of time in hand before that. There is no good reason to go this fast at this stage. We do not need to go this fast unless the Minister has some other reason for wanting this legislation to be through the House and finished before the election, but in that case, we still don\u2019t need this reported back until, say, maybe the start of September. There\u2019s a variety of dates that have been proposed, and the legislation could still get through the House were they to organise themselves properly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Minister wants to go fast because the Minister wants to go fast, the Minister wants to go fast because the Minister was tardy, and now there seems to be some other reason as to why we are going so lickety-split at this stage as to have this four-week process. I just invite the Minister to, I guess, fess up and give us some good reasons. As I\u2019ve said, I\u2019ve probably said all I\u2019ve wanted to say in this debate. I probably won\u2019t be participating in it again unless something particularly egregious is said. Madam Speaker, I do thank you for giving me this call, because I did want to make that challenge to the Minister. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002227b4dd17723e77bb680296e35f770cfa\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Before I take another call, can I just remind members that, as with most debates, we\u2019re looking for new material. The repetition of the need for speed is getting a bit tiresome, and also, the need for more time has been heard very well. I\u2019m looking for new material.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u002284496fff724a837e6714fa2e33513b6a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002284496fff724a837e6714fa2e33513b6a\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (19:54)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, That the motion be amended by adding the words \u201Cand the Justice Committee will open a briefing on the Climate Change (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill that will invite submissions for a period of six months\u201D before the full stop.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe reason I make that amendment is it draws on a paper by the Rt Hon Geoffrey Palmer and his suggestion over the last six months, on reflection, following a lecture from the former Solicitor-General Una Jagose about the use of urgency and the way that we consider bills which proceed through urgency, and indeed, through the shortened select committee process. You heard my earlier submission on why we should extend the date, but failing that, it is my genuine suggestion to the Government and to the chair of the Justice Committee who is sitting here tonight. Congratulations on your appointment. I hope you take on this suggestion, which I hope will be given by the House as an instruction to you, but even if it is not given by the House as an instruction to you\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223c103e08497caac6608aa7a3f7fb4bce\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: No, the instruction to me.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227e4b0ad694e047860784b74e414b980b\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, the instruction to the committee chair via the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002240a3bd282820a3511fd98c6af8537997\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Can I interrupt the member and remind her of Standing Order 129, which I read out before. A member who has spoken before on an amendment cannot move a new amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002203687575d4ff364846ddd7a711df8cc2\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, I see. That would be my suggestion, now speaking to the original referral motion of the Minister. Given that that doesn\u2019t need to be an amendment, I would simply say that, based on the Minister\u2019s referral instructions, it comes to the House to consider what other practical measures the select committee chair might consider to enable some of the concerns of Opposition members to be properly heard.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy suggestion to the House is that it would be appropriate for the select committee to open a briefing that heard submitters for a period of six months, while also considering the bill that would be reported back in the shorter period. This is a suggestion that has been made by the Rt Hon Geoffrey Palmer in relation to bills that proceed through urgency\u2014all stages\u2014that another sort of bill would be introduced to a subject matter select committee instead of the Regulations Review Committee, so that even though it was presented back to the House in time for the executive to advance its legislative agenda, the select committee would still then be able to consider submissions, to be able to consider advice, and then to come to a reasoned view not only in its departmental report, advised on by the Minister\u2019s advisers, but in its report to the House. As we know, often a select committee will come to a different view than the departmental report provided by the advisers. That is an appropriate part of the select committee process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis novel method of opening an inquiry at the same time as hearing a bill would provide for that. It would also allow for a select committee to test what has been a suggestion by one of our preeminent scholars of our constitutional arrangements in New Zealand, the Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer, and whether this would work in an ongoing way, whether the House would be aided by select committees being able to review legislation in the normal way even when urgency is afforded. You can imagine that members on this side of the House would also be in a situation where, in Government, they might be able to use urgency for certain things\u2014there are incentives for both major parties to be able to use it\u2014but, in a new sort of arrangement where select committees could proceed at an ordinary pace, to be able to consider the submissions of submitters and also the advice from the department, you might then pick up things along the way, where a Minister can then consider those things. That is already the arrangement whereby these periodic checks by different parts of the legislature and the executive will check the legislation and will notify Ministers of changes they need to make.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust today, we saw a Minister of primary industries in the chair in a committee stage, where he was presenting to the House a number of updates to primary industries legislation\u201423 pieces of legislation were being updated in that way. We already have a mechanism for Ministers to hear feedback, not only from the industries they are representing but also from the legal experts who come along and make these representations. This is the perfect way to make this a part of our ordinary constitutional framework whereby those things are formalised: people aren\u2019t accessing the members of the executive via a back door or a fast track to access to a Minister but they are coming in through the front door, through a select committee process and making the representations to a select committee of nominally independent MPs from the executive who can consider those submissions separately.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat is an important part of the scrutiny process that New Zealand Parliament has. Many of us really enjoy that feature of the New Zealand Parliament, where someone can rock along to a select committee and make a suggestion and the law will reflect that. This is an appropriate way of building that into the system and still allowing an executive Government to, at times, require the House to move at pace and on its terms. There will always be a need for that in this system, and the tension here between speed and between proper scrutiny does not need to be arranged in the way that it is. We can have proper scrutiny of this bill, and we can have proper scrutiny of later bills. The process for a select committee to be able to do this can be enabled now via the inquiry or briefing process. Opening a briefing on a piece of legislation that is before a committee is well within its power. It does not need to be directed by the House to do so\u2014although that is what the Minister should have included in his referral motion, and that is why I am making a speech on his original referral motion. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is important that we consider here what the role of select committees is, because this Parliament has had some uniquely good select committees that have been great at grappling with, particularly, legislative detail. This is a Parliament where you can see, in the mix and the make-up of it, with minor parties being chairs of select committees and with engaged Opposition members being right in the detail of their portfolios, that we are capable of this and we always should arrange our select committees in a way where Ministers can look at a select committee and see a chair who they trust not only to scrutinise the legislation that they have before them but, also, to make changes to it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis Government is one that has been in the habit of introducing legislation at the first reading before it is finished, and that is a process that our legislature is not designed for. If we want to continue to use it in that way, where legislation comes to the House at first reading in a way where the policy will be changed at the committee stage, then we have to have select committee chairs who can deal with that. We have to have a system that is robust enough to be able to hear from experts; for committee chairs to be able to seek guidance from the departments who are advising them, not the executive. That has to be clear, too, because a number of times in this Parliament, it has been unclear whether the department officials are advising the Minister or are taking instructions from the Minister, or are actually there to serve the committee, which is what the constitutional arrangement requires of them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is something that non-executive MPs must constantly defend, but this is a way which practically enables it. And so, I hope\u2014it is my genuine hope\u2014that the Justice Committee will open a briefing alongside this piece of legislation to be able to give the submitters their full due in terms of presenting their submissions on this issue. I don\u2019t think it is an overlap; I think it is the appropriate thing to do in the circumstance. People are sophisticated enough to know that they are not only submitting on a bill but they also need to submit to a briefing that is a wider inquiry about the policy statements in the bill and what is written. That kind of process should be genuinely cross-partisan, because that is the only way that this will continue to work\u2014that executive Government will be able to get away with using the legislative system in this way, where undeveloped policy positions come to the House in the form of legislation at the first reading and they are finished by the end. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe have seen, a number of times, that Ministers have amended things at the last minute. There are also changes that should be made by the Standing Orders review about that. Those should be fully debated with no time limitation on them, and that was reflected in the Speaker\u2019s comments on Tuesday about that kind of debate. This is similar to that, where you have an unfinished policy statement that is introduced to the legislature by a Minister open to feedback and criticism, and so, we should give it the appropriate time at the select committee stage, as well as allowing a department and the other organisations within Government that want to contribute to it to be able to submit to the select committee through a briefing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022 data-id=\u0022c464c1f53c77f51d4dda809acd724ea9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c464c1f53c77f51d4dda809acd724ea9\u0022\u003ETOM RUTHERFORD (National\u2014Bay of Plenty) (20:03)\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004068\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004071\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002241610e5b4f5cf04649f46b102c0d04b8\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the motion be amended by removing all words after \u201C30 July 2026\u201D be deleted\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229596fbe410eb1710a5d0eef6755a5f1a\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Glen Bennett\u2019s amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the report-back date be replaced with \u201C1\u00A0September\u00A02026\u201D\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002286fb0517cedd7eaa5607d754445e1316\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u2019s amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question,\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003E That the motion be amended to replace the words \u201C30 July 2026\u201D with \u201C17 September 2026\u201D\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002213b6bcc887929c470c22a3dd2dc89d93\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 30 July 2026 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004099\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f916b3b23a6aa220deaa28a4263ab904\u0022\u003ELocal Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f822507f2b89b29041e0c15502bec792\u0022\u003ESecond Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004104\u0022\u003EDebate resumed from 30 June.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002248ce26e54d83406399b875df20400dec\u0022 data-id=\u0022cb70b4a160a3974eb972ef50685e9d0d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002248ce26e54d83406399b875df20400dec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cb70b4a160a3974eb972ef50685e9d0d\u0022\u003EANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (20:09)\u003C/span\u003E: Look, I\u2019m delighted to get to this point of finally being able to speak on this bill, because it\u2019s the third time I\u2019ve actually been the next speaker up on this particular bill. It\u2019s taken a long time to get to this point, but it\u2019s great that we got here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Government\u2019s got quite a number of initiatives in respect of local government going on at the moment. We\u2019ve got this bill, we\u2019ve got regional deals, we\u2019ve got the rates cap proposal\u2014which we\u2019ve talked about, but no legislation yet\u2014and then we\u2019ve got all the structural reform announcements which have been made.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s interesting: I\u2019ve spoken to probably most councils\u2019 mayors, and often chief executives as well, over the term of this Government. Sometimes it\u2019s the ones before the last local body election; sometimes it\u2019s the ones after; sometimes both. I\u2019ve never seen as much interest and as much enthusiasm as I have seen now, in terms of exploring amalgamation. So the Head Start announcement is potentially a good nudge. But I have talked to a lot of mayors also since the structural reform announcements a few weeks ago, and while there\u2019s wide agreement about getting rid of regional councils, there is real concern about the time frame which is being announced there\u2014real concern about those time frames\u2014and also that feeling of: is this the last chance for councils to be able to put a Head Start proposal before some sort of backstop stick is applied?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s also concern about the place of community consultation, which is absent from those documents: the protection of local voice, the ability to be able to do the numbers, the effect on rates, debts, and so on. Those numbers really matter; they matter in terms of the choices that councils and communities should be able to make. There is this idea that every council must have a dance partner\u2014the rural-urban split: most of the rural areas don\u2019t particularly want to be taken over by their neighbouring urban areas\u2014and the ability for bigger-population councils to, effectively, apparently take over small ones.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s also a lot of desire to see a greater clarity about the rationale, particularly around the idea\u2014and I think there\u2019s a lot of scepticism about this idea\u2014that bigger will be better and bigger will be more efficient. That has also come from the likes of the New Zealand Initiative and the Infrastructure Commission. So my appeal in all of this is that central government needs to work much closer with local government, and in a respectful way, as we go through any reform proposal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAll of that said, this bill, and all of these other initiatives, have a big, clear focus on rates\u2014on affordability. That is absolutely right and absolutely understandable. Across New Zealand, between 2022 and 2025, that triennium of councils, we saw and we paid unprecedented increases in rates across the country. I understand the cumulative average was something like 34.4 percent, which is absolutely unaffordable and unsustainable. Inflation during that time\u2014admittedly, that was Consumers Price Index, not Local Government Cost Index\u2014was 13.7; way, way, way above inflation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EConsequently, rates have become a very significant component of the inflation rate. It\u2019s interesting: in the debate that was going on a few weeks ago on this particular reading, Labour and the Greens seemed to want to continue with that trajectory. That is unsustainable, and I suggest they think again about that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn my 30 years in local government in Wellington, generally I saw people saying, \u201CI want more and more services.\u201D\u2014more and more services. That\u2019s really frustrating for a fiscal conservative like me. They never ask for water services, incidentally, but now what I\u2019m hearing is that that\u2019s changed. In some places, I\u2019m hearing real fear that people will be forced out of their homes and will certainly have to make decisions about what basic services they, in their lives, and have to forgo to pay the rates and the water bills. So I reject completely the assertions which are made, particularly by the Green Party, that this bill is not thinking about people; it is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question I would ask local government is: has it shown the same discipline that Government has shown in terms of its expenditure\u2014right-sizing and ensuring value for money? Some councils are much better at this than others. Often it\u2019s the smaller ones who are better at doing it. So if we are going to make councils bigger, then I wonder whether some of that discipline of being close to community will be lost.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill\u2019s encouragement to focus on core service intends to bring rates down. I understand that the intention is that a rates cap would also apply to core services. It is a point there that councils are really concerned about, because they\u2019re concerned that there\u2019s a real tension between rates capping and asset management, and I think that argument is a real one, and we need to think about that very, very carefully. Local government would often say they just need more money; I don\u2019t accept that without seeing, first, a serious improvement in delivery efficiency and better prioritisation, because rates and water charges are unaffordable for property owners.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI would ask the question of what we can do as central government to reduce costs that local government faces, and therefore the rates bills\u2014for example, the seismic costs, with the earthquake-prone building legislation which we will consider, hopefully, later today; traffic management costs; health and safety costs; audit costs; and representation reviews, which, hopefully, they won\u2019t have to do if we\u2019re going through these changes in terms of structure. So we should be looking very thoroughly at all the burdens central government places on local government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo in terms of this bill, it focuses on core services and on performance. We made a few changes to the core services; I won\u2019t go through that. Being a core service, of course, still leaves councils to decide on the quality and the quantity of those core services. The big question is about rates capping and the application of those rates caps to core assets and the maintenance of those assets. That\u2019s a real concern for councils. We know that there\u2019s been under-investment in infrastructure for a very long time. Applying rates caps in that way could make that even worse, so we\u2019ve got to be very careful about that, because, of course, Government is in a glasshouse on this score as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m going to just touch on two final things now. One of them is that in this bill, we have the idea of the reappointment time frame for chief executives in councils. At the moment, it\u2019s five years plus two years, so without going to the market, you can do five plus two. The proposal here is to go five plus five. It was originally going to be the same day that we were considering this bill\u2014we did the Public Service Amendment Bill, and what we did there is we said that you cannot reappoint a Public Service chief executive without going to the market: so five years and no right of renewal. So we\u2019re going in completely opposite directions with local government chief executives as we are with central government chief executives. So we will have an amendment on that when we get to the committee of the whole House. At least consistency would be a good thing, because we are being completely inconsistent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other issue, which I know there are amendments about\u2014and they will come up in the committee of the whole House\u2014is the issue of unelected members voting. That\u2019s become a much, much bigger issue. I know that the ACT Party has put some amendments up there. We will also have an amendment along those lines about delegations from councils to committees. I think that we do need to make some changes in those areas.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe are supporting the bill, we think it could be improved, and we do have some questions about the wider reform programme and the coherence of that reform process. I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229d1b21c623a233e590a871ed29de97a3\u0022\u003ETamatha Paul\u003C/span\u003E: Come on, Andy!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022260789e01a978667903fcc21bc509fd3\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Celia Wade-Brown\u2014five minutes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002248ce26e54d83406399b875df20400dec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220ed58eba1cbb2d8c1e4aece5cadf3c57\u0022\u003EAndy Foster\u003C/span\u003E: Sometimes you learn things.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223668d3d06b36e43d51ebcaaacfbb6268\u0022\u003ETamatha Paul\u003C/span\u003E: You supported it, and you know it was good.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002248ce26e54d83406399b875df20400dec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226fa5446934dbf507a1c5db11094434a5\u0022\u003EAndy Foster\u003C/span\u003E: Sometimes you learn things. It\u2019s got bad.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b3764ba8d0d185bf132dd249a6c66902\u0022\u003ETamatha Paul\u003C/span\u003E: It was good.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d8822743145053a8e0b28f225d99b9d3\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: I believe I\u2019ve called Celia Wade-Brown, no one else.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e66329e431ea47019b41524c6ef2954a\u0022 data-id=\u00228b59a0ae9096c88de29ee83f7fc286d0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e66329e431ea47019b41524c6ef2954a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228b59a0ae9096c88de29ee83f7fc286d0\u0022\u003ECELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) (20:16)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak against this bill, the \u201CLocal Government\u201D\u2014so-called\u2014\u201C(System Improvements) Amendment Bill\u201D. It claims to improve local government, but it strips away the purpose\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E] Sorry, Mr Speaker, there seems to be more people having debates\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022de47c789fd41395477d2f28449ad7189\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, gentlemen down there, I can hear that conversation from here\u2014it\u2019s just a bit too loud.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e66329e431ea47019b41524c6ef2954a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022caed2007e16301c1ddba3fa654e922fa\u0022\u003ECELIA WADE-BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI really want to, first of all, thank all the mayors, not just the ones in this room, and the councillors and the Chairs and the staff for the huge amount of work that\u2019s done by councils, often closely with their communities, iwi, volunteer groups, business groups, and so forth.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMr Foster and I lived through local government before the four wellbeings were in the legislation\u2014during then, and then when they were taken away again. Frankly, in practice, it made little difference. We did go through the most painful core services review, when we justified all the things that we were doing anyway. But it was very long-winded and it was open to challenge in the courts. So I think it\u2019s quite contradictory, with one hand, to take away the four wellbeings, and, with the other hand, to leave the core competencies there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to focus on two particular contradictions that I think this coalition Government is putting on local government. The first contradiction is in the area of economic development, particularly tourism. I think that all parties in this House think that sustainable tourism is a good way to earn a living, is an interesting way for people to learn about different places, to get out into the beautiful outdoors\u2014before it\u2019s all mined\u2014and just learn about cultures. You\u2019ve got the Pounamu Pathway on the West Coast, for example\u2014fantastic.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002211e9e1f818754d97b60bba4b18e5dc03\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226b8d44c15ffb10ff7dff49127c01397a\u0022\u003EHon Mark Patterson\u003C/span\u003E: Provincial Growth Fund\u2014thanks, Celia.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e66329e431ea47019b41524c6ef2954a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a272aac6f8c575c56813079d61b7f024\u0022\u003ECELIA WADE-BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: That is also supported by iwi, and it is also supported by the councils. I think you\u2019ll find that the museums are supported by the councils across the rohe.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELet\u2019s take another example, then\u2014Wellington: I expect some of the people here, from both sides of the House, will go to the World of WearableArt. They might enjoy Wellington On a Plate. But economic wellbeing has been removed from the purpose of councils. That\u2019s not tidying up legislation; that\u2019s setting up local government to fail. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe recent tourism strategy, which I actually think is a good tourism strategy, looks at what different. Whether it\u2019s going to be local government or central government, or whether it\u2019s Tourism New Zealand or the regional tourism organisations, it gives everyone a bit of a place to play together, but it\u2019s completely in contradiction to the changes to the Local Government Act. Every tourism-reliant district is expected to plan infrastructure, manage visitor pressure, and market and promote their area, but you\u2019ve just taken away the statutory basis for doing that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second contradiction is very close to my heart, and it is the removal of environmental wellbeing. We\u2019ve just heard Minister Potaka putting the portion of the international visitor levy into Auckland\u2019s predator-free area. That is led by Auckland. You\u2019ve got unitary councils, regional councils, city councils\u2014and the most recent speaker was a great proponent of Zealandia. But, oh no, we\u2019re not going to have environmental wellbeing here. Well, how did the Otago Peninsula get rid of possums? It wasn\u2019t central government; it was local government, and you are just cutting them off at the knees. There is a lot of talk about localism, but this bill does the opposite.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ab32b09663ea48b199aa59e4d88f77e4\u0022 data-id=\u00221adb5141688c4cc3bd3e8da5f51d1781\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ab32b09663ea48b199aa59e4d88f77e4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221adb5141688c4cc3bd3e8da5f51d1781\u0022\u003ETIM COSTLEY (National\u2014\u014Ctaki) (20:21)\u003C/span\u003E: The National Party wants to see rates stop going up. We want to make them more affordable, and that\u2019s why we\u2019re refocusing the purpose of local government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI just want to make one point: section 12 in the Act states\u2014I\u2019ve heard councils quote this\u2014that \u201CFor the purposes of performing its role, a local authority has\u2014(a) full capacity to carry on or undertake any activity or business, do any act\u201D. That is true in the context of performing what their purpose is in section 12. This came up in the select committee, and it\u2019s really important that we get this in the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E. They can perform any activity to the extent that it allows them to fulfil the purpose, which is good quality local infrastructure and public services, and regulatory functions that are cost-effective. We must make sure that hierarchy is understood and is captured in the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E, and, with that, I commend it on that point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022 data-id=\u0022db54d777b295698ca5789d4f04106e40\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022db54d777b295698ca5789d4f04106e40\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North) (20:22)\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022rar\u0022\u003EKia orana\u003C/span\u003E, Mr Speaker. Well, I find it fascinating that the member Tim Costley, who has just resumed his seat, is the National Party lead and the deputy chair of the Governance and Administration Committee\u2014the very committee that considered the submissions and prepared the report for this bill\u2014and the member did not take much time to explain the issues that has led to the bill coming back. It\u2019s not as if he had a shortage of time\u2014there was plenty of time left on the clock, as well\u2014and so that is very disappointing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is a terrible bill. It is an absolutely terrible bill from a Government that spouts a lot about localism. We think about the election, when they campaigned with this sort of magic word known as \u201Clocalism\u201D, but they really don\u2019t actually know what it is. They do not know what it is. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBefore I delve in a little bit deeper, I do want to acknowledge all of those 536 submitters who took time to submit on this bill. Many of them were actually councils from around the country among the 35 organisations that were able to front up to the committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut this is an example of a Government bill that clearly indicates that Christopher Luxon continues to be out of touch. It\u2019s been some time, actually, that this bill has been sort of languishing on the Order Paper. Perhaps he would have had a little bit of time to think about whether this was a good move or not. Clearly, he has not bothered to change his mind. This is nothing more than a power grab by this Government to have centralised control out of Wellington, and it is very much undermining local communities and local democracy all around this country. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to acknowledge that the local government sector at the moment are going through an interesting time. They are going through a period of reform that has not just all come at once but, cumulatively, there has been something after something after something that they have been expected to continue to have to deal with. But this bill, overall, really does represent a backward step for local democracy and a backward step for community wellbeing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELocal government, in terms of its purpose, will be refocused under this bill, which will remove the four wellbeings. Like our colleague Celia Wade-Brown, I too was around the council table prior to the introduction of these four wellbeings, and I can tell you that when they came into being, they made the decision making focused, and, actually, you were able to identify what was important for your community in those areas.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELet\u2019s just be very clear about what it is that this Government seeks to change. They seek to remove the social wellbeing consideration. Those are things like housing opportunities, pools, recreational facilities, parks, libraries, social services, and community centres. They seek to remove the cultural element of wellbeing. What\u2019s that about? Well, it\u2019s about, again, libraries, museums, art galleries, iwi engagement, and engagement with other aspects of community life. They seek to remove the environmental component of wellbeing. What\u2019s that about? Consents, regulatory regulation, waste minimisation, waste treatment\u2014fundamentals for what it is, in terms of council land and council life. Then, finally, they seek to remove the economic wellbeing. Well, what\u2019s that about? Economic development in terms of an agency and how that\u2019s delivered, tourism opportunities, having good conferences come to your city, making money, and people spending in terms of retail opportunities as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is a Government that is signalling that, actually, we don\u2019t want councils to specifically, in legislation, focus on those four aspects of wellbeing. What they want is a completely narrow focus on infrastructure, which is important, and on the regulatory functions, which is also important. But what is not important to this Government is a broader view and an understanding that vibrancy, community connection, and democracy are important things that should be considered and be active around council tables all around this country. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThey don\u2019t seek to embrace vibrancy, they don\u2019t seek to look towards the needs of being a resilient community, and they don\u2019t seek to think about climate adaptation and all of those sorts of things. So it\u2019s a very one-track mind when it comes to this Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI have to say that what\u2019s really disturbing is that this is a bill that went through a select committee process. Once it\u2019s gone through that process and the select committee has returned its report to the House, we now learn that the Government want to go further and they want to strip away the voting rights of committee members who have been appointed to committees around council tables. We are talking about individuals who, as a collective, represent iwi, M\u0101ori, young people, and rural communities, and one other thing that they haven\u2019t quite actually latched on to is the many councils who appoint skilled-set individuals around audit and risk because they identified that that is a particular skill set that needs to be around the council table. But they have failed to address that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, why is it that this Government has not actually put those considerations through the select committee process? Instead, they\u2019ve come through the back door, once this committee has reported back to this House, and have failed to allow councils in the community to have a say on whether they think that is a good idea or not. That is absolutely disgraceful. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s disgraceful, and a sham when it comes to a Government wanting to support councils and the need for local democracy. If they knew that they were going to do this, why did they not put it into the package of items that was considered by the select committee and that members of the community were able to actually submit on? I know why they have neglected to do that: it\u2019s because they knew\u2014and they know, now\u2014that they are on the wrong side of that particular ledger. They are on the wrong side of that particular ledger.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen it does come to the committee stage, it will be interesting to actually see what\u2019s in that Amendment Paper. We heard from Mr Foster that he\u2019s got his own ideas about what should and shouldn\u2019t be in that Amendment Paper, and it\u2019ll be interesting to see what actually comes through in terms of that particular process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is a bill that is a very clear message to communities and to local government as a sector that the Government actually don\u2019t care about how you do business. They don\u2019t care about the decisions that you make to reflect your communities. They forget the fact that they, like us, have been elected into public office by the community. You wouldn\u2019t think it\u2014you wouldn\u2019t think it. So it\u2019s very disappointing that the Government are heading down this particular pathway, as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA lot of the commentary seems to be around what in the Government\u2019s mind are nice-to-haves, and, of course, roads and footpaths and waste management\u2014all of these sorts of things are important. No one is suggesting otherwise.  But so too are community facilities, so are social services in our communities, so are libraries, so are museums, so are opportunities to strengthen community connection and local democracy and decision making. This is a Government that\u2019s, basically, saying, \u201CWell, we don\u2019t really care about that sort of stuff.\u201D They seem to be saying that the reason for all of this is cost-of-living pressures. Since when has this Government ever taken cost-of-living pressures seriously? When has this Government ever taken cost-of-living pressures seriously? Never, and they never will. They had a Budget, in recent memory, when they had an opportunity to do something about that, and they failed to do exactly that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to touch on one other point, because it is important. The process is all important. One change in this bill is a change that will allow access to information by elected members. Look, I\u2019m comfortable with that\u2014we need to have elected members getting the information they need\u2014but it is interesting that an anomaly has been identified by Dr Dean Knight. I know his name has already been mentioned in the House tonight. I understand that there are other Government parties that are aware of this. The change is that the governing body\u2014i.e., the council\u2014is able to now make decisions on access to information that\u2019s held by the local authority. The problem with that is that, because the decision is being made by a council, there is no avenue for an elected member to go to the Ombudsman to challenge that information. It is a discrete issue, but it is an important one, and I do hope that the Minister and the Government have taken that on board, to initiate a change, because it will be important. If not, we\u2019ll certainly make sure that, through the committee stage, we are able to do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo conclude, again, this is a very strong signal from the Government that they are not interested in local community. They\u2019re not interested nor serious about local democracy. This is a bill that simply prioritises conformity and control on the part of the Government rather than actually looking at genuine improvements that would make a difference. The Government should be focused on strengthening local democracy, strengthening local voice, strengthening the opportunity for communities to be connected with their decision makers, and vice versa. Instead, what we constantly get from this coalition Government is a barrage of direction that is one that signals they\u2019re not actually serious about local government. They want to make life harder for households as a result, rather than easier, and it\u2019s on that fundamental basis that we oppose this bill. We will continue to do so beyond the second reading.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022673069789fe74d02ac517109c173ccbd\u0022 data-id=\u0022793291b294da6584045af1826863cfc5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022673069789fe74d02ac517109c173ccbd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022793291b294da6584045af1826863cfc5\u0022\u003EHon Dr SHANE RETI (National\u2014Whang\u0101rei) (20:32)\u003C/span\u003E: This bill takes pragmatic steps to strengthen the performance, accountability, and fiscal discipline of local government. I want to acknowledge the work of the Governance and Administration Committee and commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u00220ecd706a6f2054d5901968fba47675af\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220ecd706a6f2054d5901968fba47675af\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (20:33)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker, \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Eng\u0101 mihi o te w\u0101 Matariki ki a koe\u003C/span\u003E [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003Egreetings of the Matariki season to you\u003C/span\u003E]. How good is Matariki? So good! To everyone who\u2019s enjoying Matariki around the country at the moment, and their councils, who are putting on a great Matariki in the town square, putting on a light show, these guys want to cut it. They want to cut pools, they want to cut parks, they want to cut libraries, they want to cut our community sectors, but they can\u2019t even be honest in a bill like this. Instead, they want to take the nice part of the politics for them. They want to be tough and say we\u2019re going to be rough on rates, but then they want the mayors, they want the councils, and they want the councillors out in their communities right now, defending the ruthless cuts they have had to make to meet their rates targets.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is outrageous that, at the moment, around the country, councils are doing this great work. They are celebrating te ao M\u0101ori and the amazing tradition that we have in our Pacific voyaging nation, of Matariki, the heliacal rising of the stars of the Pleiades, and yet these guys won\u2019t even be honest: that it makes them so uncomfortable that councils are doing this important community work that they will introduce a law to stop them from doing it. They won\u2019t even be honest about that, because this is a law which messes with the Auckland Council, and that is something I cannot abide.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe hear all of the Wellington members on that side of the House get up and say, \u201CWell, actually, we need to recognise the hierarchy here.\u201D I really want every mayor in the country to know that this legislation is going to make them wear the community feedback about those public services that are important to their communities being cut. Not only that, we\u2019re going to introduce an amendment at the committee stage that will make it even harder for their elected representatives to have a truly representative council table. Shame on this Government for not backing the elected members and their communities. They are National councillors, they are National mayors around the country, and this Government is so ideologically committed to centralisation that they will dump on their own people around the country to do it. Shame on them, and I hope they are dealt to at the ballot box at this election and at the local elections, for all of those councillors elected on a blue ticket who put up with this nonsense.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat are we really dealing with here? The Auckland super-city legislation is 16 years old. I know that because they have been talking about it in this House twice today. In\u00A02009, the Minister, Rodney Hide, sat in that chair in a committee stage that lasted four days and he was defending more centralisation for Auckland. This Government continues that despite, at various times since then, seemingly opposing it. This is Wellington reorganising Auckland\u2019s affairs under that Act once again\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002273071bf0a4616c8c5997a1103e0aba17\u0022\u003ETamatha Paul\u003C/span\u003E: K\u0101piti Coast.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a45f1a0cd72ad23d5948e105a0e173c7\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS\u003C/span\u003E: K\u0101piti Coast is doing it. He\u2019s telling them what the hierarchy will be under him.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s a reorganisation which no Aucklander has asked for. No Aucklanders asked for this reorganisation that is ideological nonsense. It\u2019s an onslaught of reorganisation, and as my colleague Tangi Utikere has said, it\u2019s a power grab for centralised control. The National Government said they would do exactly the opposite when they sought election around the regions. They know this is unpopular, because they know this does not work. They should have learnt the lessons since 2010, when they reorganised Auckland and we had the bizarre situation where the Auckland mayor couldn\u2019t even set his own parking fines. He had to come to Wellington and ask for that power. This is more of the same.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHas it been good for the Manukau City Council, which lost its assets and has had such an under-investment in its parks and playgrounds that $17\u00A0million would need to be invested in that region alone to bring it up to speed in, in terms of the west and the north? No. Has it worked for the west, which had to give up some of its environmental assets and lost its regional parks? No. Has it been good for the north, which had to contribute so many services and get on the same level as the other services in the Auckland Central area? No. It has not worked for Aucklanders, and this continues much of the same.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EUnelected power is a problem in our democracy, but it is not found around the board table in the form of the audit and risk chair or the iwi M\u0101ori representatives who go to work and represent their communities; it is found in lobbyists and those people who have unrestricted access to this Government about this kind of ideological change that nobody asked for. That is the unelected power that this Government should be sorting out, but what are they doing? Dumping on M\u0101ori, dumping on the poor old accountant who is giving up his time to do this public sector appointment for less than he is worth. It is outrageous that this Government has picked that target.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is a stupid bill that they should dump, let alone push it through an urgency at a time when no one is watching what they are doing. Well, I tell you what, the councillors who are elected under a blue banner know what you\u2019re up to. The councillors who are elected under a red banner will take their places.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022739b3bbed7fe4186aa30494700144b3a\u0022 data-id=\u0022f7d6b964e61125493c8a2a74f3094efd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022739b3bbed7fe4186aa30494700144b3a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f7d6b964e61125493c8a2a74f3094efd\u0022\u003EPAULO GARCIA (National\u2014New Lynn) (20:38)\u003C/span\u003E: Too many times around the country, councils have spent far more than people consider are things about core activity for local government. This bill establishes the new regulatory framework for water services delivery. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022 data-id=\u0022d6a85da650ae3a4d199653e1a17b2f6d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d6a85da650ae3a4d199653e1a17b2f6d\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (20:38)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am the current chair of the Governance and Administration Committee, and this is not a bill that has been there since I have been chair. I had to go back, thinking, \u201CWell, that\u2019s been quite some time now\u201D, and I had one bill that I was overseeing when I came in as chair. I thought, \u201CHow long has this bill been sitting back on the Order Paper?\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI went back to have a look and to read the submissions and to read the departmental report. I see the departmental report came back to the committee in October 2025, which tells me that this has been sitting on the Order Paper for a heck of a long time. Suddenly, here we are in urgency, with some sort of rush that we need to see this bill go through, and I\u2019m not really certain why. This bill is very detrimental for our local government. It is another hit that they are getting from central government, which is incredibly disappointing, and what I want to outline here, from what I can read from the departmental report and from the submissions that I\u2019ve made, is that there\u2019s a real sense that there\u2019s a populist approach that\u2019s being taken here, and an ideological approach, rather than one that\u2019s based in reality and the evidence that local government are seeing on the ground.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI know that people have already mentioned this in their contributions, but I just wanted to make certain that the people who submitted were acknowledged for their submissions for this bill. You know, for bills that sit outside of some of those bills that we see, like Treaty principles bills that have hundreds of thousands of submissions, this isn\u2019t too bad in the number of submissions that it garnered, considering that a lot of people don\u2019t understand what the bill does. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere were 536 written submissions, and 35 of these submitters provided oral\u00A0submissions between 8 and 15 October last year. As I said, they probably have even forgotten that they did that because they haven\u2019t heard what\u2019s actually happening with the bill. Four hundred and sixteen submissions were from individuals and 120 were from organisations; of those organisations, 40 were from local authorities. That was a little bit surprising to me because we\u2019ve got more local authorities than that but it was good to get a reasonable percentage of those local authorities that were submitting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI just want to mention this figure: out of those 536 submissions, 74.4\u00A0percent of those submitters did not support this bill. When I went through and had a look at the reasons for it, I could see the desire of local authorities and of individuals to build strong communities, and that they see that this bill will take that away from them being able to make those choices and decisions, to be able to build those strong communities that will lead to the empowerment of all of the demographics that sit within those communities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve already heard, here, from my colleagues, that this bill shrinks the focus and the role of local Government down to such things as pipes, roads, and rubbish, and then ignores the wider needs of the communities. I\u2019m really concerned about that, as are many of the submitters that came through in the Governance and Administration Committee. When I read them, I started to think about localised context that I could see that would be at risk, from my own perspective. I\u2019m thinking about communities such as our disability community in Tauranga, for example, who would be completely disenfranchised under this bill. I know that some of my colleagues on the other side of the House who are sitting here this evening\u2014and we\u2019ve had a discussion around this in a car ride that we actually we shared\u2014disagree in many of these areas, but I think if you want to put your side, take your calls to have that side, but I want to put my side here too. As I say, we\u2019ve already traversed this quite a lot.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe disability community in Tauranga have been well supported by our local council, even down to having their own committee that they can see what is right for them as the city and as a community and how they can be more empowered to participate freely within that community. They\u2019ve been able to manage things like an amazing disabled changing area on the Mt Maunganui beach, which is paired with a wonderful mat that can get them down to the water very easily, that the council has supplied. That means that they can do everything that able-bodied people can do within that particular small part of our community. They can go and enjoy the beach, and it is an amazing beach that they can enjoy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGoing through the submitters at select committee, there was definitely a fear that that could be taken away under this narrowing of the focus of councils, in this bill. So we\u2019re absolutely isolating really, really vital parts of our community and that is of concern. Why do they have that fear? Because they\u2019ve seen it before; they\u2019ve seen these four wellbeings go and come back and they know that when they\u2019ve gone in the past, it has not been good for them. That came through loud and clear when I read those submissions that came through at select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other area, when I was reading this report, that I put my localised context in\u2014and I do put my hand up here because I\u2019ve got my husband involved in the Merivale Community Centre\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022200839810eb94155be7306bf21d350dd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022848936f0a8497afedb58e0dc24fadd0d\u0022\u003ESam Uffindell\u003C/span\u003E: He does a great job, too.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002246a251a27c94df063cd78392922c72ab\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI\u003C/span\u003E: But I thought\u2014thank you, from the other side; I\u2019m very proud of the work that he does, too. I have seen in very recent times, as has my colleague on the other side of the House, a brand new centre that the council got in behind and funded for that community. Merivale is the lowest socio-economic demographic community within the Tauranga boundaries, in fact it\u2019s the whole of the western bay; it is that lower socio-economic community. For 32 years, the community centre which is central to that community operated out of a not-fit-for-purpose State house, and the council could see the potential of what that community centre could do if they had a purpose-built facility, so they funded an absolutely brilliant new centre.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat centre opened in October last year\u2014ironically, the same time that this departmental report came back to the Governance and Administration Committee. Since that time, that community centre has been able to offer support to their community that they haven\u2019t been able to offer before. Because they\u2019ve got a private consult rooms, they\u2019ve been able to have different groups such as Oranga Tamariki, such as financial mentors, such as health doctors and free nurses come into the centre. They have seen more people come into that centre than what they have ever seen in the past. They have had more people and been able to support more people into jobs than what they have been able to do in the past. They have had more young people come through into their rangatahi and youth programmes than what they\u2019ve ever had in the past, and they have been able to support the young people and their families, which they\u2019ve never been able to do. They\u2019ve always worked really hard to do that, but they\u2019ve never been able to do it at the level that they\u2019ve had now. That\u2019s all because the council was able to make a localised choice and decision to support that community with this purpose-built facility. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhy I tell this story is that when I read this departmental report, it seems to me that narrowing the focus of the councils is not going to enable something like that to happen in the future, and that is of huge concern. That is what people who submitted on this bill, whether they were heard orally or not, were absolutely 100 percent concerned about. They know that those marginalised communities will be the most impacted from this piece of legislation. If that doesn\u2019t concern everyone in this House, there is something wrong because we are here to make a difference in people\u2019s lives, and that\u2019s a positive difference that we are here. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGetting people into work, getting people the support that they need because there is a purpose-built facility is surely something that each and every one of us agree with. If councils can\u2019t do that because of the choices that we have made\u2014or you have made, I should say; the choices that the other side have brought in through their legislation\u2014please put a lens to that and ask yourself if that is right, because in my opinion that is probably an unintended consequence that many on the other side of the House have not thought about. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve got a chance to get it right; we\u2019ve got a chance to get it right in the next few stages. Please think about that for all people in our community. Kia ora. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002209a9e0ddcd6341e8a20426318dc0e6c3\u0022 data-id=\u00224771fd1d162260f6f4d0ab31bf6efcab\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a9e0ddcd6341e8a20426318dc0e6c3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224771fd1d162260f6f4d0ab31bf6efcab\u0022\u003EHon MELISSA LEE (National) (20:48)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This Government is focused on fixing the basics and building the future, and what that actually means is that we want councils to get back to basics, focusing on essentials like water services, infrastructure, roading, and rubbish, so ratepayers can see real results for what they actually pay. I commend the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225322e0a4529b497cbc59faf0515037dd\u0022 data-id=\u00222442fe8efb3e2cc75b49dadad574610b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225322e0a4529b497cbc59faf0515037dd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222442fe8efb3e2cc75b49dadad574610b\u0022\u003ESHANAN HALBERT (Labour) (20:49)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Heck, what a bill that\u2019s before us this evening. When I look at this, I can\u2019t believe that in such a short time, within only 2\u00BD years, the National Party, last election, was campaigning on localism\u2014on localism\u2014about ensuring that Auckland had its voice, and here we are with the bill in front of the House today, in second reading, where, once again, it is clearly Wellington telling Auckland how to suck eggs. It\u2019s Wellington telling Auckland how to run their council.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAnyone that is a representative in Auckland is going to know that this is not going to go down well with Auckland Council or with Mayor Wayne Brown. I wonder\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002284fabf64675c112826a8e2273e6d13ae\u0022\u003EHon Paul Goldsmith\u003C/span\u003E: He\u2019s not your friend.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225322e0a4529b497cbc59faf0515037dd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228cc660af304bb7858c621b0e79bbcfa3\u0022\u003ESHANAN HALBERT\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, he is my friend. I wonder if anyone has spoken to him to tell him, actually, the impact of this bill on our council, our decision-making processes, and our communities. Where I live, in Northcote, there\u2019s a bunch of questions that have been raised by my local board.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen you remove the four wellbeings, you start to remove the environmental focus that\u2019s important for our community\u2014organisations like Kaip\u0101tiki Project, like Pest Free Kaip\u0101tiki. Members over the other side need to answer what is going to happen to them when we look down the road and this Government says that you can only focus on roads and rubbish, council, because you\u2019re \u201Cfixing the basics\u201D. Well, whose measuring sticks are those basics? It\u2019s not the measuring stick of our people in Auckland. It\u2019s not the measuring stick of our communities. You ask anyone. They want great facilities for our kids to go to. They want wonderful sport and recreation facilities and pools. They want an environmental focus. They want spaces and places and recreational areas where you can go to as a family, but most of all where you can be a community.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen I hear this Government talk about more accountability, here it is again, Wellington telling Auckland how to suck eggs, how to do their business, what\u2019s good for Auckland. It\u2019s another example where this Government has broken promises. Remember this: they promised to fix the economy; they haven\u2019t done that. They promised to provide respite with the cost of living, and things have got more expensive under their watch. They promised localism, and this bill doesn\u2019t deliver that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOf course, the big question mark that\u2019s around at the moment is about representation\u2014unelected representation on committees. What\u2019s the motivation there, National Party\u2014what\u2019s the motivation there? Anyone that sits on a governing body knows about the importance of having key skills to make good decisions for your organisation\u2014whether that\u2019s cultural, whether that\u2019s business skills, whether that\u2019s accounting skills. That happens in any organisation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022207cf9f8edb80cbdd4b96770fef7cf04\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Why are you picking on the accountants?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225322e0a4529b497cbc59faf0515037dd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226bde6064c717deeb5551618446494417\u0022\u003ESHANAN HALBERT\u003C/span\u003E: But let\u2019s be clear: it\u2019s not just about the accountants, is it? It\u2019s not just about the accountants. This isn\u2019t just about the ACT Party. This is about the National Party. This is about the National Party\u2019s decisions of removing localism, taking it away, and ensuring that M\u0101ori have less of a voice around decision-making tables.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s important that every MP in the National Party that is based in Auckland, you\u2019ve got a few groups to stand up to, to communicate your message to, over the coming months. By God, it\u2019s going to be good on the hustings, because you\u2019ll be going around there and you\u2019ll have to explain yourselves why you\u2019re giving up on our local pools. You\u2019ll have to stand up to iwi, to urban M\u0101ori, and tell them and explain yourselves why you don\u2019t want them around the committees and influencing and informing decisions. You\u2019re going to have to do that, and I\u2019m looking forward to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo this National Government and the ACT Party and their failure to deliver for our communities: bring it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220a2f294f5b1b4eb50021d5ec47ee42f6\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments recommended by the Governance and Administration Committee by majority be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004197\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004200\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill be now read a second time\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004206\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a second time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002278a4f1c09feb9b498bd9e2714b027411\u0022\u003ECrimes Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00228c3636d71beac40c645ace1aca79883a\u0022\u003ELegislative Statement\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022 data-id=\u002259a7b9c734e10083590bccfe18fcaebb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002259a7b9c734e10083590bccfe18fcaebb\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (20:56)\u003C/span\u003E: I present a legislative statement on the Crimes Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002251e78dc277e46446fbdefad6f536864c\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a81e38ab8f6163a665bb96528be55944\u0022\u003ESecond Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022 data-id=\u0022d908819845eefeb46d0db4991e0c32e9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d908819845eefeb46d0db4991e0c32e9\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (20:57)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Crimes Amendment Bill be now read a second time\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the core pledges of this Government when we came into office 2\u00BD years ago was to restore law and order. That is the work of generations and is certainly the work of all New Zealanders\u2014to fix the basics and build a future where people feel safe in their communities. That has been an unerring focus of this Government for the last 2\u00BD, years, and this bill, the Crimes Amendment Bill, is about putting victims at the heart of our justice system, and it strengthens consequences for crime. It builds on work that we\u2019ve done bringing back real consequences for crime through changes to the Sentencing Act and three strikes, but it also moves its focus to dealing with matters around retail crime.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to thank the Justice Committee for its careful consideration of the bill\u2014very hard-working committee\u2014and extend my hand across the aisle to work and contributions on the other side. The committee received 233 submissions on the bill, and I want to thank all the submitters and the time that they put into it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo what does it cover? Coward punch\u2014what it does there is it recognises the horrendous nature of these so-called coward punches, where people come and attack somebody from behind, with no warning, to the head and can turn a life upside down. The bill targets perpetrators of these attacks by adding three coward punch offences to the mandatory sentencing framework of three strikes and maximum penalties for coward punches causing grievous bodily harm increasing to eight and 15 years depending on the intent. The coward punch manslaughter offence defines this category of violent offending and responds to the need for greater denunciation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Act will be another tool for police in their response to violent crime. While I\u2019m sympathetic to calls for even tougher responses around, say, minimum sentences, that can\u2019t be accommodated within the confines of this crimes bill, but it\u2019s something that people can give consideration to over time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, the committee also notes that the Government\u2019s capping of sentence discounts is already increasing sentences for coward punch offenders and will make it more likely that fewer of such offenders would be eligible for home detention, for example. I\u2019ll continue to monitor the impact of the recent sentencing reforms on penalties imposed for coward punch cases. I also intend to put an Amendment Paper to better address this issue at the committee stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second area is around citizen\u2019s arrest. There has been a lot of discussion around that matter. We are recognising that we\u2019ve had provisions in place for a long time for things happening at night after 9 p.m., but during the day it\u2019s been a different regime. We were concerned about instances, particularly in the retail crime sector, of people walking off with trolleys full of food, not paying, people seeing that, and undermining public confidence in law and order in our community. We wanted to make it clear that people, security workers for example, can grab hold of somebody and hang on to them, with very clear instructions that they need to immediately call the police and follow the instructions of the police.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere have been a lot of comments about this, and I just want to make the point, of course, that nobody is compelled to do anything. Everybody will make a judgment based on the circumstances of the time, and whether they think it\u2019s safe to get involved or not. Businesses can decide whether they\u2019ll have protocols around this, or not, but we heard a very strong call, particularly from small, family-owned dairies and retailers who wanted to have another tool available to them to deal with what continues to be a real problem in the retail crime sector.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnother one is shoplifting. This bill brings in an infringement regime for shoplifting. At the moment, if you steal a small amount of goods from a shop, the only option is to arrest that person and send them off to court. That\u2019s quite a high threshold. Our concern was, well, the outcome of that is that a lot of people tend to, in practice, get away with it and face no real consequences. An infringement regime provides an opportunity for a police officer to bring an instant consequence such as a fine, such as a speeding ticket situation, so that there are immediate consequences. It doesn\u2019t replace our theft offences, but it\u2019s another tool for police to use.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, our human trafficking offences are strengthened by this bill. As one submitter noted, these reforms are long overdue and warmly welcome. They\u2019ll help close loopholes and better equip law enforcement to hold traffickers accountable, and that\u2019s what we\u2019re prepared to do there. As a result of consultation with agencies, I intend to take a step further with an Amendment Paper which will remove requirements around the Attorney-General\u2019s consent for cross-border trafficking offences.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, the bill brings in tougher consequences for people who attack first responders, those Kiwis who go racing into danger\u2014our prison officers, constables, ambulance staff, firefighters\u2014and with intent-to-injure offences added to the mandatory sentencing framework for three strikes. All of these, collectively, bring a continuation of this Government\u2019s effort to restore real consequences for crime and to push back against the tide of retail crime that we saw when we came into power 2\u00BD years ago. We\u2019ve made great progress as a country. People do feel safer in this country, but we\u2019re very conscious that there is much, much more to do, and this legislation will continue that effort.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227d402c6a3da8b06b171c5f4aa0a20919\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u00227f0d069edd79713e56d305334502b708\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227f0d069edd79713e56d305334502b708\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (21:03)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It\u2019s good to be able to speak on this bill. I have to say, there are many good intents in this bill, but the way it has been put forward for this Parliament has been extremely disorganised and frustrating. The Minister of Justice just stated that he was grateful for the help of the Justice Committee, and I do want to commend the select committee. We did work hard on this bill, and prior to my arrival on it too.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is a law, but I have to say, there is no order in it. I have criticised the Government for a lack of evidence in their approach to criminal legislation, or justice legislation, and I have to say, in this instance, I would settle for some analysis, because a lot of the provisions in here, unfortunately, won\u2019t deliver for victims and may actually make the situation worse. It does cover a lot. I\u2019ll try and make sure that I go over everything, but we do have a bit of a timeline here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFirst of all, we had this proposal\u2014this covers a lot of different amendments, and it is an amendment to the Crimes Act. Well, that is our first flag that something is not going quite right, because we have the police providing advice, before this was introduced by the Minister, saying that they didn\u2019t think there was a need for the coward punch offence. That\u2019s not to take anything away from the families and the victims of coward punches. We know that a lot of the reason this law has come to the House is through the advocacy of families in tragic situations where unspeakable and inexcusable crimes have been committed against people who have, in many instances, lost their lives. There are two offences in this bill\u2014one around manslaughter and one around grievous bodily harm\u2014that relate to coward punches. Sadly, the flags were there that this, potentially, as a solution, as a way of addressing some of the tragic instances that had occurred, may not be the best vehicle for addressing that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe also had Crown Law noting that serious offending in relation to wounding with intent is already dealt with, in relation to assault on first responders. We have two very august organisations\u2014Crown Law and the Police\u2014raising concerns before this was even taken to Cabinet. Then we had the introduction, and in good faith, we supported the bill to select committee to see if we could work through some of the issues there, even though there were a lot of things that we were very concerned about. We did have, immediately after the introduction, an amendment sought straight away, and that was because the amendment that the Minister wanted was actually under the Summary Offences Act and not under the Crimes Act, and was therefore not within the scope of the original bill. There\u2019s some serious disorganisation here in the Minister\u2019s office that, unfortunately, has led to a number of issues not being dealt with in a way that would have led to the smooth running of this particular bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen we have a number of issues that are raised in the bill. I want to make sure that I mention the trafficking offences, because this is something that we are very supportive of. In fact, the wording in the legislation is very similar to a member\u2019s bill I had in my own name in the ballot. I support it. I think that they\u2019re overdue, and I know a colleague from the National Party, Greg Fleming, had a member\u2019s bill in his name and this was adopted as a Government bill. I am extremely supportive of these trafficking offences. The Labour Party is supportive of this. We\u2019ve taken other measures through the joint Modern Slavery Bill to show how committed we are to updating our law in relation to modern slavery. On their own, that would be something that we would support wholeheartedly. These changes are overdue, and we commend the Government for bringing this aspect of the Crimes Amendment Bill to the House. However, it has been, sadly, through disorganisation, overshadowed by some of these other aspects of this bill, which have been brought to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis does cover a lot of different issues. We\u2019ve got the citizen\u2019s arrest. Now, this was due to, as the Minister said, people in small businesses like dairies wanting to have citizen\u2019s arrest power. Sadly, during the select committee process, we heard a number of businesses not very supportive of this because of the conflict that it may have with the Health and Safety at Work Act. Although these are meant to allay some of the community\u2019s concerns, some of the very businesses that this particular provision was targeted at were not happy with those provisions. I think there are potentially issues that will arise. Obviously, we already have citizen\u2019s arrest provisions which are in place, and this bill looked to strengthen them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve mentioned the coward punch offences. This was extremely problematic for the committee. We are worried, and we did receive advice, as we have noted in our publicly available report, that it may be that fewer offenders who have committed a coward punch are actually convicted of that offence under these new provisions. This is what I mean when I say that of course victims should be the central concern of Parliament\u2019s attention when we look to change the Crimes Act, but, in this instance, we have a provision which, on the advice of many submitters and officials, looks to mean that there may potentially be fewer successful convictions for this type of offence. I know that\u2019s not the intent of the Government, but, sadly, that is the advice we received, so we can only reflect what has actually happened in this instance. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe also had quite a bit of advice around first responders. Now, of course, I think there would be a general understanding that if people are injured in their job as a first responder, if they are targeted because they are being a first responder\u2014if people are at work and they\u2019re injured as a result of being at work, I have sympathy for the fact that the people who commit that offence against those workers should be held to account. We did have a bit of a discussion about, could we extend that? Could it be people in the course of their duty? Could it be anyone who was helping someone else in the course of their work? But that was not accepted and we weren\u2019t able to broaden that out, so that offence sits there as an additional offence\u2014whether that\u2019s necessary or not, or whether it could have been worked up to be the slightly more fulsome offence, we were not able to get agreement around that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen we look at the theft offences. Now, this is something that looks to be a simple change but actually has some quite extreme consequences for the country. Just before I talk about that, on the coward punch, we are expecting\u2014and it was foreshadowed by the Minister\u2014further amendments on that particular provision to be brought to the House at committee stage. This goes back to my original point that the Minister either has not thought through how the law is going to work or hasn\u2019t taken advice on how this law should work in a way that is actually going to achieve its objectives.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is not us saying that we are opposed, in any ideological sense, to taking law and order seriously or having people held to account for their crimes. It\u2019s actually a more fundamental thing with this law, in that it actually hasn\u2019t been drafted in a way that works to meet its objectives. That\u2019s partly because some of the offences should have been in the Summary Offences Act. If they were, then maybe we could have more of a pure debate on the relevance and whether those particular offences were something that we either agreed with or didn\u2019t agree with. But as we have it, what we have is actually a mess. The work hasn\u2019t been done. It had been brought to the House last year and it still has not been able to be fixed, because of these fundamental issues with the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019re expecting a new amendment; that is regretful. I think we\u2019re all working hard and we\u2019ve said in good faith that we will put up amendments to try and fix aspects of this bill. I don\u2019t want colleagues on the other side to think that we are washing our hands of this. We want the best law possible for New Zealand. Unfortunately, this law is a total mess, and we will put up amendments on that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do want to just say: the theft offences have changed the fines, but one of the things that have changed is that\u2014basically, for stealing anything, you can go to prison for a year. The result of that is the number of female prisoners is expected to surge by 63 percent in the next decade. That is a huge change as a result of what appears to be quite a minor change in this bill. It\u2019s very disappointing to see this, because these are not violent offences. We know what the effect of incarceration, especially of mothers, has on families, and we don\u2019t have the prisons to support these people. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe can\u2019t support this bill at this stage because it\u2019s a total mess and it will make things worse for victims and New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022d29bfaa4cf9aca6c758d0eb9a9e90fb3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d29bfaa4cf9aca6c758d0eb9a9e90fb3\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (21:14)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand will not be supporting the Crimes Amendment Bill. We didn\u2019t support it through first reading and, after select committee, we\u2019re even more convinced that it\u2019s a terribly\u2014well, most of this\u2014it\u2019s a terribly-drafted piece of legislation. There are obviously some parts of this bill, as the previous speaker has alluded to, that we could have supported in isolation: the exploitation offences, for example, in particular, is an area that is much needed, in terms of what we heard from the feedback from submitters. I want to start by discussing that before I move on to some of the more problematic aspects of this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think, when we\u2019re looking at exploitation offences, what we\u2019re not seeing as a part of this bill is the fact that there are no additional protections. You know, we talk about victims and the rights and the protection of victims, but this bill itself\u2014and I haven\u2019t seen any other bill that\u2019s been introduced that will discuss what are some of these better protections for victims. Some of the things have been called for by submitters were non-punishment for crimes committed as a result of being trafficked; protection visas; resourcing to access legal and specialist trafficking services and rehabilitation programmes; a national strategy plan\u2014one that is resourced\u2014to allow for the underlying drivers of vulnerability to trafficking, such as poverty, housing security, family violence, and lack of access to education opportunities, which led to some of these dependencies we see in migration. That is one area that we, in isolation, could have supported.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to discuss some of the other areas, and I\u2019ll start by the citizen\u2019s arrests. Now, this is an incredibly controversial aspect. This bill not only extends the scope of citizen\u2019s arrests, I believe, in section 35 of the Crimes Act, but, more importantly, it applies now to every single crime under the Crimes Act. They have also\u2014despite, even, the advice from the ministerial advisory group\u2014not included an age limit for that. So, yes, there is a chance where people, in the heat of the moment\u2014I think in the heat of the moment is the best time for them to have rational judgments when it comes to citizen\u2019s arrests. So what we\u2019re going to be seeing is kids who are going to be handcuffed, because you can use mechanical restraint as a part of that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s not all of the crimes under the Crimes Act. You know what is a crime under the Crimes Act? Common assault. You bump into someone without consent\u2014bam! You could be citizen arrested. You witness an employer stealing from you\u2014bam! You can be citizen arrested. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d9c0018bb80bb3e3607928339315c286\u0022\u003EHon James Meager\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s not common assault. You need intention.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022163c0ca35437891988c31f3f8699e241\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: No\u2014if you read the bill, the Hon James Meager, you will know that all of those are now captured under this bill, because there is now no longer a limit when it comes to certain offences or even a year threshold, because common offences\u2014which, by the way, is section 196 of the Crimes Act, I believe\u2014is considered under a citizen\u2019s arrest.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e9e40b030daf33c08f48c07ca7f9af8a\u0022\u003EHon James Meager\u003C/span\u003E: Absolutely, bumping into someone is not common assault. It requires mens rea.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022382082d2844203544c125f054271b59f\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Well, you know what? In the heat of the moment, you can rationalise that with a person who is going to be arresting that member for conducting a common assault.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat is more egregious about the citizen\u2019s arrests is the fact that literally everyone, except for the Minister\u2019s precious Ministerial Advisory Group for Victims of Retail Crime\u2014a group of people that, by the end of it, was basically left with two, who had no experience in criminal law, no experience when it comes to understanding the complexity of the criminal system. In their report, they themselves said that \u201COne of our weaknesses is having no legal expertise to make a decision on this element.\u201D\u2014despite the opposition from former members of that ministerial advisory group from Retail New Zealand, from Business New Zealand, and even from the Police, who submitted and said that this is not going to be good for people. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELike the previous speaker said, we already have citizen\u2019s arrests, and one of the biggest challenges we\u2019re seeing now with people who conduct citizen\u2019s arrests is that, after a certain period of time, if the police don\u2019t arrive, they have to let them go, so you enter this awkward situation that you have just escalated a situation, arrested someone, and the police, for whatever reason, couldn\u2019t turn up and you have to let them go. We\u2019re now going to be seeing more of that, which is where the previous speaker said that there are then serious concerns from a health-and-safety perspective, because\u2014whether you like it or not\u2014under the new bill, even these would potentially be considered critical risks to the employees of that retail store. ACC\u2014we\u2019re going to be seeing more payouts as a result of that. These are the things that this bill has not thought through.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to move on, now, to the one-punch attack, coward punch, or strike to the head and neck. This is a complex section and I am disappointed that the Justice Committee said \u201CWe agreed to take this part out because we\u2019ve heard from officials that our culpable homicide regime is delicately balanced and the way that we have put this in this bill is not going to work. So we said that we are going to take it out.\u201D Then at the eleventh hour they put it back in. That meant that the Opposition, the rest of us have to go and essentially redraft our differing view because that\u2019s how late it was; go back and redraft our differing view to highlight our concern with this reinsertion of the one-punch attack, because it wasn\u2019t appropriate to put it under the Crimes Act. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow we hear from the Minister that there is going to be a new amendment coming through in the committee stage. I would like to remind that Minister of the guidance given by the Speaker, which is: if you now know that it\u2019s going to be available, release it now and make sure it\u2019s available; don\u2019t release it two hours before the committee stage. That\u2019s more something for the Minister himself to consider in terms of that particular amendment bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other things that we wanted to hear is, yes, this absolutely is a concern. We have heard from victims and we have heard from their families and we absolutely acknowledge the pain and suffering that people have to go through as a result of this. But what we are not seeing, for example, is how this is going to work with existing legislation. We know that there is no opportunity, for example, for the reinstatement of the three strikes legislation to see how that is going to work with this particular bill, being one example of that. Like the previous speaker has said, this\u2014and the unworkability around this\u2014has meant that there are going to be issues within the criminal system when it comes to how they are going to be able to process or work through this unwieldy piece of legislation. It\u2019s going to create additional confusion for the jury, which could potentially even lead to acquittal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe next thing I want to touch on, and the final bit I want to touch on for this particular reading, is the second part of retail crime, which is a very unorthodox way of introducing another part that doesn\u2019t have a purpose to this bill\u2014the Amendment Paper 436\u2014and they expect the Governance and Administration Committee to include it as a part of this particular bill. Again, as the Minister himself has said, could have been introduced as a separate bill, yet they\u2019re trying to add it in here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOverall, there are very few parts of this bill that are going to work in action. The Green Party reinstates that if we are going to address the issue of crime, we must address the drivers of crime, whereas this Government cares about the victims but will only care when there\u2019s a victim in the first place. Well, here is our revolutionary idea: how about if we ensure we have a system where there are no victims in the first place? The way that we can address that is by providing the very basics that are the fundamental right of every single person here in Aotearoa New Zealand. We are going to be seeing a reduction of crime if we provide sufficient housing, not in the case of the move on order the Government is introducing. We can have reduction in crime if you have better mental health services, better education as opposed to disengagement of the youth. So the Green Party will not support this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022443f23de4cbd464f91833e6c466c98c0\u0022 data-id=\u00227d0865792586f40278231da7f3cacd3b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022443f23de4cbd464f91833e6c466c98c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227d0865792586f40278231da7f3cacd3b\u0022\u003ETODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (21:24)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, it gives me great pleasure to rise on behalf of ACT and speak on the Crimes Amendment Bill. In ACT, we really want to make sure that we can unlock New Zealand\u2019s potential\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ddd19f97d6213910a5a7ab71aa1a8a3b\u0022\u003EHon Member: \u003C/span\u003EIt doesn\u2019t mean you have to lock everyone up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022443f23de4cbd464f91833e6c466c98c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022173791861728d7a65d5da839f557d26d\u0022\u003ETODD STEPHENSON\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014but that is very difficult if your business is being attacked by a criminal. It\u2019s very difficult if you don\u2019t feel safe to walk down your own street, and so ACT, as part of this Government, continues to be focused on law and order. I want to say to the Green member: we\u2019ve actually made great advances in reducing victims of crime over the time of our Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill does a number of things, and I\u2019m not going traverse them all, but it does actually increase a new theft around offence, and we heard about that; it\u2019s particularly when you\u2019re doing something that\u2019s threatening. We\u2019ve got the important changes around the penalties around slavery and dealing with human trafficking, and there\u2019s new offences around theft, the ticketing regime, so again\u2014and now raising the monetary thresholds. Again, a lot of this is to do with dealing with retail crime, which is a huge problem. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s a couple of other important things in here. One is the new assault offences for first responders, so those people in our community\u2014ambulance officers, fire personnel who are actually just going about their job, trying to do their job, either putting out a fire, picking up someone who\u2019s been injured, and making sure they\u2019re looked after. The other new offence in here is this one of a coward punch. There\u2019s been a little bit of commentary on this tonight, and this was actually an offence, along with the first responders, that was part of the New Zealand First and National coalition agreement. The Justice Committee did spend a lot of time looking at this and it did become obvious that the coward punch, which is a horrendous crime and actually deserves its own offence and a proper penalty to go with it, was something that we actually wanted to do something about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EUnfortunately, yes, we probably needed to do it not just in the Crimes Act but in the Sentencing Act. That became apparent that we could just be creating an offence without any real teeth. Now I\u2019m not one to be deterred, so I looked at a way of dealing with that; I put forward an amendment to the Justice Committee which would ensure there was an eight-year minimum sentence for a conviction of a coward punch. ACT will be tabling that again when we get to the committee of the whole House, because it is important. Just because it wasn\u2019t in our coalition agreement doesn\u2019t mean that we can\u2019t improve this bill and make sure that we are actually delivering the sentences that community wants. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s what ACT is committed to: making sure the sentences for criminal acts actually reflect what the community wants. We\u2019ll not only be supporting this bill, we will be working with our coalition partners to improve it as much as we possibly can. I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f36277cb754947fa93977a31a33abd49\u0022 data-id=\u00225b6bb5ef327fc11e01d0cf85313c8e58\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f36277cb754947fa93977a31a33abd49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225b6bb5ef327fc11e01d0cf85313c8e58\u0022\u003EHon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police) (21:27)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, I\u2019d like to just take a moment of my time to recognise the 40th commemoration of the sinking of the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ELady Elizabeth II \u003C/span\u003Eon 2 of July 1986, which saw the loss of two serving police officers, Constable Glenn Hughes and Senior Sergeant Phil Ward, and recognised the incredible bravery of the pilot Peter Button, who along with his son, saved the two other police officers. I just thought it was worth mentioning in the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Crimes Amendment Bill and would note, first of all, that New Zealand First will be invoking the agree to disagree on this piece of legislation. The Crimes Amendment Bill encompasses a few pieces of work and is important to the delivery of the National and New Zealand First coalition agreement, significantly in terms of the coward punch culpability and the first responders\u2019 protection. New Zealand First has long advocated for the coward punch legislation. We have been lobbying for this for quite some time and it is the reason that we included it in our coalition agreement. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe note that every effort has been made to make that an effective piece of legislation, but only creating a new offence technically meets the coalition agreement commitment, but it is at strong risk of creating an offence that is, effectively, window dressing. We know there is significant concern about the sentencing of coward punch assaults and deaths. Without minimum mandatory sentencing, we are not changing the dial. New Zealand First\u2019s differing position has been outlined in the select committee report and we will make amendments in the committee stage of the House. We acknowledge ACT\u2019s efforts in this space also.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESimilarly, New Zealand First\u2019s commitment to protecting first responders, as included in the coalition agreement, specifically talked about including mandatory sentences. . The current legislation does not meet this agreement. We fully appreciate the complexity and the impact of minimum mandatory sentences, but we acknowledge that it is not without precedent in New Zealand law and believe we can do better. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is the position of New Zealand First that being tough on crime means drawing a clear line in the sand about what we as a society will tolerate and where greater protection is essential. Allowing those who attack individuals without any ability to defend themselves, causing grievous bodily harm and often death, the protection of being able to say that it was just one punch\u2014which means that there is lighter sentencing or less seriousness applied\u2014is unacceptable. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe risk that someone dies from a single punch and then you have the ability to claim a degree of innocence in your assault because it was just one punch is just unacceptable, and we have to send a stronger message. The reality is that the coward punch is a planned, intended assault on someone who is attacked in a way that removes the victim\u2019s ability to defend themselves. Our laws should respond appropriately.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESimilarly, anyone who attacks a first responder\u2014the people that we send in front of us when others step back deserve protection. Anyone who crosses the line and attacks a first responder should know the seriousness of the minimum mandatory sentence that will be applied for that assault. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe in this House should be providing the assurance to our front line that we know what we expect of them, and they should expect more of us. For this reason, we will be invoking the agree to disagree provision. But I would highlight that that is not the only clause of the bill and, as has been spoken to, there are a number of clauses and conditions within this legislation, some which we support strongly. The changes around the sentencing and the conditions around the exploitation and trafficking offences are important, and we acknowledge that. The removal of the Attorney-General as a decision maker is also critically important. We need to be bringing more trafficking convictions and prosecutions, and this will make the pathway simpler.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut we do, with caution, acknowledge the increasing powers of arrest capable for citizens. Our concern is reflecting on the fact that the clear message that we are sending is that you can arrest. As New Zealand First is a strong advocate for protecting our front-line workers, the hard-working Kiwi battlers that are working in our businesses, we want to be assured that there will be no compulsion or obligation on anyone to act and invoke a power of arrest. We also are cautious about the level of responsibility that has been placed on police officers to, over the phone, give direction or make conditions, and how they will be compelled to respond in the response to someone who\u2019s been arrested. We believe that this can be operationalised and there will be work done to make that happen, but we are cautious of the impacts of this and how it impacts our front-line workers and our retailers and our employees that are working in businesses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn summary, this is a complex piece of legislation, as has been outlined. We do support and we will support the bill through to the committee stage, but we are cautious about the impacts and we are critical of the final conclusions that have been reached around the first responder protections and the coward punch legislation. Thank you, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022 data-id=\u0022b15375bd8bd72a83bce221e6c910f011\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b15375bd8bd72a83bce221e6c910f011\u0022\u003ETAMATHA PAUL (Green\u2014Wellington Central) (21:33)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I\u2019ve only got five minutes, and there\u2019s a lot in this bill. I think the overarching criticism that we have of this bill which means that we can\u2019t support it is that it just\u2014if making something a crime stopped it from happening, we wouldn\u2019t have the levels of abuse and violence, family violence, and sexual violence that we have in this country. Whenever there is a bill that introduces a new offence or a new type of crime or that increases the penalties for certain types of crimes, the way that we assess that is\u2014there\u2019s multiple measures, but one of them is to ask whether this is identifying a genuine gap in legislation that doesn\u2019t already exist. An example of that is that we, obviously, supported the stalking law because that was a really big gap in the law which meant that lots of people were not able to get justice and were not able to have any action being taken by police or by the courts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe problem that we have with this bill is that there are\u2014to give credit where credit is due, there are parts of this that we do support. There are acts set out in this bill that we fully support being recognised and identified, because they represent a gap within legislation. However, there are also some really concerning parts of this bill, as well, and we think that it\u2019s a disservice to those victims and those communities who have been impacted by some of these types of crimes to designate it as a crime, but to not go any further to address the root causes of those crimes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think one of the biggest examples in this bill is that it increases penalties around shoplifting. As my colleague Camilla Belich raised, the amount of women that we see cycling through courts and the corrections system, with their most serious offence being shoplifting, is just such a waste. I\u2019ve spoken to these women before, and I can assure you that for many of these women, it\u2019s not because there\u2019s a thrill in stealing and it\u2019s not because they want to hurt anybody; it\u2019s because they\u2019re starving. They\u2019ve got no money, they can\u2019t feed themselves, and they can\u2019t feed their kids, and nobody in this room understands how it feels to be so hungry that you have to resort to something like that. I promise you that locking somebody up for that, and these small amounts that we\u2019re talking about, is not going to solve any of their issues. In fact, it\u2019s going to create a life cycle of going in and out of the justice system and costing the State so much more than it will ever cost any of those retailers for the things that are stolen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne thing that I really wanted to highlight is the citizen\u2019s arrest bill. The fact that there are no age limits and that this could impact children reminds me of Bruce Emery, who murdered a kid, Pihema Cameron, who was tagging on his fence, and that is the consequence of people taking matters into their own hands. Let\u2019s all admit that we don\u2019t have the skills\u2014very few people have the skills\u2014to de-escalate a situation, but particularly if it involves children, and I think about some of the youth crime waves that we\u2019ve seen, noting that youth crime is at a low\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a6537bb51e3844b2e877447d8336f8c5\u0022\u003EHon Dr Duncan Webb\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Oh, no\u2014sorry. Well, I\u2019ll explain myself. It appeared that there wasn\u2019t a Minister in the House, but it turns out that James Meager was scratching his shoe.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229340121dc81249448c21826f94adceca\u0022\u003ETAMATHA PAUL\u003C/span\u003E: Anyway, where was I? Can I get an extra minute for that interruption?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI think about the fact that this young man, this 15-year-old kid, lost his life because someone took matters and justice into their own hands when someone was breaking the law, and somebody lost their life because of that. That is something that we need to reflect on. I think it\u2019s a pretty big red flag if the police themselves\u2014the people who are meant to respond to these citizen\u2019s arrests\u2014don\u2019t support the bill. But it\u2019s also concerning when the advisory group that made these recommendations had all but dissolved by the end of it, and then we\u2019re taking the word of Sunny Kaushal. I\u2019m trying to understand why this Government is so intent on listening to this guy when he has no legal experience. He doesn\u2019t understand the criminal justice system. He\u2019s\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022154727523a59431ab210aea1cf707272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002249fc6b2f971af52796d23c1130e8ea28\u0022\u003EHon Priyanca Radhakrishnan\u003C/span\u003E: Paying him to shut him up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220e2cbdb0b48b9433d62820d7852e3efc\u0022\u003ETAMATHA PAUL\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, exactly. He\u2019s come and spoken to us at the Justice Committee and what was so evident to me was that this was a guy that does not understand what he\u2019s talking about, and he has this massive political influence and it will impact lives. When people are assaulted, whether that\u2019s the shopkeeper enforcing the citizen\u2019s arrest or the person that is shoplifting, this Government will have to answer to those consequences and to any harm that is created by such irresponsible lawmaking.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022 data-id=\u00228e7a62b26c88e01a2988c457f2c3135c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228e7a62b26c88e01a2988c457f2c3135c\u0022\u003ETOM RUTHERFORD (National\u2014Bay of Plenty) (21:39)\u003C/span\u003E: We are a Government focused on fixing the basics and building the future, and in this space, we are prioritising greater justice for victims and stronger consequences for offenders. As a former volunteer firefighter myself, we were the ones running towards danger, day in, day out. My brother Ben, who is a police officer in this country, puts on his uniform to protect the country, and what we can do as legislators is protect them to do their job every single day. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u0022292e22872c9f80cf1e04a5140e8ce96f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022292e22872c9f80cf1e04a5140e8ce96f\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (21:39)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill is a hotchpotch. It\u2019s got one good section, or a couple of good sections, around modern slavery and under-cover police officers, which are good improvements, but you can\u2019t wrap this in a couple of good sections, because the rest of it is hopelessly bad.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf we start with citizen\u2019s arrest\u2014nobody wants this. The only person who wanted this was the scone-eating ministerial group into retail crime, who were a total waste of money and came up with all of these crazy ideas, including allowing dairy owners to use mechanical restraints to arrest shoplifters. Now, the police are well aware of the fact that you have to be carefully trained to detain someone and that if you\u2019re going to detain someone, you have to know what to do next. If you detain someone and it turns out you\u2019ve done it wrong, they\u2019re going to be a little upset, but you\u2019re going to have to let them go. Even if they were shoplifting and the police say, \u201CLook, we\u2019re a bit busy with a much more serious crime. We can\u2019t attend. You\u2019re going to have to release them.\u201D, what happens at that point is very complicated and actually quite dangerous.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe certainly don\u2019t want people in retail situations to have some kind of expectation that they will be not just security guards but police officers and arrest and detain people who they find shoplifting, because it\u2019s not their job and it\u2019s not safe. The retail association, the police know that, the supermarkets know that, so it\u2019s no surprise that the overwhelming majority of submissions said, \u201CThat\u2019s a bad idea.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen we come to this creation of a new offence, the strike to the head or neck. It\u2019s really problematic, and, in fact, it\u2019s ironic, and I\u2019m not sure if I regret it or not, but here we had an offence that was so unworkable, and, in fact, would, in its original form, have had the effect of more acquittals\u2014more people getting off scot-free. What the original proposal was was this: you had the coward punch offence, a surprise attack to the head or neck. The irony is this: if someone walks past someone at a bus stop and pushes them in the chest and they fall over and crack their head and die, that\u2019s not a coward punch, but if they slap them in the face and they fall over and crack their head and die, that is a coward punch.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELook, let\u2019s be clear: when people engage in violent behaviour, this side of the House agrees that the law should come down on them. There should be an appropriate response which does all of those things that the criminal law should: denounce, punish, deter\u2014all of those kinds of things. But here we had the perverse situation where this was going to be very hard to prove. You had to prove that the blow was unexpected. If two people are in an argument, at what point does a blow become unexpected? If one person pokes someone in the chest, and the other person punches them in the face, is that unexpected? I don\u2019t know, but a jury would have to answer that question, and chances are that they\u2019d say, in many cases, no, it\u2019s not unexpected; that is a predictable outcome of an argument of that nature. Here\u2019s the really perverse thing: as drafted, that would have meant an acquittal, and they would get off scot-free.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf you charge someone with manslaughter, all you have to prove is a base level of negligence and a death, and once you prove those two things, you get a conviction, and the rest of the argument is about how serious it is. That\u2019s the law as it stands today and prior to this coward punch coming into force. You could look at the full range of offending, from an unprovoked attack to a stupid but accidental death, and that also would be a manslaughter. Under the coward punch law, people who were acquitted would walk scot-free and be unpunished for killing someone if you couldn\u2019t prove all the elements of the offence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s why, against perhaps my better judgment, in select committee, I pressed for an amendment which included an alternative charge, which is new section 171B. Now, that should be a Criminal Procedure Act question, but we had to kind of shoehorn it in here, which allows an alternative verdict of manslaughter. But, I mean, it\u2019s silly, because the truly stupid thing about this offence is that the penalty for coward punch is the penalty for manslaughter. It is exactly the same, but harder to prove. It\u2019s a truly stupid\u2014there\u2019s no other way to put it\u2014stupid, complicating, unnecessary piece of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen we have the theft\u2014that\u2019s a very serious offence, but turning towards something which might seem less serious is the theft provisions. I want to talk about the infringement offences of theft. Theft, in section 219 of the Crimes Act, is really clearly defined. It has three basic elements: take property, dishonestly, with the intent of permanently depriving someone. That\u2019s, basically, the three elements in theft.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis new offence, removing property from retail premises without payment, is really specific. You\u2019ve got this retail premise element, but then all you have to do is take property. There is nothing else. There\u2019s no mental element required. What is more, you are presumed to have committed this infringement offence. You have to raise a defence. You have to show that, in fact, you had a reason to take this property.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is really problematic, because you realise how this\u2014what this is aimed at is things like large stores using facial identification, and they might recognise you and identify you, perhaps even wrongly. How are you notified that this charge is laid? By an email. Now, I don\u2019t know if you\u2019ll check your emails or if summaryoffences.govt.nz is in your spam folder, but that\u2019s how you\u2019re notified, and then you\u2019ll get a conviction for this infringement offence. It\u2019s a reversal of the onus of proof, and the procedural safeguards around it are fundamentally non-existent. It\u2019s a really problematic piece of legislation. Essentially, that theft infringement offence has a presumption of guilt and a procedure which is serviced by email, and then if you don\u2019t turn up to court, a conviction, essentially, is entered against your name for that offence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen we had the first responders provisions, which are neither here nor there. Assaults against first responders are serious. We already recognise in sentencing that assaults against first responders are serious, and that\u2019s entirely appropriate. But the interesting thing was that there was real difficulty in the committee\u2014and this went across all parties, I think\u2014identifying who, in fact, were first responders. Some are easy\u2014your firefighters and your ambulance drivers, your police officers. But one of the ones that was left out that was really concerning to me was another group of people with statutory powers and obligations, and that was M\u0101ori wardens. Now, all of a sudden, they fell on the other side of the line, and why that is, I just couldn\u2019t say, because they have a very significant role, particularly at events on marae but elsewhere, in keeping order, attending to incidents, and basically being statutory security officers for tangata whenua. Yet that committee wasn\u2019t persuaded that they should also get the protection if they\u2019re assaulted in the discharge of their duties of this more serious offence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s a lot to be said for this. Yes, the increased sentences for slavery and the upgrading of the slavery provisions are appropriate. But we can\u2019t support a bill with incoherent offences, offences where the onus is on the defendant to prove their innocence, and giving citizens powers which don\u2019t, in fact, protect people; they put citizens at risk. This is a hotchpotch bill of knee-jerk reactions, and it\u2019s pretty typical of this Government\u2019s approach to justice policy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022739b3bbed7fe4186aa30494700144b3a\u0022 data-id=\u0022fae4f84ee6008ac59ac2338b63731e46\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022739b3bbed7fe4186aa30494700144b3a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fae4f84ee6008ac59ac2338b63731e46\u0022\u003EPAULO GARCIA (National\u2014New Lynn) (21:49)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. With this bill, criminals will soon face stronger penalties for attacking first responders, for coward punches, for human trafficking, and for retail crime.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe bill ensure that victims\u2019 interests are at the centre of the justice system. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002208ff951bc1c9ff77e8db96e2cedb0674\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: This call is a split call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022 data-id=\u00225cca423ae36a9b10b59981c07d19d0c9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225cca423ae36a9b10b59981c07d19d0c9\u0022\u003EDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (21:50)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Labour opposes this bill and remains concerned about the way the legislation has been put together.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is a bill that covers everything from human trafficking to citizen\u2019s arrest powers, assaults on first responders, shoplifting, and the proposed coward punch offence. Some of those measures are sensible, some deserve support, but then others raise some serious concerns. The difficulty is that instead of bringing these issues to the House in separate pieces of legislation, the Government has bundled them together into one large bill and then tried to rush it through. When we are dealing with the public safety, criminal offending, and people\u2019s rights, you know, Parliament should take time to get this absolutely right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELet me start with the areas where there is broad agreement: Labour supports the changes relating to human trafficking and people smuggling. These offences involve some of the most vulnerable people imaginable. The amendments modernise our law and better reflect the reality of modern exploitation and slavery. That\u2019s a worthwhile and necessary change. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe also acknowledge the intent behind stronger protections for our first responders and corrections officers. Nobody should be assaulted while carrying out their duties in the service of the public. But part of this bill, which has attracted some of the strongest criticism at select committee, was the proposed coward punch offence. And like every member of this House, I acknowledge the families who have lost loved ones through these senseless acts of violence. One punch can end a life, and one punch can leave a family grieving for ever. Those families do deserve to be heard. Coward punches are probably the one thing that worries me most as a dad. When my son\u2014he\u2019s 15 years old\u2014does go out with his mates, that does worry me.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA victim, a victim\u2019s family, can have their lives ended or changed forever as a result of a second of stupidity on the part of an offender. But Parliament also has the responsibility to make good law. The evidence presented to the committee raised very serious doubts about whether the proposed offence would actually achieve what the supporters hope it would achieve. Officials advised the committee that the offence, as drafted, would be harder to prosecute in existing manslaughter provisions. And why was that? Because prosecutors would have to prove additional elements. They would need to demonstrate not only that the assault caused death, but also that the victim had little or no opportunity to defend themselves, and that creates an extra hurdle in prosecution. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESeveral submitters pointed out that the existing offence of manslaughter already covers this conduct. Both offences carry the same maximum penalty, as the the Hon Dr Duncan Webb mentioned, of life imprisonment. So the obvious question becomes: what practical problem is this new offence actually solving? In fact, officials warned that it could actually create new problems. A jury could be faced with multiple overlapping options: murder, manslaughter, manslaughter by strike to the head or neck. And so, rather than simplifying matters, this bill risks making them even more confusing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EEven more concerning is the possibility that the additional elements in the new offence could make a conviction harder to secure. A prosecutor might choose to proceed under the new offence. If one of those extra elements cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution could fail. Officials acknowledged that the legislation does not fit neatly with existing provisions that allow alternative verdicts. That means that there\u2019s a real risk that the law introduced to secure more accountability, could actually produce fewer convictions. And this should concern every member of this House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELabour\u2019s position on this is straight forward: If there\u2019s a problem with sentencing outcomes for these offences; yeah, let\u2019s debate sentencing. If there\u2019s a concern about whether the courts are properly recognising the seriousness of these crimes; then yeah, let\u2019s consider sentencing law. But creating a parallel manslaughter offence that officials themselves have warned may be confusing, difficult to prosecute, and potentially counterproductive is not sound law making for. So, for that reason, we do not support this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b7cff05e64f346e68983b2fdbfba3ad8\u0022 data-id=\u00226c87def4347fff134c4dfcc97824b5d0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b7cff05e64f346e68983b2fdbfba3ad8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226c87def4347fff134c4dfcc97824b5d0\u0022\u003EDAN BIDOIS (National\u2014Northcote) (21:55)\u003C/span\u003E: The Crimes Amendment Bill is a good bill. It helps us restore law and order and ensures that there are real consequences for those that break the law. It\u2019s all a part of this Government\u2019s plan to fix the basics and build the future. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022 data-id=\u0022533b7bf39596cfc73656771d7ac2d41b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022533b7bf39596cfc73656771d7ac2d41b\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert) (21:55)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I was really impressed by the speech tonight from the the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, who had been on the committee and really explained to me why he considered the situation, with regard to coward punch changes, were so wanting. What it made me think was that there is a theme through most of this legislation, despite the fact that it\u2019s a cluster of different changes. And that theme, really, is one that I\u2019ve come to understand in this job, that you have to be weary of law change for the sake of signalling to the community, when, actually, that\u2019s all you\u2019re doing. You\u2019re not putting the resource in where it\u2019s necessary. Instead, there is an attempt to bluff, really, with the public, and tell them that more is going on than is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, it doesn\u2019t mean that some of this law that Labour is opposing isn\u2019t going to do damage, and it doesn\u2019t mean that some of the law, we\u2019ve already said, will do good. I want to focus on that for a minute, the issue of bluff, because I think it\u2019s a very dangerous game to play with the public. When we say that we\u2019re going to do things, we\u2019re going to make lives safer for them, but what we\u2019re actually doing is giving them a piece of paper, a law change, but we\u2019re not putting in the resource that\u2019s necessary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, years ago, and not that many years ago, I got hit in the back of the head by somebody\u2014just out of the blue. When that happened, there wasn\u2019t enough response, as far as I was concerned, that was immediate, from the police force\u2014because they were under-resourced. Actually, what I wanted, as somebody who had that happened to me, was I wanted somebody to make sure that the person who did that didn\u2019t do it to anyone who was old or, basically, understood the consequences of what she had done. That kind of follow up, from our police force, that requires real people. It didn\u2019t really require a change in the law. it required resourcing. I would have been very happy to have heard that that young girl, who did that, had been apprehended and had been put into a process of reconciliation with her actions. That\u2019s nothing to do with punishment, etc. It\u2019s got to do with preventing it happening to somebody she could have killed. I was just lucky, in some ways, I was older, I was healthy, and I wasn\u2019t in a situation where I was really hurt by it\u2014but I was pretty shaken up. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I think that\u2019s something I want to take to some of these other changes because that also informs the way I see the stuff about citizen\u2019s arrest. In my area, we\u2019ve had quite a lot of issues at things like Countdown with the stealing of food, etc., and we\u2019ve had a terrible tragedy in my area, at somewhere called Rose Cottage Superette\u2014it\u2019s a little dairy and it\u2019s quite isolated\u2014where the worker ran after someone who had stolen something from the shop and they were stabbed and they died. It\u2019s a terrible thing that happened Actually, I don\u2019t want that worker to be in a position where they are suddenly arresting somebody in that situation because they\u2019d be arresting a pretty violent individual and it would put them in danger\u2014as it did. So I\u2019d rather that the police dealt with that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat the police have told me about the concern that they have over this, when we\u2019ve talked about the realities of it, is they can\u2019t get there anyway. If somebody arrests someone in a shop for an action like shoplifting, the police can\u2019t get there. Just imagine what it\u2019s going to be like when somebody arrests somebody who\u2019s a bit dodgy and they\u2019re holding on to them and the police don\u2019t come\u2014they don\u2019t come straight away; they don\u2019t come in half an hour. Well, what\u2019s the outcome? What is going to happen? We definitely need to make sure that it\u2019s the police dealing with that situation. It\u2019s absolutely a blind spot to think that is, somehow, miraculously resolved by somebody without those skills, without that kind of defensive training and the training in actually dealing with people who are quite often pretty messy individuals. We need it to land right with those police officers, not with those other citizens who need protection. They don\u2019t need empowerment in that way. It\u2019s being dressed up as empowerment. It\u2019s not empowerment; it puts people at risk.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI was talking to a liquor store owner who just had a robbery. All this talk of these things have stopped\u2014they have not. This was not very long ago. There was this liquor store owner who had had somebody come in and take a whole load of stuff and he was very scared. I said, \u201CYou wouldn\u2019t do the citizen\u2019s arrest stuff?\u201D And he said, \u201CNo, there\u2019s absolutely no way I would.\u201D He knew that to do that would put him at risk, and it would; it would put him at risk. I ask this Government: is that really the answer, or is the answer actually making sure that we are resourcing the police to do their job and protecting our citizens? Isn\u2019t that the much better approach here? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to talk about some of these other things that have been promised to New Zealand tonight. How true are they? Let\u2019s talk about the shoplifting tickets. It seems absolutely bizarre to me that, while the Government\u2019s talking about being tough on crime, it\u2019s walking away. It\u2019s saying, again, \u201CNot us. It\u2019s just an administrative issue. Someone can send out an email and ticket somebody who\u2019s stolen something.\u201D\u2014\u201CIt\u2019s in the ether. That\u2019ll do.\u201D It will not do. It doesn\u2019t solve the problem whatsoever. The person has still taken the item, and I totally take on board that it\u2019s pretty, pretty bizarre to think that an email ticket for a proposed crime, which has no other testing in it, is an answer to this problem. The answer is that we stop people doing this sort of thing. I agree with that. I\u2019m actually probably tougher on crime on this one than the people purporting to be. That\u2019s an answer, but the answer is not to ticket them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAt the moment, we have really weird approaches to things like this. This law is one of them, where we say we want to be tough on crime, but then we want to do, what? Ticket people. I mean, I just don\u2019t think that there\u2019s many members of the community out there that are going to be satisfied with this one, because this is walking away. It\u2019s corporatising the problem, and it totally ignores the reality of people\u2019s situations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve dealt with two of the more, in some ways, smaller items in this bill, and I want to acknowledge one, before I finish, that I think is a good one. I want to leave on a good note. I really want to make sure that people understand that I fully support the amendments here that are about trafficking. Trafficking is very misunderstood; it has been for a long time. One of the amendments here means that there is a much greater possibility of prosecuting for trafficking where all the elements of the offence happen in New Zealand. Trafficking absolutely happens in New Zealand\u2014all elements\u2014and it\u2019s great to see this particular change coming in. See, that\u2019s a real one. That means more bad situations are dealt with. That\u2019s in the hands of the police. It empowers them to do their job. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also just really love the one which protects police officers who are going out and finding out about child exploitation, and there\u2019s a much higher threshold. I love that because it\u2019s a modern-day terrible problem, and we have to deal with it. That\u2019s a good thing. I\u2019m not anti dealing with real and serious crime; I\u2019m for it. I just think that this is a patronising, silly bill, in lots of ways, and I wish we were dealing with the real things tonight and we could have added a few more things than that were real and meaty.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002288c9b8e03b44157b6442c4b00565d9f6\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The member\u2019s time has expired.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022 data-id=\u002289c4d969d4500e25dfadc7719d157097\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002289c4d969d4500e25dfadc7719d157097\u0022\u003ESUZE REDMAYNE (National\u2014Rangit\u012Bkei) (22:05)\u003C/span\u003E: This bill is about putting victims at the heart of our justice system. It\u2019s about consequences for serious offenders. We\u2019re fixing the basics and building the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022 data-id=\u00228463268d6f726ff75e3029fdfa09eede\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228463268d6f726ff75e3029fdfa09eede\u0022\u003EHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (22:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It\u2019s a pleasure to take a call on this bill and to highlight some of the concerns that have been raised right throughout the select committee process. I\u2019d like to focus my contribution on the citizen\u2019s arrest provisions. I think it\u2019s really important that we reflect back to the regulatory impact statement, which is really good. It goes to the heart of what the problem is that we are trying to solve with this legislation. As we know, Paul Goldsmith appointed Sunny Kaushal for about $925 a day to come up with some ideas on how to fix these problems. Funnily enough, the same ideas were provided to our Government for free, but this Government paid over $3 million for them. The main thing he came up with, which is the same thing he told us, was that providing more certainty may result in greater bystander intervention, increased confidence for retailers, and is intended to help bring about more certainty and consequence for retail offenders. However, in the regulatory impact statement, it does note that submissions to the ministerial advisory group have revealed that the causes of hesitancy to intervene largely exist outside of the Crimes Act. That\u2019s the one that we\u2019re amending right now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThese perceptions of police resourcing, actually having a police officer able to turn up, and the fact that this type of offending sometimes has a lower priority in police in terms of when they responded. The problem we\u2019re trying to fix is that police don\u2019t tune up, and the solution of this Government is that it will enable citizens to do that on behalf of police.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen we asked police what they think of this, funnily, they don\u2019t like it too much. They think it\u2019s quite dangerous and, in fact, we might get many situations around New Zealand where someone has taken the law into their own hands\u2014and they can actually restrain them under this as well. Under the Minister\u2019s option, the use of restraints are now permitted. That would be cable ties or, potentially, handcuffs\u2014cuffed to a shelf. A member of the public can cuff and restrain somebody, but, as Paul Goldsmith described in his oral question in the House this week, they\u2019re meant to hold them until the police arrive. You\u2019re meant to ring up the police and get some real time instructions about administering the restraints and how to detain the person until, potentially, the police arrive. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, one of the main points that was raised by Retail New Zealand, I believe, when they submitted against this provision\u2014that\u2019s a major retailer representative across New Zealand; the people who are helping small businesses\u2014they don\u2019t want this, because their concern is that, if someone who has been aggressive and then restrained by the small-business owner, if the police do not in fact turn up, as we\u2019ve seen often is the case, and, as we also know, because this Government hasn\u2019t reached their 500 more police officers as promised, we don\u2019t have extra police bouncing around to be able to come and turn up to this situation. Then the small-business owner is in the unenviable position of having to release the offender in their shop when they already agitated. There is a real concern that they will cause increased instances of harm within our community, increased violence, and actually put at risk those members of the small-business community when they are working in their environments. When there has been reporting on this from local media and ethnic communities, particularly in Auckland, which have been impacted by the sharp increase in retail crime, many of those small-business owners do not want this. They think it will put themselves in harm\u2019s way, and they are really concerned that there is potential loss of life down the track. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m going to return and finish with the regulatory impact statement. It\u2019s always good to have evidence in these things, isn\u2019t it; because if we\u2019re changing the law, we should have some good evidence to understand why we\u2019re doing this. The Ministry of Justice was unable to provide or access any material evidence to substantiate the ministerial advisory group\u2019s policy problem, nor was it possible to gather any evidence from agencies in relation to arrests and defence of property. In the whole conclusion from the Ministry of Justice, they\u2019re unable to provide any evidence as to why they are doing this. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other point I\u2019d like to finish off with is the ministerial advisory group\u2019s\u2014that\u2019s Sunny Kaushal\u2014rationale that increased certainty, with respect to when the public can intervene and what level of force is permitted, will enable and empower the public to intervene, which will then deter criminal offending. We\u2019ve got no cops, we\u2019ve failed our 500, and we\u2019re hoping that some small business owners might put their life on the line to intervene to try and get the crime rate down. Well, that\u2019s a sorry story of a Government that\u2019s given up and talks about victims of crime, when in reality, they are just creating more by this harmful legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002269e9c4344dbe41f078f070bf5af893a1\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the amendments recommended by the Justice Committee by majority be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004325\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004328\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Crimes Amendment Bill be now read a second time\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004334\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a second time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226f45ba8bc25d05b72d30afe8b640644a\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: This bill is set down for committee stage next sitting day.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00223c7a62b2c7bf527087f2a5e3c864bee1\u0022\u003ELand Transport (Revenue) Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d3de80f1668b9ea48c4e16c6dd33484a\u0022\u003ELegislative Statement\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u0022e8e7c460e89d3b4cc70ce59f1ba033d4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e8e7c460e89d3b4cc70ce59f1ba033d4\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (22:13)\u003C/span\u003E: on behalf of the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Transport\u003C/span\u003E: I present a legislative statement on the Land Transport (Revenue) Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e0fd7b474954ec798c51ea7dd6d81115\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022cebf99fb3747156b6349d9a9c21c45df\u0022\u003ESecond Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u0022fb6628e079017d92a13d58280e5ac977\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fb6628e079017d92a13d58280e5ac977\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (22:13)\u003C/span\u003E: on behalf of the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Transport\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Land Transport (Revenue) Amendment Bill be now read a second time\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMr Speaker, colleagues, this bill is yet another step in the evolution of our land transport funding system and it meets our changing circumstances and upholds one of the fundamental principles of how we fund land transport in New Zealand. That principle is that vehicle users should contribute fairly in proportion to the use that they undertake on our roads. Since we centralised our roading system in the 1920s\u2014planning came a bit later\u2014this principle has continued to underpin how we fund and pay for our roading network. However, the system is now under increasing pressure. As our vehicles have become more fuel efficient, and we start to drive more and more electric vehicles, the traditional method of collecting revenue from our petrol excise duties and our fuel taxes has dropped while our transport investment demands have continued to grow. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo better support sustainable transport investment, we must ensure that the tools we collect for revenue are sustainable, fair, and fit for purpose. To achieve this, the bill advances the Government\u2019s revenue action plan by proposing amendments that reform the tolling network and modernising the road user charges system. This bill does two key things: it looks at how we toll in a modern day and age, and it reforms our road user system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFirst, to tolling. We\u2019ve actually got a long history of tolling in New Zealand. We\u2019ve been doing it for over 100 years. The Auckland Harbour Bridge was built by tolls. The Lyttleton Tunnel was built by tolls. Tauranga have a few, so there are some people here who are familiar with how they work. What tolling does is it helps us to bring forward investment and build the roads and infrastructure that New Zealand needs sooner. It means the users who benefit most from new roads contribute most to those roads. We currently have toll roads in New Zealand, as I mentioned before, and we now want to progress our roading system plan, so we need to make sure we have the revenue to match those ambitions. It is about fixing the basics of our transport system so we can build a future where New Zealanders can get around our routing network in a quick and efficient manner. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill does a number of things around tolls. It has gone through the select committee process, and I\u2019ll outline a few of the changes that have come through in a moment. It does allow for the tolling of existing roads where the users benefit from new roads on the same corridor, so that we can take a revenue approach across an entire tolling scheme rather than just on new sections of the road. Road users out there should be aware that the requirement for a feasible, untolled, or free route will remain. Of course, nothing is free in life. Those so-called free roads are still paid for by our road users. However, there will be an untolled alternative to all of our tolled roads. The bill will also enable heavy vehicles to be restricted from using unsuitable alternative routes, but only in specified circumstances. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, we\u2019re also updating the rules to toll concessions to make it easier to partner with the private sector to deliver the infrastructure we need. Taken together, these changes will ensure tolling is a more effective tool to help fund new roads, including our roads of national significance, those that deliver the infrastructure that New Zealand needs. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second key thing this bill does is it looks at the road user charge system that we deal with in our modern day State, and it recognises that some changes are needed to be made. We need to modernise the system. We need to keep the system fair. We must ensure it\u2019s ready to go for a shift in the future of all light-petrol vehicles onto the road user charge system. Our current system was designed in the 1970s. It is admittedly a bit clunky. It\u2019s a manual process that relies on us to monitor our own odometers, pre-purchase road-user charges (RUC) in thousand kilometre blocks, and display teeny tiny little paper licences on our windows. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve already said many times in this House how annoying those little bits of paper are, particularly when they fall down the dash, and a zealous parking officer comes along and gives you a nice wee donation to make to the local council or to the local NZTA because you haven\u2019t put the right sticker in the right place. This bill does away with those stickers around road user charges. It removes the requirement to display, carry, or produce a RUC licence. In an electronic age, a paper licence should not be a strict requirement where people are paying bills, not to put paper in the front of the windscreens. The bill updates the definition of an electronic distance recorder to address some current restrictions and allow for more flexible, cost-effective approaches to recording distance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn a bold modern move, it allows us to have more flexible regular payment systems, so that, instead of that thrill we get when we\u2019re driving along the road and we realise we might be running out of road user charges soon, and we\u2019d better pull over to the side of the road, jump on the NZTA website, and buy another thousand blocks to get us around the countryside a bit more, we\u2019re going to be able to create some new options for some more regular payments to make it a little bit easier to deal with that. Yes, we will no longer get that thrill of driving and seeing the odometer tick over and wonder when that next thousand block will kick in. But maybe\u2014just maybe\u2014it might make it more helpful and easy for us to run our lives as we\u2019re going around the countryside. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe are also aiming to change the road user charge retail landscape in general. We\u2019re going to make it easier for other providers to help manage the road user charge system, particularly as we move to a system where all petrol vehicles will be on it at some point. Of course, that makes sense, because as our fuel efficiency increases in our petrol vehicles, we\u2019re going to be using less fuel on the road. That is good, obviously, for our emissions, but it does impact our revenue streams. We\u2019ve got to make sure that those vehicles still have an impact on the road. We\u2019ve still got to make sure they still contribute to the impact on the road that they make, and we\u2019ll be doing that in the future through road user charges rather than fuel tax.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Transport and Infrastructure Committee made a number of changes that I\u2019m sure members will go through today. I would like to thank the hard-working and industrious Transport and Infrastructure Committee. I want to thank the 47 written submissions from interested groups and individuals, and the 12 individuals that came to the select committee to provide their views. It did result in a number of changes throughout the process that, hopefully, this House will agree to today. I\u2019ll very, very quickly go through them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe committee has recommended some changes to refining the rules for tolling existing roads on the same corridor as new roads. They\u2019ve tightened when toll revenue can be used for alternative routes. They\u2019ve strengthened the rules for restricting heavy vehicles on alternative routes, and some changes around road-user charges. The updated bill provides that the approval of each alternative payment scheme is a regulatory decision for the RUC collector, rather than requiring Cabinet approval through secondary legislation, which would be a long and lengthy process. The bill now provides the power to set prescribed administration fees for NZTA as well as a separate service fee to cover the agency\u2019s expenses. The bill removes the need for separate approval processes and enables the NZTA to become a provider from the date the Act commences.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, Mr Speaker, I know you\u2019ve been looking forward to this part of the speech: the end of it. The bill clarifies the power of the RUC collector to monitor and review providers, including any agents or contractors they engage. This change responds to those submitters who had concerns about the importance of oversight for third parties that collect land transport revenue and handle road user information.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI would like to thank everyone who has contributed towards the development of this bill. This is a practical and important bill that takes us one step closer to a fairer and more sustainable transport revenue system. I look forward to the contributions across the House. I\u2019m sure they will be fulsome and exciting, just as exciting as it is to see the odometer tick over as we travel around the countryside over the next few months. I commend the bill to the House, and I look forward to its passage forthwith.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022acc24131473491f29efaea6543fa9197\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022 data-id=\u0022bc81ef821469898536b26782026ad1d5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bc81ef821469898536b26782026ad1d5\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North) (22:21)\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022rar\u0022\u003EMeitaki maata\u003C/span\u003E, kia orana, Mr Speaker. Well, it\u2019s great to have the Associate Minister of Transport with such optimism and a lengthy contribution. I do hope that his colleagues who are seated near him take a leaf out of his book and share their own views when it comes to this very important piece of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Labour Party will be supporting this bill this evening because it is a bill that seeks to modernise our road funding tools, and that is somewhat overdue. There were many concerns that were raised in the first reading opportunity when this bill came before the Parliament, but where we have landed is that, through the select committee process, we are comfortable that many of those issues have been addressed by the the select committee, and I do intend to touch on a number of them this evening.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to acknowledge colleagues on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. It is a hard-working committee, and I think this particular bill is a fine example of the committee working through a process to deal with some of the issues that had been identified at first reading and to get some consensus and change, to the point where a lot of the issues that we\u2019d identified we worked through as a team, with the support of the advisers. I want to acknowledge the advisers that were supporting and advising the committee through this process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is an omnibus bill. As the Minister has already identified, it seeks to address two particular areas, and they relate to the road tolling rules that exist under the Land Transport Management Act, and that is about, effectively, road tolling. The second one is in relation to the Road User Charges Act of 2012 around the changes to the RUC, or the road-user charges system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is important to note, though, that the changes that exist within this particular bill are the enabling components to allow changes to the RUC system to roll that out across the fleet, noting that that is not something that will happen overnight. It is something that empowers the ability to make some change, and, again, colleagues on this side of the House will touch on that, no doubt, as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ECurrently, the law really only allows for the tolling of existing roads\u2014so they\u2019re not new roads, but existing roads\u2014in what are fairly limited and constrained circumstances. Now, what this bill does is it allows the Minister of Transport to offer up tolling options on a particular stretch of road if two particular conditions are met. The first was around existing and new roads being part of the same corridor. That was a particular issue that the committee spent a lot of time on\u2014and I\u2019m thankful that they did to ensure that we got that corridor definition right. The second was that the users of existing roads need to receive a benefit from a new road in a particular area, as well. Now, the problem was that as it stood when the committee received the bill, there were no definitions around what a roading corridor is, nor were there specified definitions around the benefits that might flow or that might follow. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to turn to the benefits first. The benefits were an area where the select committee did introduce a number of changes, and those were that for users on an existing road, there must be one of four benefits that need to be received. One is that there are savings in terms of travel time savings\u2014so a reduction in the time that it would take to travel from point A to B. Secondly, there is the issue of safety\u2014so there would be safety benefits. Often, it is quite difficult for this current Government to consider safety benefits when it comes to transport, but we\u2019ve got that in there, none the less. The third one is around travel time reliability\u2014so the functionality of the particular roading network or the roads that are in question here. The final one touches on resilience, which is something that is a constant consideration in terms of the roading network moving forward. The Minister could consider any other benefits that might exist, but there must be at least a link to one of those four specified benefits in order for a tolling proposal, effectively, to be on the table.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other one is the definition of corridor, and it\u2019s something that I touched on in my first reading contribution. The select committee was of the view that there needed to be a clearer and more direct definition as to what a corridor actually meant. This is because the use of corridor is very commonplace in terms of transport context, and we wanted to make sure that we were able to get it right and that we had a definition that ensured that unrelated roads near a tolling proposition could not be tolled as part of a roading corridor. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe select committee made changes to this bill to provide that two roads are, effectively, in the same corridor if they have a clear functional relationship but also an operational relationship. The functionality bit is around where the roads would be commonly used together by road users as part of one single journey, as opposed to separate ones, and that journey from point A to B would be achieved, effectively, by ensuring that there was a single journey there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe example that was used by the committee was someone who was travelling from Wellington to, perhaps, K\u0101piti or vice versa, and whether or not using Transmission Gully versus using the coastal route of State Highway 59 would be part of the same roading corridor. It\u2019s often unusual for a select committee to put a map in its report, but that is exactly what the Transport and Infrastructure Committee decided to do\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002287659eb945c99023cdf589fbe2eb8baa\u0022\u003EHon James Meager\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s tiny.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a787a284ca78117a9c2ea9d0db4d4931\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014to provide a little\u2014it is tiny, but when you\u2019re reading it larger, you\u2019ll see that it has the information that is needed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a9591f631496d3d8a8c28b26e7a0c2a1\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: I did notice the map.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a228c2cfaa2456fa8aaa956da038015c\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, sir. Therefore, in considering this issue, you can\u2019t move between A and B\u2014those two routes\u2014on a single journey, and so it\u2019s not considered a roading corridor for the purposes of tolling. So the map itself is pretty helpful. The other part in terms of it being operational is around ensuring that there is a connection between the flow of traffic and the traffic management on one road supporting or influencing the other.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere still needs to be a realistic and feasible alternative route for any tolling road under these proposals, and I think that is a very clear distinction that needs to be made. If a road is up for tolling, there needs to be an alternative one that is feasible and easy to be accessed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of the maintenance side of things, it\u2019s really important that, at the moment, the law only allows for revenue from a toll to be used on a new road. The change that was initiated through this process was that it would allow for toll revenue to be gathered to be used on the maintenance and operational costs of alternative routes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, Mr Assistant Speaker Tuiono, you are very familiar with Te Ahu a Turanga, the Manawat\u016B Tararua replacement highway. That is not a new road; that is a replacement road, and whilst this Government tried to whack a toll on the local community for that, the good people, the folk of the Manawat\u016B, the Pohangina, and the wider Tararua area, stood up against that. Why? Because it\u2019s not a new road; it\u2019s a replacement road. That is important to acknowledge in this context, because the Saddle Road, which is familiar to many, really took quite a hammering and a battering as a result of it being an alternative route and heavy vehicles having to utilise that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, what this bill does is it does initiate some change so that it could be possible for revenue that is generated from the use of a toll to be channelled towards the maintenance and operational costs of an alternative route, if the Minister forms the view that the pressures in terms of funding are such that the local road-controlling authority would not be in a position to be able to fully fund or meet the costs of that. It is a particular point of distinction that is important, nonetheless. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to just finally touch on the RUC component because these are some changes that will enable\u2014over time, not overnight\u2014the transition of the entire fleet towards road-user charges. What\u2019s really important is that that process is smooth.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, the Minister, interestingly, in his contribution tonight talked about the sense of maybe anxiety when you get towards a particular 1,000 RUC mileage, and you realise that you need to actually buy another 1,000. Well, the problem is that if we\u2019re going to transition or enable transition across the whole fleet, a lot of people can\u2019t afford to buy 1,000 kilometres. So this is also accepted as part of this process that there needs to be flexibility in the new regime to allow for, yes, different ways of payment, but also making sure that we\u2019re not just going to have a minimum purchase of 1,000, because that would cut out quite a number of households who continue to do it tough. So I\u2019m really cognisant of while we\u2019re bringing in these changes, there does need to be a lens over ensuring that equity considerations are front and centre; that technology is utilised; and that it is able to work out well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe are supportive of this bill; we think that it does provide some opportunities, but also there needs to be a level of cautiousness as we continue to work through it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e66329e431ea47019b41524c6ef2954a\u0022 data-id=\u00224a39988480a5b20b59f65d16a97904b0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e66329e431ea47019b41524c6ef2954a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224a39988480a5b20b59f65d16a97904b0\u0022\u003ECELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) (22:31)\u003C/span\u003E: The Green Party knows that a balanced, sensible transport system can connect and enrich our communities and protect our environment and reduce the cost of living. At the moment in Aotearoa New Zealand, we are really car dependent, and it costs us all far too much, especially with the recent costs of diesel and petrol.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFor households who are doing it tough in a cost of living crisis, they are spending thousands and thousands on car travel that people could ill afford. That\u2019s one of the many reasons that the Green Party has consistently pushed for less urban sprawl and more intensification, and there has been some work across the floor on improving that in some places.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think it\u2019s important to remember that not everyone can drive. There are people with certain disabilities, there are children, there are people who can\u2019t actually even afford a vehicle. So this is not a recipe necessarily for more and more roads and more car dependence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe reason that we support this bill is that it brings the costs of the roading system closer to the people that use it. But we do have some issues to resolve\u2014not with this bill\u2014but with some of the wider transport funding. It is really clear, not just through the National Infrastructure Plan, that we need much more investment in maintenance before so many new, shiny roads are built.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf you look in the Wairarapa, the T\u016Branganui Bridge\u2014the only route to Ngawi and Cape Palliser for locals and tourists alike, again, has had problems with the climate-charged rainfall events.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI have to say that we can change this system to a much better one, and this bill is a small step in the right direction. It was a pleasure, as my colleague Tangi Utikere said, to be on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, and I commend the chair, my colleagues, the submitters, but particularly the officials, and, yes, it is great to have a commentary that has a picture in it; I think we could do this more often, to be clearer. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EComing back to what the consequence of more direct pricing will be, it\u2019s also, potentially, a disincentive for people to drive as much. Now, there are some jobs and there are some transport areas where it is absolutely essential to travel by road\u2014no argument with that\u2014but there are also some places where, with some investment in alternatives, we could make it more cost effective, more relaxing, less congestion, and better for people\u2019s health. I am slightly frustrated that the tolls cannot be used to improve any alternative modes of transport, any other choices, but that\u2019s something that could relatively easily be changed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also echo Tangi Utikere\u2019s point that we have to be careful where we do and don\u2019t toll. He mentioned Te Ahu a Turanga, between Ashhurst and Woodville. It is conceivable that one of the other roads, whether it\u2019s the Saddle Road or it\u2019s the Pahiatua Track, maybe, at some point, it will become only, pretty much, a tourist road. I mean, it\u2019s been wonderful investment in that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe map is useful in defining corridors, but what it doesn\u2019t do is talk about the share between local government and central government. If you look at that map, we\u2019ve got State Highway 1 now going through Transmission Gully. I was going to ask, \u201CHands up who\u2019s driven Transmission Gully?\u201D, but maybe I won\u2019t. But the green road, the coastal road, which is at considerable risk of inundation, which is one of the reasons Transmission Gully was built, remains a State highway. So it will still be the Government that does the funding of that State highway through the Government policy statement and New Zealand Transport Agency. There are other circumstances where a new road comes in and central government says to the council, \u201COh, have a road.\u201D \u201CWell, great, we\u2019ve got a new asset\u201D is not what is likely to be said by people who are facing rate caps and other pressures.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne huge improvement is that some of the toll revenue can be used on the maintenance of the old road that local government has to do. The Minister, when he introduced the bill tonight, talked about us having a centralised system, but our transport system is not that centralised. Most roads, local roads\u2014the rates are paying for at least half of the costs of roading. Whether it\u2019s the bitumen, the culverts, the bridges, the signage, the traffic lights\u2014all of those things are often the realm of the ratepayer and the local council.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think it\u2019s another example of having to work out the relationship between central government funding and local government funding, not just passing on the obligation to keep a road open. Because even if it\u2019s not going to be the major transport route anymore for stock trucks or for tradies or whatever, often people live along those smaller roads that have been bypassed by the new roads and, therefore, there will need to be continued maintenance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI would like to have seen more investment in this year\u2019s Budget in things like rural school buses, rail\u2014I mean, it\u2019s ridiculous. The number 200 bus in the Wairarapa which links up the five towns doesn\u2019t run after about 5.30 in the evening. That really constrains people who, perhaps, don\u2019t have their own car, can\u2019t afford a car, can\u2019t drive because of some visual disability. Now there\u2019s a whole lot of people that are not served just by cars, whether they\u2019re on toll roads or other roads. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also think this bill makes it a little clearer that the costs of new roads and their planned maintenance should not really be subsidised by everybody else. So I would like to thank the members of the select committee, the submitters, and the very knowledgeable advisers who helped us improve this bill, and the Greens are happy to support it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022cea1e8f106572811d83f8680872565ef\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cea1e8f106572811d83f8680872565ef\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (ACT) (22:40)\u003C/span\u003E: ACT supports this bill for one simple reason: New Zealanders have a huge aspiration for better infrastructure, better roads, being able to connect businesses with ports, businesses with customers, and people who simply want to get to work or be able to get their kids to school on time. One of the major problems we have right now is that our aspiration for our roading network is not matched by our aspiration to fund it. There is a huge gap between the roads we need, the roads many of us know that are important to support growth, and our ability to fund them through the road-user charges, through fuel excise duty, and through Crown contributions. As a result, in 2026, 30 or 40 years behind the rest of the world, New Zealand has accepted it\u2019s important that we introduce changes to our tolling regime so that the roads that can be funded partly or, really, wholly, by charging those who use the roads through tolls, mean that we can actually fund and deliver roading projects that connect communities with work, with education, and with opportunity in a way that our current system does not allow.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat is why ACT is proud to support the bill. The bill includes provisions to specify user benefits. For too long we\u2019ve had different groups saying, \u201COh, the toll is too much\u2014people won\u2019t use the road.\u201D In the new way of working, there\u2019ll be some very clear tests as to how we demonstrate those benefits. We\u2019ve also heard concerns that where roads are tolled, alternative routes will become congested or not funded at all. Let\u2019s be clear: when we\u2019ve built four-lane major highways like Transmission Gully, like P\u016Bhoi to Warkworth, there is an overwhelming preference to use the new, better road.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen I first started working in Auckland, I used to go to \u014Crewa\u2014a small beachside town just north of Dairy Flat. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f0d31505882949b1a768aad60863fba9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e9f22ebd1ee9f43a63c9469cb7606323\u0022\u003EJoseph Mooney\u003C/span\u003E: Yup. I went to high school there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ff191618a90e754e9f51d81ced24694f\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: State highway 1\u2014Joseph Mooney\u2014potential Minister for Space in a future Government. He said he used to go to school there. He will know that 15,000 vehicles a day used to ride in between the ice-cream shop and the fish and chip shop and the beach on State highway 1. Stock trucks used to drop effluent all along the main highway\u2014truck and trailers. It was impossible for a community like \u014Crewa to reach its potential without shifting 15,000 vehicles a day off that road. The tolled alternative route that most Aucklanders and anyone leaving Auckland heading north has accepted without question for decades now has enabled that beautiful community of \u014Crewa to connect the community with the beachfront and all of that amenity. That is one of the benefits of improving the way that we fund and judge infrastructure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve also heard concerns about, \u201CWell, what about heavy vehicles?\u201D The transport sector is concerned that they will be forced to use toll roads and pay more than they currently are to use the existing State highway network. Well, let\u2019s be clear: if your truck is running on the State highway network, you\u2019re paying road-user charges per kilometre of travel, but you\u2019re running through townships like Kume\u016B in north-west Auckland or other places around the country where you are paying the fair share of the roading cost, but that does not possibly compensate for the opportunity cost that that community is suffering from having thousands of heavy vehicles running down its main street every day. It makes sense to say, \u201CYou should and must use an alternative tolled heavy vehicle route that has been built specifically, that has been engineered specifically, for your purpose.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo while we understand that many heavy vehicle operators are concerned about the costs, I must say that there is a huge benefit. New Zealand Inc. benefits. We understand your concerns and the cost you face, but it\u2019s important we shift to user must pay for the benefit. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002248ce26e54d83406399b875df20400dec\u0022 data-id=\u002239fe3fd3f3e223eb6d4cd3858397bcfe\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002248ce26e54d83406399b875df20400dec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002239fe3fd3f3e223eb6d4cd3858397bcfe\u0022\u003EANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (22:46)\u003C/span\u003E: Thanks, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First and as the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee which considered this bill. I just want to start off just by saying thanks to all the submitters, the officials who we\u2019ve already heard did a fantastic job, and the select committee which, as always, operated really collegially to tackle the bill, and I want to thank them all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Minister and Tangi Utikere in particular have both laid out what the bill\u2019s all about, so I don\u2019t have to do any of that, but I did want to touch on a couple of things. The first one of them is that the bill obviously advances the road-user charges (RUC) system digitisation and so on. It helps modernise and sets us up for moving from fuel excise duties to RUC\u2014that\u2019s all very good. But there\u2019s two areas I particularly just wanted to focus on: first of all there\u2019s the tolling bit and secondly the heavy vehicle bit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo in terms of tolling, it was interesting that we heard a mention from the Minister about tolls being used to bring forward new roads. The Manawat\u016B Tararua Highway, which was used as an example, I think, by Tangi Utikere, was one, actually, where that wasn\u2019t true because the road was nearly complete when the idea of a toll was suggested and the community went ballistic. We actually agree with the community in that situation and said that we weren\u2019t particularly happy with that either. That would have been somewhat disingenuous, to put it mildly, to put a toll on then. So it was a good result that it is not a toll road.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut we spent a lot of time as a select committee looking at this issue of existing roads being tolled, because that\u2019s not the case at the moment. As Tangi Utikere has said, we spent quite a bit of time trying to define this thing of a \u201Ccorridor\u201D, because corridor was not defined in the bill when it started out. We used the example there in that little map there with Transmission Gully and Centennial Highway. Now, that wouldn\u2019t have worked anyway because there\u2019s not a free feasible road down through that part of the North Island.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut I do want to give you one illustration where it could occur. If we had a second harbour crossing in Auckland, we decide to toll the new one\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220b9fe3d843a4cd272a0d01c8f67ef037\u0022\u003EHon Dr Deborah Russell\u003C/span\u003E: Third one\u2014there\u2019s already two crossings.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002248ce26e54d83406399b875df20400dec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e31f273ec521a436b56344f97c12ef32\u0022\u003EANDY FOSTER\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, if we had another bridge, another tunnel, and we decided to toll the new one, and you had not got a definition of corridor, you could then say, \u201CActually, because we\u2019ll get diversion from the new one to the old one, which we don\u2019t really want to do, we could toll them both because there\u2019s\u201D\u2014you could argue\u2014\u201Ca feasible route around the outside of the harbour through the western part of Auckland to come back there.\u201D It would mean that, with the definition of corridor that we\u2019ve got in there, you couldn\u2019t actually do that. So I think that\u2019s an important definition and it was good to spend a little bit of time on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second bit we talked about in terms of tolling was the issue around local government and the transfer of\u2014sometimes, Wayne Brown said, when we put a new State highway in and we say to local government, \u201CWell, you can have the old one.\u201D, the local government goes, \u201CWell, that\u2019s great because we\u2019ve got to maintain it with all the rates you\u2019re going to cap us on, etc., etc., etc!\u201D Of course, then local government\u2019s saying, \u201CWell, can the new road help to fund the existing one?\u201D So that\u2019s what that conversation is about. But I did want to just say that I have been party to a local road being given to the State. It was quite a few years back and I managed to persuade the New Zealand Transport Agency that it would be quite a good idea if State highway 1 didn\u2019t stop at the Basin Reserve but carried on to the airport, which has probably saved ratepayers an absolute fortune over many, many years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second point I wanted to make is just regarding the issue of heavy trucking. We heard from the trucking industry that they did not want to be in a situation of being forced to use a new toll route and potentially for those tolls to be particularly significant\u2014in other words, imposing a significant cost on them. So we were very, very careful with the circumstances under which that might occur, and they are set out there: heavy vehicles being unsuitable for an alternative route, which is exactly the kind of thing that Simon Court was talking about. If you\u2019ve got a new route which has been urbanised and beautified\u2014all that sort of thing\u2014to create a lovely place for people to be, you don\u2019t want to have a whole lot of heavy trucks going through there. So it would be reasonable to say that we actually want you to go on to the new route. That\u2019s exactly what\u2019s happened in the Orewa example that you talked about, and there\u2019s issues around significant maintenance costs and so on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe one bit, though, that I did want to highlight on that, just before finishing, is that the Minister\u2019s got to be satisfied. We\u2019ve said the Minister\u2019s got to be satisfied that adequate consultation has occurred before issuing a restriction notice. We also specifically put in\u2014this was one that I was particularly keen to put in there\u2014the definition of \u201Cadequate consultation\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust for\u2014some of us have been around a little while. There\u2019s a Court of Appeal decision going way, way back to 1993, which set out exactly what consultation is. It basically says that you cannot have a firm decision, a firm position, at the beginning; you\u2019ve got to have an open mind; you\u2019ve got to listen authentically to the feedback you get; you\u2019ve got to allow time for that feedback to be given; and you\u2019ve got to give adequate information to consider adequate options. That is something that is really, really important in any good consultation process. One of the things that annoys people\u2014no end\u2014is when consultation is inauthentic.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo we put that in there, and maybe that\u2019s just a little message to say what consultation should be all about. That\u2019s what we said should occur in this instance with heavy vehicles, but it should occur in terms of all consultation that we do and all consultation that local government does. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220873a7934dc8044473565a9db2e48fef\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: This is a split call\u2014Mike Davidson.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022 data-id=\u0022cb70e01dfec2ec439ffbcbdd749d0ddd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cb70e01dfec2ec439ffbcbdd749d0ddd\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (22:51)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party. We cautiously support this bill. We did not support it to the select committee, but, obviously, I\u2019d like to acknowledge the work of the select committee, the transport and environment select committee. They must have done something right, because we\u2019re now\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002270ff8a3c0e78e808a3edabbd6e091325\u0022\u003EDr Carlos Cheung\u003C/span\u003E: Transport and infrastructure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226786a744115b2dd2bb59e44af5dba7d0\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, yes. Thank you very much\u2014the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. I should put my glasses on when I read things\u2014because we now do support it. We did have some concerns around the private enterprise of policing and tolling roads, and through that process, they have been sorted in a way. But we still have, I guess, some concerns around the use of tolling. At the same time, we have been a long-time campaigner of more direct pricing of road use. Road pricing can actually be an extremely effective tool to move people more effectively around our network.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think, at the same time, we need to remember that if we just focus on moving people via cars, we\u2019re never going to get anywhere as a society, because it doesn\u2019t take long for those roads to be clogged up again. The more roads we build, the more people drive, the quicker it gets clogged up and another road gets built and it never ends. When, actually, if we look at alternative means of moving people, whether that be through bussing, walking, or biking, we actually create space on our existing roads for people that need to travel by car.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EYou only have to look at roads during school holidays when we don\u2019t have people taking their children\u2014or high school students, university students driving\u2014to their education, to see how much quieter it is on the roads. It doesn\u2019t actually take a huge shift to actually create a significant reduction on people using our roads. If we actually want to look at trying to make our dollar stretch further in our transport space, we should be looking at how we actually can have less people driving instead of more people driving.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do find it interesting when, obviously, the Minister spoke about the tolls being used to build the new roads. We know with Christopher Luxon\u2019s $15 billion worth of roads\u2014a few roads across the country that most New Zealanders won\u2019t use\u2014the tolls aren\u2019t going to pay for them alone. They need a lot more investment. Once again, I reiterate my point: if we just invest in roads, we\u2019re going to get nowhere as a country. We do know that cars not only just create congestion, which creates productivity issues, but it also has significant emission issues, which causes health issues as well. So, the more we actually move into different forms of transport, the better we are as a country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the things that I would like to focus on in my remaining 90 seconds is, obviously, the idea of the tolling of the new roads and the corridor effect as well. I look at Woodend Bypass, and, obviously, the impact on State Highway 1, which will have a reduction of cars. Just by that is Tuahiwi, and anyone that doesn\u2019t know Tuahiwi, it is the heart of the mighty Nga\u012B T\u016B\u0101huriri and, obviously, it\u2019s quite close to Woodend. I have seen the modelling that shows that the tolling will actually impact Tuahiwi. We\u2019ll see more vehicles going through Tuahiwi, and I\u2019m sure the Minister is aware of Tuahiwi and knows where Tuahiwi is and how narrow the road is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt would be a real shame if, actually, it sits outside corridors and we actually start seeing an increase of transport and traffic going through that fantastic place. So it would be great to know that we\u2019re not going to see issues happening there. There\u2019s the Woodend Bypass; some like it, but there are some significant concerns that may come from it if not addressed properly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs I said at the start of my call, the Green Party does cautiously support this. We have always been a strong party that has supported the use of road-user charges, so it\u2019s good to see the National Party following our lead. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022 data-id=\u002278a74ce6fdda2f6d9598ec225ee25647\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002278a74ce6fdda2f6d9598ec225ee25647\u0022\u003EDr CARLOS CHEUNG (National\u2014Mt Roskill) (22:56)\u003C/span\u003E: This bill ensures that New Zealand has a more sustainable and reliable way to fund transport infrastructure. It creates a more flexible tolling framework, sets clear rules for toll pricing, and allows toll revenue to fund both new and existing roads. It is a great bill. It is fixing the basics and building the future. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022 data-id=\u00226c6133f255e12c2b5c4258302f8d6418\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226c6133f255e12c2b5c4258302f8d6418\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (22:56)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Let me start with a couple of thoughts, which I promise you are completely related to this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004424\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFirst of all, I just want to remind Andy Foster, who made the mistake\u2014and other people do it\u2014and who said that we need a second harbour crossing in Auckland. We have two harbour crossings already. There is the State Highway 1 route across the harbour bridge and there is the State Highway 16 and 18 route up around the top of the harbour through West Auckland across Upper Harbour. So I just invite Andy Foster to abandon his Wellington-centric view and understand how Auckland actually operates.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second is a story about tolling, which only some people in this House may remember, and it may well be the stuff of urban legend\u2014though it is in Wikipedia, therefore it must be true. It goes back to the days when there was a toll over the Auckland Harbour Bridge. People who have driven over the bridge will have seen, particularly heading north, that after you come off the bridge, the road widens considerably. There used to be a series of toll booths there. A few of us can remember driving through there and our mum or our dad, probably, because we wouldn\u2019t have been driving ourselves back then, handing over the 20 cents or the 50 cents for the toll. Of course, people who lived north of the harbour bridge and had to commute over every day for work resented that toll.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, come 1980, there was a by-election in the East Coast Bays seat. The person who was standing for the by-election was Don Brash.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237b40d11275f4dba8e36c41507f8a1c5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002224a0e14f2e5b32f5b145e8f10317fd4f\u0022\u003EHon Erica Stanford\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004428\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002283589129b5d605f3f0c71d0a9a04a4ff\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s right, indeed. But legend has it that Rob Muldoon did not like Don Brash. Now, you\u2019ll recall that in 1980, Rob Muldoon was Prime Minister and Minister of Finance\u2014he liked having his control over everything. So a few weeks out from the by-election, legend has it that he lifted the tolls on the Auckland Harbour Bridge so that all the voters in East Coast Bays were really angry at National, and, rather that voting for Don Brash, they voted for Gary Knapp instead, and brought another Social Credit MP into the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237b40d11275f4dba8e36c41507f8a1c5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e3ed7435c0f3c71495547db8e9f00ace\u0022\u003EHon Erica Stanford\u003C/span\u003E: A dark stain on our history.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022693828e266f7c3465f72492c2abbdab5\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL\u003C/span\u003E: Ha, ha! I see that the current MP for East Coast Bays knows this story well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETolls have often been a point of contention in New Zealand. We seem to think that we ought to be able to drive everywhere on the roads for absolutely free, and we forget that roads need to be paid for and that we need to find a way of paying for roads which is equitable, which reflects the usage of those roads, that kind of spreads the load. Roads are, in many ways, a good socialist institution, where we spread the cost over many of us and we all derive benefit from it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe pay for roads in a variety of ways: we do use some tolls; we use some central government funding; we use our fuel taxes; we use road-user charges; and, of course, we use rates. So there\u2019s a whole mix of funding that goes into roading. It does seem to be fairly important that we get that mix right and that we ensure that\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224f2f5f10f1f35538a180670713fd1a11\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: There\u2019s too many people standing on the right side of the House. Sit down please.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d7977ba5c3534586ce21afdd8ff52a6a\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014not too much of the load is borne by one purported part of the community rather than another.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004435\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe also know that we need to upgrade and develop our roading infrastructure in New Zealand. We know that one way of funding some of these new roads that we do need is through tolls. If people think that we don\u2019t need new roads, I wish to point them to the glory of the Hamilton bypass, where one can just drive straight past Hamilton\u2014very sorry to my Hamilton colleagues. Also, the difference that Transmission Gully has made to Wellington; to the Taup\u014D bypass, years and years ago; and the way we\u2019ve been able to, of course, bypass Huntly: these are all good things. They make for efficient roading networks and they enable people to travel about this country and enable freight to travel about this country. The trick is how to pay for them and what is going to be the most effective way of paying for them. Tolls do seem to help there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo we welcome the changes in this bill, where we are looking at enabling tolling in various ways along road corridors, not just a particular road. This seems to be a sensible change. In terms of the work that has been done around the benefits from roads in a roading corridor, I think it\u2019s been very helpful that the select committee has spelled out some of the benefits that must be demonstrated to show that a new road could be tolled. Whether it\u2019s a saving in time or safer roads or more reliable travel time or a resilient structure, these are all benefits from a good roading network.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m looking at those ways that this select committee has worked on the rules around tolling and have, I think, come up with some pretty good solutions. I know we\u2019ll need to keep an eye on it in terms of equity and on fairness, but that\u2019s our job as a Parliament, so we will continue to do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do want to speak about some of the issues around the road-user charges, which is the other major change which is sitting in this bill. As we all know at the moment, some drivers pay road-user charges via their fuel excise and some pay road-user charges via the road-user charge. Now, the fuel excise is becoming less and less effective. We have more electric vehicles, less fuel being consumed\u2014we hope\u2014and so less fuel excise being collected. It\u2019s a problem that is widespread around the world. Many, many jurisdictions collect something like a fuel excise and use it to fund their roads. That particular source of road funding is dropping as people move towards electric vehicles, so we do need to find a way to ensure that all vehicle users contribute to the cost of the roads.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAt the moment, one of the things that doesn\u2019t work so well around road-user charges\u2014around paying for that\u2014is a heap of us pay for it via petrol, and the amount of petrol we use is taken as a proxy for the distance we travel and as a proxy for the impact of our vehicle on the roads. Now, it\u2019s an imperfect proxy. So if we could move away from that, that\u2019s a good thing to do. The particular changes that are being made for the fuel excise and the road-user charges mean that, in time, we will all be paying road-user charges instead of, we hope, paying that cost for our roads via the fuel excise. I think that\u2019s a fairer way of doing things. It\u2019s a more accurate way of doing things. The technologies are starting to exist so that we can measure very accurately the distances that vehicles travel and therefore ask for the appropriate amount of road-user charges.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004440\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere are a couple of equity issues or issues around payment there. One of them was touched on by one of the earlier speakers. At the moment, a person who\u2019s paying road-user charges\u2014that\u2019s a person who\u2019s driving a diesel vehicle usually\u2014those road-user charges are bought in 1,000-kilometre blocks. That\u2019s a chunk of money. It\u2019s all very well if a person can pay that quite easily, but there are families for whom that is not possible, so we do need to be able to pay for those road-user charges in smaller chunks.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other issue I\u2019m worrying about, though\u2014and this will be one for us as a Parliament to keep an eye on\u2014is that once we start collecting road-user charges separately from paying for fuel\u2014remember that portion of funding is currently collected through the fuel excise\u2014once we ask people to start paying a separate bill, it may well become a deferrable bill. At the moment, a person who goes to fill up their car automatically pays the amount of fuel excise. I\u2019m sure they notice the cost of petrol, but they don\u2019t notice the particular amount that is the fuel excise. Once we separate that amount out and ask for it to be paid separately, it is like any bill that can be paid with a bit of discretion from people putting off paying their power bill to putting off paying their rent and so on. There are some bills that can be put off. We need to make sure we have a mechanism so that people pay their new road-user charges not in big chunks of 1,000 or so, but on an as-you-go basis and that there is a simple mechanism for collecting that from people as they go; not too much in arrears. Otherwise, I fear we could add to some of the problems we already have with people ending up in debt and ending up in desperate circumstances because of their accumulated debt. So that is something else for our Parliament to keep an eye on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHaving said this, this is a good bill. It takes us further down towards better funding for our road system, and we commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b7cff05e64f346e68983b2fdbfba3ad8\u0022 data-id=\u0022e141888d248538c03e2f31a3a0c4e3e9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b7cff05e64f346e68983b2fdbfba3ad8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e141888d248538c03e2f31a3a0c4e3e9\u0022\u003EDAN BIDOIS (National\u2014Northcote) (23:06)\u003C/span\u003E: This is a good bill and it literally helps us build the future for our country. I wish to thank the select committee for their work on this bill, and I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022624e6a824bf719fd6a02558173a0e3f5\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Dan Rosewarne. I look forward to hearing about the Woodend Bypass! Just a prediction!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022 data-id=\u0022ebec9d53ef3dae8c28d4361b0aa3559c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ebec9d53ef3dae8c28d4361b0aa3559c\u0022\u003EDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (23:07)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wasn\u2019t going to mention it, but now I might have to\u2014I might have to. I rise to speak on this bill in its second reading. Labour will be supporting this bill, not because we agree with every part of it necessarily but because the select committee has done a good job in improving it. A number of concerns were raised by submitters, and they\u2019ve been addressed. The bill comes back to this House a lot better than the one that was introduced\u2014that\u2019s for sure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere are two broad parts to this legislation. The first one deals with tolling, and the second one modernises the road-user charges system. On road-user charges, there\u2019s quite a bit to this bill that makes sense. The current system still relies on processes that belong in another era. The bill removes the requirements for paper licences. It enables digital administration and allows for flexible payment options. It also opens the door to new technology and service providers. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004447\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt was great that the Minister actually had a really good analogy around the paper option being a relic of the past. I still have a car that\u2014I would like that paper option. I wouldn\u2019t really like to touch it. I\u2019ve got a 1976 HJ Holden Kingswood. I did bring this up in the first reading, but once I get started on these kinds of things, I can\u2019t stop. It actually has Michelin tyres, so the Government will be really happy about that. In fact, they probably subsidise them in some way, although it didn\u2019t feel like it when I paid for them and chucked them on to the car. But anyway, the odometer on that has actually gone around the clock a couple of times, so that no doubt will have to be a consideration if we stick to the old style. But don\u2019t get me started on old Holdens\u2014I\u2019ll be here all night otherwise. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll get back to the bill. This bill is designed to prepare for the future transition of petrol vehicles into the on-road user charges system. Some really good changes. People expect the Government systems to work efficiently, they expect them to be easy to use, and if technology can reduce compliance costs and make life easier for motorists, that\u2019s something that\u2019s worth supporting. The select committee also spent a lot of time considering issues around privacy, competition between providers, and access for people who still prefer the traditional ways of paying, particularly for classic cars\u2014I\u2019ll just add that in there again. Those are all matters that deserve ongoing scrutiny as the system develops.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004449\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe more contentious part of this bill is tolling. Tolling is always a difficult decision because most people would rather not pay an extra charge to use the road, and that\u2019s understandable. But Governments also have to be honest about the fact that major transport infrastructure projects do cost money, and communities often want projects delivered sooner rather than later. So the question has never really been about whether tolling should exist; the question is about when it is appropriate, what safeguards should apply, and whether people are being treated fairly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004450\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s also much in the select committee\u2019s work focused around corridor tolling, concerns about how toll revenue could be used, and concerns around giving Ministers too much discretion in the future. Those concerns led to a number of changes, including tighter definition arounds corridor tolling, clearer safeguards, consultation requirements, and stronger limits on how some of these powers can be exercised. Those improvements are important because public confidence matters. If people are expected to pay tolls, they need to know that there\u2019s clear rules around where tolling can occur and how those decisions are made.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll inject my Woodend Bypass here: so for people in north Canterbury, this project is often talked about\u2014it\u2019s been talked about for years. Anyone who has sat in traffic through Woodend, anyone who runs a business that relies on freight moving efficiently, and anyone who travels that route regularly understands why that bypass is needed. There\u2019s a strong case for getting it built: it will improve safety, it will improve travel times, it will improve the reliability of an important route into Christchurch.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004452\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESupporting the Woodend Bypass doesn\u2019t necessarily mean supporting the toll on the bypass. Interestingly, tolls were only actually recently raised about the bypass, which has caught the community off guard. So we definitely support it being built, but I\u2019m not convinced that local community members should be paying that toll. I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002266a15d8966bce8eb1750c658cb875862\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member\u2019s time has expired.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022297bc572c27f45308dffb067ca3e7915\u0022 data-id=\u0022fa88c2df84f54cca737c3fd58d487324\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004454\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022297bc572c27f45308dffb067ca3e7915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fa88c2df84f54cca737c3fd58d487324\u0022\u003EDr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National\u2014Ilam) (23:12)\u003C/span\u003E: It is a great honour to rise in support of the Land Transport (Revenue) Amendment Bill. This bill will help create a fairer, simpler, and more modern transport funding system, ensuring New Zealand will be ready for the next generation of road building. Therefore, I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022 data-id=\u0022adeac1c8cbae231513441b0423350f1c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004455\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022adeac1c8cbae231513441b0423350f1c\u0022\u003EDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (23:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Speaker, thank you. I also would like to make a contribution on the Land Transport (Revenue) Amendment Bill\u2014probably a little bit longer that the previous speaker, but let\u2019s just see what happens.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETransport funding obviously needs to catch up with how New Zealanders actually travel. This has been described in various contributions tonight as a bit of an overdue, modernisation bill. For that reason, Labour continues to support it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI just want to run through a few points, but in summary of that and in anticipation, the current road-user charges (RUC) system has been described on several occasions tonight as being a system that is stalled, paper-based, very cumbersome. I think the Minister, in his first reading, talked about the little piece of paper that can easily be lost down the dash. It does seem a little bit antiquated to still be relying on a ticket, so to speak, to prove that you\u2019re, essentially, allowed to be on the road\u2014and all of the stressors and logistics around maintaining such an old-fashioned system. So we\u2019re happy to see this included in this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill also talks about the future transition of petrol vehicles into the RUC system. Again, the Minister and various other contributors have talked about, I suppose, the sustainability of funding as we look forward. We\u2019ve heard contributions talk about the need for it to be a much more user-pays system, and the fact that, with more and more EVs on the road, it\u2019s inevitable that we\u2019re going to move to a RUC system. Increased fuel efficiency\u2014all of those things contribute to that. Essentially, modern technology, flexible payment options, and a much more efficient funding system are all sensible reforms, which is a big part of the reason Labour continues to support this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe support modernisation, but only if it\u2019s accompanied by things like fairness. It\u2019s got to have decent transparency. Most importantly, it must maintain public confidence. That\u2019s an issue that has to be maintained not only during this legislative process, as we have worked on this bill and we will inevitably watch it turn into legislation, but also as the regime is maintained in the future. A transport funding system, as I said, needs to be modern, it should be efficient, but, most importantly, it also needs to be trusted. Those three things need to go together\u2014cue the select committee process, and that certainly was the starting point for our considerations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhilst this bill was in the select committee, it was improved, and there were several improvements made to the bill, many of which have been touched on tonight. Some have been elucidated in a lot more detail. I\u2019m going to run through them from my perspective, as a member of the select committee and the experience I had as we not only discussed this bill but we were in a somewhat unique position, because select committees aren\u2019t always made up of people who bring individual expertise\u2014and they shouldn\u2019t need to be\u2014but on this particular occasion, we had a select committee that was made of people who brought a wealth of either individual expertise or individual experience in this realm. I think that it made the select committee process, for someone who doesn\u2019t possess that expertise, all the more richer. I felt like I learnt quite a lot.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn regard to the types of things that we discussed and the improvements that we made, we were initially concerned that this bill gave the Minister very broad powers to toll existing roads. The term \u201Ccorridor\u201D wasn\u2019t particularly well defined, and, as it turns out, it needed to be. Again, as someone from a lay perspective, who didn\u2019t necessarily realise how important that was, it didn\u2019t take long for people like Simon Court, who has a lot of lived experience and loves a good road, and it didn\u2019t take long for people like my colleagues Tangi Utikere and Andy Foster and Celia Wade-Brown, who have a wealth of experience in local government, to be very firm on the fact that a lot of this needed a little bit of fixing up. So I felt very privileged to be privy to that process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ed98d0fef2a9d7445e07dacd19e5644d\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Great select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004463\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cc2ec7789d540762057fe49c2fb32f21\u0022\u003EDr TRACEY McLELLAN\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. In terms of the corridor, it needed to have, as was said earlier, both a functional and an operational relationship. We almost got to the point where it would be somewhat of an exaggeration to say there was \u201Cacting out\u201D, but we almost got the point where, with that wealth of experience, both practical and through local government, several examples were raised of roads and alternate routes and alternate roads and toll roads and the functional and operational relationships\u2014when I say \u201Calmost an exaggeration\u201D, it was minus the car and it was minus leaving the select committee room. But it really did make you feel like you were there\u2014a little bit frustrating at times, but I think it was well worth it to get to the place where we got.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere was also no clear test for when an existing road could be tolled. Through the process, I think that those definitions were well worth the time. It removed, also, the vague reference to \u201Cefficiency\u201D, which could have expanded tolling far too far. That\u2019s exactly how a select committee process should work. Concerns were raised\u2014and I do want to acknowledge all the submitters. I think there were 47 submissions and 12 oral submissions, and they were very much appreciated. It\u2019s exactly how the select committee process should work: concerns were raised, evidence was heard, and the legislation was made all the stronger because of it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn line with those sentiments of gratitude to the members of the select committee and the submitters, I also do want to acknowledge the officials who did have to put up with a huge number of questions and clarifications.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe new RUC system is a major structural change, and it\u2019s a major part of this bill. What happened through this bill and through this process is it separates the New Zealand Transport Agency\u2019s regulatory role from the retail providers, and the Minister provided some more examples of that; creates approved third-party RUC providers; allows subscriptions and post-payment systems, which we\u2019re all in favour of; and, as I said, prepares for a much more nationwide RUC system in the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThrough those discussions, we also, certainly from the Labour Party perspective, wanted some assurances\u2014and were given them\u2014around issues of privacy, around issues of consumer protection, transparency, and accountability, as we discussed those. Because of those improvements, obviously, Labour continues to be comfortable supporting this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn this case, many of the concerns raised through the submission process were not only practical but they were quite technical. Tolling remains fair, because our consideration was that tolling must remain fair and not just a means by which to collective revenue, particularly at this time in history as we find ourselves in quite a prolonged situation where the cost of living really is biting a lot of people. So it seemed particularly pertinent that we weren\u2019t introducing something that was just going to be used as another way to raise revenue. Because tolling\u2019s still quite controversial. We don\u2019t have a long history of it. I think Simon Court talked in his contribution about New Zealand being decades behind other countries when it comes to this issue, but that doesn\u2019t mean that we\u2019re really necessarily for it without that public trust. I think that that\u2019s really important that that is done.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOf course, New Zealanders are under significant financial pressure, as I\u2019ve said, and we have to make sure not only through this process but as this is implemented and as things will change in the future that transport funding never loses sight of the equity issue. Because not everybody can afford tolling. There will be consequences to a regime that does too much too quickly or that doesn\u0027t keep equity in sight.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004470\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELabour supports this bill because the funding ultimately does need to be moved into the 21\u003Csup\u003Est\u003C/sup\u003E century. Modernisation shouldn\u2019t be the ultimate goal if it doesn\u2019t also include fairness, transparency, and public trust. Those changes that have been made through this process continue to give us confidence and therefore I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224fa276bb28e27426d3f1f014797e32bb\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Miles Anderson\u2014what\u2019s your road?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226aa6725740ef48a8bd0e0d084ac074fc\u0022 data-id=\u00221e0e97ddd3c2c27b930e2028d8656779\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226aa6725740ef48a8bd0e0d084ac074fc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221e0e97ddd3c2c27b930e2028d8656779\u0022\u003EMILES ANDERSON (National\u2014Waitaki) (23:22)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don\u2019t have one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ab32b09663ea48b199aa59e4d88f77e4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221293fbf4684b86af5aa83eda2472985f\u0022\u003ETim Costley\u003C/span\u003E: The road less travelled!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226aa6725740ef48a8bd0e0d084ac074fc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224fd4d4e03af15d3a7bfc0c706a244d17\u0022\u003EMILES ANDERSON\u003C/span\u003E: \u201CThe road less travelled\u201D\u2014that\u2019s correct. Look, this is a very sensible bill. It\u2019s obviously focused on fixing the basics and building the future. I commend the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227c648d1873312d85ca781be3a3aa31b6\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Greg Fleming\u2014it\u2019s always a race!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227ef423fda7b143b890e93f8018529ebe\u0022 data-id=\u0022e092fbc28a21e6c549757a77ece0131f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227ef423fda7b143b890e93f8018529ebe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e092fbc28a21e6c549757a77ece0131f\u0022\u003EGREG FLEMING (National\u2014Maungakiekie) (23:22)\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EKo te kaupapa o t\u0113nei pire kia tere te waka, n\u0101 reira kia tere te pire hoki. T\u0113n\u0101 koe.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThe intent of this bill is to speed up the canoe, therefore, the bill should be fast too. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E]  \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Land Transport (Revenue) Amendment Bill be now read a second time\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 115\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 6\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETe P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004484\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a second time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022129a1e8f39e31bdb612f07e30705dd42\u0022\u003EInfrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e1fd82e249bd27a29e0a69a46e823755\u0022\u003ELegislative Statement\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u002299859c19a42e377c78c1ef19377b4d24\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002299859c19a42e377c78c1ef19377b4d24\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (23:25)\u003C/span\u003E: on behalf of the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister for Infrastructure\u003C/span\u003E: I present a legislative statement on the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022690851739d5a55889a87261632661356\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002276b8ada63ab6de7894203bb53347c56b\u0022\u003ESecond Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u00224c84bf8d6ee934188123568fa2ed8053\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224c84bf8d6ee934188123568fa2ed8053\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (23:25)\u003C/span\u003E: on behalf of the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister for Infrastructure\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill be now read a second time\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019d like to start this contribution by thanking all of those involved in getting this bill to the second reading. To the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee for their careful consideration of this bill, to the members of the public who took the time to provide both oral and written submissions: thank you to you all. Your input has helped to strengthen and improve this bill and it is greatly appreciated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe rationale for this bill is as follows: we need to increase the effectiveness of the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act. That is a key component of pillar two of the Government\u2019s Going for Housing Growth programme, which is focused on making improvements to infrastructure funding\u2014you might say fixing our infrastructure funding network\u2014and making improvements to the financing tools to help get more housing and the future of New Zealand\u2019s housing built.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EUnder the status quo, councils and developers do face significant challenges to fund and finance the enabling infrastructure for housing. This Government and hopefully this House wants to move to a future state where funding and financing tools will enable a responsive supply of infrastructure where it is commercially viable to build new houses. This will shift market expectations of future scarcity, bring down the cost of land for new housing, and improve incentives to develop land sooner instead of holding it for land banking. This is a necessary step to help fix our housing crisis.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFirst, some background. The Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act was first established in 2020 as an alternative means to fund and finance infrastructure needed to support urban growth. It was a good idea and it had good intentions. However, the Act has fallen short of delivering additional infrastructure needed to respond to growth. To date, only three levies have been authorised. So this bill has the purpose of removing unnecessary barriers to using the Act to improve its viability for a range of infrastructure projects and to make the levy development and approvals process simpler and more streamlined.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill makes changes to streamline that levy approvals process. Currently, there\u2019s an extensive process required for applicants to have a levy approved, and that can be a barrier when trying to use the Act. This bill will streamline the process and improve certainty for developers by simplifying requirements for levy proposals and recommendation reports, simplifying the mandatory considerations that the Minister of Housing must take into account when assessing the levy and improving certainty for developer-led proposals.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004496\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill also broadens the scope of the Act to improve its flexibility and viability for a range of infrastructure projects. This will better reflect the developer-led use of the tool and enable the Act to be used for transport projects delivered by agencies\u2014for example, the New Zealand Transport Agency and KiwiRail\u2014as part of a funding stack for transport infrastructure investment where it benefits property owners.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004497\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill also makes changes to enable the Act to be used for water infrastructure investments delivered by new water organisations established through the Local Government (Water Services) Act 2025 and allows for those water organisations to act as the responsible levy authority. In addition, the bill replaces the definition of community infrastructure so it is not required to be owned or controlled by a territorial authority. This broadens the potential use of the Act to therefore include community infrastructure that is owned or controlled by a third party, rather than that vested in a territorial authority. There are a number of other changes that the bill makes that are very, very important, but they are the key ones outlined so far.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004498\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn December last year, the bill was referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, so it\u2019s been a while to get to this stage, and we\u2019re hoping that it\u2019ll progress with pace tonight. The bill received submissions from 60 interested groups and individuals and the select committee heard oral evidence from six submitters at hearings in Wellington and some via video conference. The select committee examined the bill and recommended that it be passed with amendments to a number of clauses, which the Government supports in full.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo strengthen consideration of affordability, the select committee proposed a change so that when the relevant Minister is assessing the affordability of a levy, they will also need to consider the cumulative affordability of the levy when combined with existing levies, rates, and water services charges. That\u2019s sensible change, and I\u2019m glad the select committee offered it forward.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004500\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn respond to feedback from iwi and M\u0101ori, an amendment is proposed to require levy proposals to include details of any consultation undertaken, including with affected landowners, iwi, or hap\u016B. This will enable the recommender\u2014that\u2019s the person who assesses levy proposals and writes the recommendation report\u2014and the responsible Minister to consider any consultation that has occurred, including any impacts for M\u0101ori raised during consultation as part of overall decision-making on the levy proposal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004501\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAn additional safeguard has also been added to the accelerated recovery mechanism to require a special-purpose vehicle to seek a court judgment for Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act (IFF Act) funding and financing costs before the special-purpose vehicle may apply to the registrar for the sale of undeveloped land. This new step would introduce an independent assessment of the amount of IFF Act funding and financing costs the special-purpose vehicle has determined needs to be repaid, and ensures that there is a judgment issued before sale proceedings may be commenced.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004502\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA number of further technical amendments have also been proposed by the committee to improve the workability of the bill, and, of course, we all agree with them wholeheartedly and look forward to their passage and acceptance in the second reading.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn conclusion, the changes in the bill and the bill itself will make the Act far more viable and flexible so that councils, developers, and other infrastructure providers can get on with fixing the basics of our housing crisis and building the infrastructure that our growing communities need. I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228c2ba22c758de722afae4fd8b7b23e23\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u002261997635a44f891f58a2be8e124b54ff\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004505\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002261997635a44f891f58a2be8e124b54ff\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (23:31)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a sensible bill. It is a Labour Party idea that has come to fruition. Some good ideas survive elections. It is something that will get more pipes laid in the ground, get more roads built, get more houses going up, that is why we continue to support it. Even though there are some policy choices in here which would not have been our choices, we are serious about the housing crisis, and that makes us serious about infrastructure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe test for this will really be whether it enables, in the next decade, in the lives of my kids and their kids, more infrastructure to be built faster and to be built, hopefully, as we spread the risk differently, cheaper, more affordably, and in the right place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004507\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs the housing Minister said when he appeared at his scrutiny week hearing before the select committee\u2014that is, all of these changes are important, but anything that\u2019s not improving the planning system is just tinkering around the edges. This is tinkering; at least it is tinkering in the right direction, and I\u2019m going to tell you how the select committee also tinkered with it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004508\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is building on Labour\u2019s original framework, which was essentially acknowledging that we already have special-purpose vehicles as an ordinary part of Government funding and financing. Something like the City Rail Link is a special-purpose vehicle that exists\u2014I think it\u2019s a limited partnership that draws on not only council governance but also central governance and is able to access financing at its own rate and has its own risk balance on its books. Those are usually creatures of special legislation. This sets up a framework of legislation which can be used for anything.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004509\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe are debating this piece of legislation tonight because the Government doesn\u2019t have its own special-purpose vehicles to build roads and to build pipes to pass new legislation, but don\u2019t worry, we\u2019ll pass a special rule book to deal with it in future when they do have some infrastructure proposals for us to consider in this House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004510\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe way that it\u2019s meant to work did have some exclusions. Some of those, you can imagine, were really important to Labour politicians, and they\u2019re still really important to Labour politicians. One of them was the way that consultation would apply to an area of land which included M\u0101ori land. M\u0101ori land, now, under the new provisions, can be brought into a scheme, but it\u2019s been excluded by the Minister from the ability to accelerate recovery.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004511\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere are two special rules going on here. One is, what sorts of rules can be included in the new regime where security and value of the land is being changed. From ACT Party perspective, you introduce a levy-making power over land, and the value of that land changes. That is a regulatory taking in their eyes, but that is allowed by this bill\u2014in fact, it is enabled by this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004512\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn the original formation of this bill, it was impossible for M\u0101ori land to be included in that, and I\u2019ll tell you why. In a New Zealand Court of Appeal decision called the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EMangatu\u003C/span\u003E case, M\u0101ori land was held to be differently valued for the purposes of the English common law that we associate with our Torrens system in New Zealand that governs land value.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004513\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m very proud of that case. It is my wh\u0101nau that took that case, Mangatu is my land: an area the size of Hamilton City that my wh\u0101nau, over six generations have reclaimed their rangatiratanga over, first started by my great-great grandmother Waioeka for whom my daughter is named.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004514\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn that case, the Court of Appeal agreed with the claimant and said that because M\u0101ori land is governed in such a way, that sale is tightly restricted and there\u2019s a pool of purchasers that is smaller, and that there are additional governance and administration costs associated with owning M\u0101ori land, that it should not be rated in the same way. Most recently, the Government has a set of 2019 guidelines that set out how it should be rated. That\u2019s relevant, because when you consider the different value in our common law that\u2019s associated with M\u0101ori land, when you are going introduce a new levy-making power for Government over that land, you would also expect the rules to recognise that common law position.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004515\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill has brought M\u0101ori land into this scheme. It is possible now for it to be included in an area that which will be relevant for things like Watercare\u2019s new wastewater and sewerage treatment facilities that are being built out in M\u0101ngere. M\u0101ngere is one of the few areas in Auckland with a significant proportion of M\u0101ori land, including Ihum\u0101tao. That would have been a reason why it would have been difficult, say, for this provision to be used under the old formulation that will be included in the new formulation of the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004516\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat has been excluded from the provision, which makes it really valuable. Any private equity financier that looks at the arrangement and sees that they cannot claim against M\u0101ori land\u2014that will give them pause, and it is an appropriate kind of protection for M\u0101ori land, given that it is very hard to sell and shouldn\u2019t be easy to claim against if you\u2019re a financier looking to recover your amount by selling land. Those are pretty broad provisions that will require the sale of land, and it is appropriate that they are restricted in this way by this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004517\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESome of the changes that the committee has made deserve some level of scrutiny at this stage. One of the issues that the committee rightly pointed to was raised by the Regulations Review Committee about the regulation-making powers in section 29 that relate to the setting of levies. It\u2019s a pretty broad power, and it\u2019s broad by design, but it does function much more like a taxation-making power in that, currently, the formulation is that any area of land can be levied by the special-purpose vehicle. It may be on top of rates, and may be on top of other charges which are being charged for the same thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAn example of this would be in a water infrastructure setting, some of some rates and some value within a rateable value of land is being paid for water infrastructure, but to set up something like the Wellington sludge factory, you might have otherwise included a consideration for that in your rates, but then there is also this extra top-up charge levied against those property owners that\u2019s appropriate for that kind of future-focused infrastructure, but it was given particular consideration here because it is a very broad power.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004519\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe officials when asked that question by the committee came back with pretty comprehensive advice on why that was appropriate and why it was also comparable to international jurisdictions. The committee has relied on that advice, and it is worth understanding that the committee did turn its mind to this broad levy-making power is much more akin to a taxation-making power.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004520\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second thing which is worth bringing to the attention of the committee is the findings it made and were shared by all members around consultation with M\u0101ori. The officials asked the committee, \u201CCan we engage with stakeholders? Can we go out, given that this has been introduced pretty quickly by the legislature and we haven\u2019t done that consultation with iwi-M\u0101ori groups?\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004521\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen they did that, one of the particular issues that came up was, when the levy is set by the special-purpose vehicle (SPV), the SPV might not have any requirements on it to go out and consult, so that is now included. Especially given that now there is a change to the way that those SPVs might not be set up where you might not have Government, which has duties under Te Tiriti o Waitangi; you might not have local government, either, which has duties under Te Tiriti o Waitangi by its delegated constitutional arrangements from the Crown; you might have something which is running that SPV which doesn\u2019t have those underlying constitutional duties. So having that requirement to consult is useful\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004522\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f56159e288c5cb1de2b40a36ad7046dc\u0022\u003ESimon Court\u003C/span\u003E: We just need the pipes. We don\u2019t care about the constitution.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004523\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224f8ec2467ea4cf4037c42ca9d1ef5afd\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS\u003C/span\u003E: The ACT Party has just one trick. Simon Court says, \u201CJust build the pipes. We don\u2019t care about te ao M\u0101ori.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004524\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe point is that if you are levying citizens, you should tell them clearly, and that is a principle of the ACT Party\u2014I think they used to have that in their constitution. But obviously not. Obviously if you\u2019re a M\u0101ori landowner, then it is fine to have a regulatory taking and to pay an extra levy which is more like a tax\u2014is it? Oh, he\u2019s lost for words now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004525\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002250cb18a54a428cc2f8807a5584041f93\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: He won\u2019t be soon!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022116f998a829296ca984758a9a0419616\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS\u003C/span\u003E: Ha, ha!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004527\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe next part that the committee raised, which is important just to note, is the right to challenge the validity of the levy. The committee considered this carefully, and the reason for that\u2014I\u2019m going to sound like an ACT Party member now\u2014is that when local government and central government delegate their power to somebody who is not the Government to charge a levy to the citizenry, we should be very careful about that, and that shouldn\u2019t be done by officials; it should be done by a power which is really, really clear. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004528\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f423eaf7de7bbaf3bb4147b86c5f9107\u0022\u003ESimon Court\u003C/span\u003E: User pays\u2014say it!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004529\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221d67b23edabdd8c15c2e55b3c31ef4df\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS\u003C/span\u003E: The member is heckling me; he\u2019s saying, \u201CUser pays\u201D. Yes, users should pay, but levy makers shouldn\u2019t use the coercive power of the State against citizens who can\u2019t stand up to them if they are not, in fact, elected. A party that believes in elected members and elected power and would go so far as to remove the Independent M\u0101ori Statutory Board from the Auckland super-city should believe that; they should at least have some conviction in their principles, but they do not tonight.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004530\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ESo, with that, I am very happy that we have cross-partisan and bipartisan support for a sensible infrastructure bill. Even if the ACT Party can\u2019t quite work out tonight what they think about it, we will press on to build the houses, build the roads, and put the pipes in the ground regardless of the ideology on that side of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022 data-id=\u00223b7dd2165f83cb0cd0715fb11034abed\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004531\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223b7dd2165f83cb0cd0715fb11034abed\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green) (23:41)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak on this bill. I think the thing that\u2019s really important to guide this conversation is the sorts of numbers that we know are around the infrastructure sphere. We know that we do have an infrastructure deficit of around $200 billion, and we know that it\u2019s going to cost around $1 trillion to fix it over the next 30 years. So a bill like this that enables settings to help us address those deficits is a positive thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe do agree with some of the words that have been said by the two previous speakers. In particular, we agree with the nods to cross-partisanship and bipartisanship that were given by the first speaker, James Meager, and also, then, Arena Williams. Working together in a cross-party way is a good way that we can help address, in a cross-party way, the infrastructure deficit and the gaps that do exist. The infrastructure plan that was signed off, I think, a few weeks ago did have forewords from both Opposition parties. So that was an encouraging sign.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, this bill does some things that we do support. One of the top things that it does is to reduce and simplify requirements for levy proposals and recommendation reports. That\u2019s a good step forward. Reducing and simplifying the mandatory considerations that the Minister must take into account when assessing a levy is also a positive step forward, from our point of view. We do think that\u2019s really important because as either the first or second speaker said\u2014or maybe they both said it\u2014only three projects actually managed to get into the levy under the previous legislation. So simplifying it and making sure that it\u2019s more accessible is a pretty good step forward.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the things that we emphasise that is also a good step for this bill is the broadening of the purpose beyond just addressing local authority financing. We do regard that as a positive thing. We do think that it\u2019s good to be able to use other transport projects such as that delivered by the New Zealand Transport Agency or KiwiRail or for other water infrastructure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004535\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022163af35bdb6874267713f1fd99fe9ee7\u0022\u003EHon Member: \u003C/span\u003EHe loves it!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004536\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221ebe8d370e6417045fcc953eaa6204f3\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ\u003C/span\u003E: Well, we\u2019ve articulated the things we do like about the bill, but you know, I do need to say the things that we do have concerns about on this current bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004537\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ENow, while we did support the enactment of the original Infrastructure Funding and Finance Act in 2020, you know, on a case by case basis, in general we might prefer it if development contributions are borrowed by local and central government, but we do acknowledge that the additional tool could serve an additional purpose. But we are a little bit sceptical about potential things that don\u2019t protect endpoint public ownership or things that might allow for securitisation of public infrastructure. So we are a little bit cautious.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004538\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290a05c0f561045159bf3351d524a65ac\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e84274704e5b0925258cd276d701be48\u0022\u003ETim van de Molen\u003C/span\u003E: Stop reading your speech!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004539\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e658863197be85aeaa324c39a14499cf\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I\u2019m not reading the speech. There\u2019s no speech that I\u2019ve written. That\u2019s the problem\u2014I\u2019m making it up as I go. I wish I had a speech that was pre-written. I wish I had the pre-written speech. I\u2019m just reading these notes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe things that we do find concerning that I do need to stress are the things around the requirements to assess the levy affordability for proposals supported by developers. We also find a little bit concerning\u2014well, we do support better ways to fund and finance infrastructure, and we do support the overall intent of the bill. We do have some concerns that it might enable private developers or Crown entities to proceed with ill-considered projects and lock people into unaffordable payments. Now, that has been characterised by some members as unnecessary barriers, but it\u2019s possible that some projects might not necessarily stack up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think some of the submissions articulate a lot of the concerns that we\u2019ve expressed around the potential for this bill to, essentially\u2014it does enable financing, and that is an important part of it, but as New Zealanders for a Democratic Economy put it in their submission, sometimes things that are limited in financial scope can be limited in imagination and outlook. We do agree with their concerns that it operates from the assumption that the dominant factor in formulating public infrastructure necessarily should rely on market mechanisms. We do think that a broader bill that considers what kind of public infrastructure might be most conducive to the public good might be better in terms of considering things like sustainable development, in terms of national wealth, in terms of workers\u2019 wealth, workers\u2019 rights, ecological limits, and long-term planning. But the problem is that this financing is only one aspect of a potentially broader project for national development that we need to undertake.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004542\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe do think that this bill will accelerate infrastructure delivery, but we are concerned that it does so in the process of shifting risk, cost, and control away from community and democratic oversight towards the more financialised structures, which might serve to obscure or evade public scrutiny; that is something that we did put in our differing view. It is a concern that I think we should articulate again at this stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe do like the fact that this bill does allow infrastructure to be financed through long-term levies attached to land titles. In general, the idea of making people pay for things that benefit them, that might potentially benefit their property or land values, is a good thing. Ultimately, things like developer contributions are potentially a good mechanism, especially for capturing the value that might be captured in this land. That mechanism, basically, effectively, socialises private development costs across time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut we do have, as I\u2019ve said, some concerns, and one of them is, again, the embedding of infrastructure funding within the special purpose vehicles, which raise money through private finance and recover costs through levies. We do think that that might lead to things like shifting financial control to private lenders and things like shifting decision making away from democratic institutions. And under the more traditional models, public infrastructure builds traditionally sit within accountability frameworks that can be held accountable and are sort of auditable, or have some mechanisms that enable scrutiny of it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004545\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo, for example, under the current public provision model, ratepayers can seek information, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) their councils, and, ultimately, ratepayers can have the ultimate veto\u2014being able to remove their councils if they don\u2019t like what they\u2019re doing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004546\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s the same principle that governs central government as well. If you have questions about a project, you\u2019re able to make an Official Information Act request or, ultimately, if you don\u2019t like a project that\u2019s been approved, you have the ultimate veto of being able to de-elect a Government. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004547\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aceea6e4ca7a8b24fe08ba62a5ec9ece\u0022\u003EMike Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Happening 7 November.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004548\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233d6c990c64e41428c25aa2fcb7c3bf3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cf52130b40412e2b1ace3b4100f3b289\u0022\u003EFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, exactly. These mechanisms which do enable more public-private partnerships is something that might potentially lead to less accountability. And our concern about the special purpose vehicle (SPV) model is also about the embedding of the commercial logic into the heart of infrastructure delivery. We do know that the special purpose vehicles have a legal duty to maximise returns for their investors over things like the public good. We do think that the public good is something that should have the overriding consideration. We\u2019re not necessarily opposed to SPVs inherently, as short-term measures or things that might alleviate the infrastructure burden, which is real and is only growing, but examples of this are not hypothetical. There\u2019s no guarantee that the stormwater systems that will be built to the standards that we need to enable long-term public infrastructure or adaptation. We do know that community centres might face pressure to commercialise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004549\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThank you so much. I\u2019ll yield the floor now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004550\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d6ea883ec9e33f5a5534cd8417c48561\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Simon Court. I\u2019ve been waiting for your right of reply.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022aa0d9d6fcd00831e2a23798ca59d5af7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022aa0d9d6fcd00831e2a23798ca59d5af7\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (ACT) (23:51)\u003C/span\u003E: As the co-sponsor, along with Minister Chris Bishop, the Minister for Infrastructure, this Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill has the potential to fix a real infrastructure blockage. New Zealand needs more homes, but homes need pipes, roads, stormwater, transport links, and power. Because without that infrastructure, houses are delayed, they\u2019re made more expensive, or never built at all. That has been New Zealand\u2019s problem for too long.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELand has been rationed by planning rules, councils have been constrained by debt limits, and funding tools have been too slow, too costly, and too hard to use. Developers have been ready to build, buyers have been ready to buy, but the infrastructure system has too often said \u201Cno\u201D. This bill helps turn \u201Cno\u201D into a \u201Cyes\u201D. It\u2019s part of the Government\u2019s Going for Housing Growth programme: to free up land, improve infrastructure funding and financing, and to give councils better incentives to support growth. That\u2019s exactly the principle we need: growth should pay for growth. The people who benefit from new infrastructure should contribute to its cost over a reasonable time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004553\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPrivate capital, investors, should be able to respond to demand, but the Act has not worked as intended. That\u2019s why we\u2019re amending it. Only three levy proposals have been authorised. That\u2019s not a lack of need; that is a failure of process and, dear I say, a failure of will. New Zealand Initiative\u2019s report, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsTerm\u0022 style=\u0022font-style: italic\u0022\u003EFinance Freedom\u003C/span\u003E, makes the same point. New Zealand\u2019s housing shortage starts with pipes and roads. Where councils cannot fund growth infrastructure, planning rules, councils end up rationing growth that forces up the price of housing. Families pay the bill. The answer is a second finance channel: private investors funding infrastructure and future residents repaying that cost over time. That is what this bill supports.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004554\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn 2022, I visited Texas and Colorado, including Dallas and Denver. I saw how special purpose vehicles, like those enabled under this Act, support housing growth and development. This year, where the United States has reached its 250-year milestone, there is much to learn from our state-side friends as to how to unlock growth and deliver housing at an affordable price. They do not wait for every pipe, road, and utility connection to be funded through an overloaded council balance sheet. They define the growth area, finance the network, build ahead of demand, and recover the cost over a reasonable time from properties that benefit. That is not theory; that is engineering discipline that is what New Zealand needs right now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004555\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe do not need to copy Texas or Colorado wholesale, but we should learn the lesson. When people want to build homes, when private capital is willing to finance the infrastructure, Government and councils should not be the blockage. This bill removes the blockage. It simplifies the mandatory considerations for approving a levy. It requires levy and infrastructure authorities, including councils, to provide endorsements where statutory requirements are met. If the legal test is satisfied, a council should not be able to stall a project simply through enforcing process. It also extends the eligibility for infrastructure delivered by the New Zealand Transport Agency and KiwiRail and new water service organisations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe select committee has improved the bill. I support these technical changes. These changes protect levy payers, as Arena Williams pointed out\u2014it\u2019s an important consideration\u2014but they keep the tool workable. This bill is not about Government building everything; it is about Government setting clear rules so infrastructure can be financed and funded where people need it. We will not fix housing by signalling intention alone. We will fix it by freeing up land, cutting delays, funding infrastructure, and letting people who want to pay for it build the stuff we need. I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004557\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c30641db215a0cc7fe5e78d39a1a65eb\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: This debate is interrupted. The House will resume at 9 a.m., when we look forward to the contribution of New Zealand First. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterItalicsCentred\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 11.57 p.m. to 9.00 a.m. (Friday)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004559\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002232ff6bf5e1280c27de214a8893130bcb\u0022\u003EUrgency\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002258d78f3d508839b119f0972ade11beb4\u0022\u003EFriday, 3 July 2026\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00223914c7ef523175b00c5b08360ff23172\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a325fe39bceb4bc10423182a6ea9c305\u0022\u003EInfrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004563\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b486f3f175213dff88d2d160ec39683d\u0022\u003ESecond Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004564\u0022\u003EDebate resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226642608316dbde320fa492304ef887a5\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Good morning, members. I hope you all slept well, if shortly. When we finished last night, we were on the Infrastructure Funding and Finance Amendment Bill second reading. We\u2019re on to call No. 5, New Zealand First. Dr David\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f0c2f038a358ad1f38f2d5e8122afc1e\u0022\u003EHon Members: \u003C/span\u003EWilson.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004567\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f503827822c97256d36576809488250\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s what three hours\u2019 sleep will do for you!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c117f6511bc4b8fb6fdcf9c6133fb99\u0022 data-id=\u0022bd138a8eee848299d0dc54c73e085992\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004568\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c117f6511bc4b8fb6fdcf9c6133fb99\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bd138a8eee848299d0dc54c73e085992\u0022\u003EDr DAVID WILSON (NZ First) (09:00)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, and on that note, I thought I was speaking at Roland\u2019s farewell the other night, but anyway.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004569\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Infrastructure Funding and Finance Amendment Bill. Look, it\u2019s a sensible, innovative tool for local government to support investment and development.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the key things, and I think it was traversed a little bit last night as well, was this SPV, special purpose vehicle, arrangement. You know, the name is on the tin. What I find really amusing about when we\u2019re all in agreement here is that we have to take a slightly different approach to things, and that\u2019s what the philosophers call a heterodox approach. In other words, we listen to everybody, and we all agree, and we\u2019re going to get there in the end\u2014as I heard last night, which is really nice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004571\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe SPVs: the Nats claimed it, then Labour claimed it, and then ACT claimed it, and the Greens were\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004572\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b7cff05e64f346e68983b2fdbfba3ad8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224d46b03901a5d0b986ebbd54c97f4f2f\u0022\u003EDan Bidois\u003C/span\u003E: Kumbaya!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004573\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c117f6511bc4b8fb6fdcf9c6133fb99\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224d70f0a83459849ab064d9486deeeced\u0022\u003EDr DAVID WILSON\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014worried about it. There we go. Interestingly, I don\u2019t think any of you can claim developing these kinds of things\u2014SPVs. I bring for you, Waterfront Auckland. Sir Bob Harvey was the chair. It was, really, an SPV, a special purpose vehicle. It wasn\u2019t just about housing; it was the development of the waterfront, it came from the Auckland City Council, and then it was rolled over into the new Auckland Council. And, oh, by the way, everyone that keeps calling Auckland a city, I\u2019ll just remind you that, actually, it has a regional part. If you really look at the understanding of regional development, it is a city region. But, anyway, I traversed that a little bit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004574\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWaterfront Auckland was time-limited, it was for a special purpose, and, here\u2019s the kicker, it was public investment that catalysed private investment. That\u2019s what these things do. Waterfront Auckland being time-limited was rolled into Eke Panuku, which is now the Auckland Urban Development Office. It fulfilled the purpose\u2014so congratulations to Sir Bob Harvey for a job well done. It\u2019s not just about housing; obviously, that\u2019s one of the jewels for Auckland. There\u2019s the waterfront and the work that was done there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004575\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELet\u2019s just get to the Green Party member\u2019s concern about special purpose vehicles. What are we trying to do here? Special purpose vehicles: well, it\u2019s on the tin. The special purpose vehicle here is about, if you like, private benefit and public good.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d5d11f0c6fa0bf7d4c85ae36313992ae\u0022\u003ETom Rutherford\u003C/span\u003E: Commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004577\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c117f6511bc4b8fb6fdcf9c6133fb99\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002265a294cd7a03a63da0c22e16e9df96f2\u0022\u003EDr DAVID WILSON\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah. That\u2019s a balancing act, and a lot of people want us to commend this to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004578\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a0daba2072435aaae4e464f188c88e51\u0022\u003ETom Rutherford\u003C/span\u003E: No one\u2019s listening.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c117f6511bc4b8fb6fdcf9c6133fb99\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002233ba8e6b828a881295eea4c7487dd35c\u0022\u003EDr DAVID WILSON\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll get to that in a second. But, unfortunately, Tom, you\u2019re not my whip. Ha, ha! Yes, it\u2019s a balancing act, and it takes skill and experience. I\u2019m still trying to find a little bit of that here! I\u2019ve been in this kind of job and this kind of process many, many times before, and it\u2019s all about leveraging for the public good or for the community\u2019s benefit. That is the essence of economic development. That\u2019s how you do it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve seen a lot of snake oil salesmen, in my time, coming with really good projects where they want public money, and you\u2019ve really got to sort those ones out. If you ask a simple question to any proponent: what\u2019s in it for the public? What\u2019s in it for the ratepayer? What\u2019s in it for the taxpayer?\u2014in any project. That\u2019s the whole purpose of this. That\u2019s the whole purpose. I\u2019ve also seen leaders in the private sector\u2014to the Green Party member\u2019s concerns about SPVs\u2014such as Sir Ron Carter, Sir Stephen Tindall, Sir Eoin Edgar. There\u2019s a reason they\u2019re sirs: because they had the community at their heart, just like Bob. Bob did a good job. Whatever that is and however you make those arrangements, what I like about the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill is that there are some guardrails there to ensure that the public gets the benefit out of these things, and we implement in the proper way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo, yes, back to the bill, sometimes councils are under the real pressure to provide infrastructure where rates are insufficient\u2014for example, those ones that are heavily touristed or are under pressure from rapid growth. It\u2019s about unlocking New Zealand\u2019s infrastructure potential, infrastructure funding and financing. The model is good. And, may I remind the House, that things like the Provincial Growth Fund and the Regional Infrastructure Fund do this all the time; it\u2019s not new. We need this balancing act, and we need the guardrails. We, as New Zealand First, commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022 data-id=\u00221f8853a2604bb3dc2d4222416f064cfd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221f8853a2604bb3dc2d4222416f064cfd\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (09:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What a good morning to everyone. It\u2019s such a lovely morning. I hope everyone got a good sleep last night. It\u2019s a bit of a shame to hear New Zealand First\u2014all they want to do is have a go at the Green Party, when all we do is just care. We care.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004583\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c117f6511bc4b8fb6fdcf9c6133fb99\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224d19ecc612fbb33e1932665dd12dcde8\u0022\u003EDr David Wilson\u003C/span\u003E: I was taking care of your concerns.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004584\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222e12dfdaba6ca21c2f4b458f2a2f0083\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON\u003C/span\u003E: And I thank you, Dr Wilson. It was actually a little bit disappointing to hear your coalition partners just telling you to hurry up the whole time while you were trying to alleviate our concerns with this bill. It feels like there\u2019s a few little cracks happening over there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI will get back to the bill. It is good. It is a privilege to stand up on behalf of the Green Party to speak to this bill. We know, when this was first enacted back in 2020, we supported the bill, and, obviously, it hasn\u2019t been hugely successful since then. I actually do recall as a city councillor the ability\u2014if we\u2019d had a special purpose vehicle, some of the things we could have actually achieved. We know that there are concerns when you do some of these significant infrastructure projects\u2014the impacts they do have on councils and, therefore, ratepayers\u2014so having a mechanism to ensure that doesn\u2019t happen and move that issue away from ratepayers is actually a sensible thing. Ensuring that we do have an ability that enables good public investment is actually very, very good. Through this process, the Greens have been working hard to ensure that actually what we do get is an outcome that is beneficial to the public and enables growth that can pay for itself in a way that is sustainable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004586\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe still do have some concerns about where we\u2019re at. I think we\u2019ve got to be a little bit careful, because we know, when we\u2019re looking at growth paying for growth, there are issues that do impact councils significantly from that attitude. But, obviously, we can create these mechanisms that remove that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004587\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m always concerned when we look at growth just for the sake of growth and ensuring that it\u2019s commercially viable, when, actually, what we need to really make sure is that it\u2019s not just commercially viable but also, just as importantly, stacks up environmentally, because we do know that growth for the sake of growth is not sustainable. We cannot just keep having urban sprawl.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s potential, when we create these bills that enable more development, that that development can occur in the wrong place; that will end up having impacts on future generations, future councils that have to actually pay for the cost of where we build. It is really important that we get our urban planning right and we have financial structures that actually enable it to happen. We need to make sure that we control where it does happen. Our natural resources are finite, and we cannot abuse that. If we do, we are failing future generations. What I have seen from this term of Government is a Government that just keeps doing that same\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004589\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b52eff5aa2a94fcc88903b73d0443de3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ae3cfc260d8f61aeaa85efa3b234c496\u0022\u003ENancy Lu\u003C/span\u003E: Speed it up, son.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b1478e115a765097a796a3ee604817b7\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b52eff5aa2a94fcc88903b73d0443de3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229441a28de2e28644ac66875cfa1d14a5\u0022\u003ENancy Lu\u003C/span\u003E: You\u2019ve run out of stuff to say!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004592\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022183aae09e39b2adf6e9eaa772e319ecf\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve got lots of stuff to say, but I heard a comment, so I thought I\u2019d better respond to that comment. As I said, what we\u2019ve seen from this Government over the last three\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004593\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a6327f36a47b6f2c8ea1cb644730b8e2\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Not always recommended, responding to comments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022caf7780ade54fd882d52c7569b41d365\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON\u003C/span\u003E: I know, especially when it\u2019s just chewed up my valuable time, which is a little bit concerning, because I was just getting to a very, very good point. But that\u2019s all right; I\u2019ll get back with my 10 seconds.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s good to speak on behalf of the Green Party. This is obviously very\u2014oh, I\u2019ve run out of time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022784f4e929aed4ea6a05d1a10add6eccb\u0022 data-id=\u0022c5ed6310ee48351c1805139e2f2a81bf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022784f4e929aed4ea6a05d1a10add6eccb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c5ed6310ee48351c1805139e2f2a81bf\u0022\u003ERYAN HAMILTON (National\u2014Hamilton East) (09:11)\u003C/span\u003E: This bill literally unlocks infrastructure growth, just like Te Awa Lakes north of Hamilton. We\u2019ve got a $50\u00A0million Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act loan to unlock 2,500 houses. This is about fixing the basics and building the future, literally.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022 data-id=\u0022909c55c6f5d4074ab9b492bfd20bf207\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004597\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022909c55c6f5d4074ab9b492bfd20bf207\u0022\u003EDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (09:11)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and aren\u2019t we peppy this morning, on this real Friday\u2014perpetual Tuesday?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228d19240ed9ca4f5597e2bb804e0e32fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a5c66872e3b3b022ea649733bfc4195d\u0022\u003EHon Todd McClay\u003C/span\u003E: You mean last Friday wasn\u2019t real?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004599\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ad46182b4798d18565da2f228de51ac\u0022\u003EDr TRACEY McLELLAN\u003C/span\u003E: Ha, ha! Labour supports the Infrastructure (Funding and Financing) Amendment Bill, as was very eloquently noted last night, when we started this debate, by my colleague Arena Williams. However, she did raise some concerns, and I want to go through those a little bit today as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004600\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EInfrastructure funding matters\u2014we know that\u2014but who ultimately pays matters just as much, and I want to highlight some of those concerns. Ultimately, we support better tools for unlocking housing and infrastructure. We know that New Zealand needs to unlock our infrastructure. We\u2019ve got a huge deficit that we need to figure out better ways of grappling with. We know that too many developments have been delayed because things like the pipes, the roads, and other sorts of essential services don\u2019t get funded upfront.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004601\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinancing infrastructure is never cost-free. The key question in this particular bill is who carries that cost and where is it transparent, and whether, actually, households can genuinely afford it. I agree with my colleague Mike Davidson: sometimes, we do have to think about the nature of growth. This bill does create a model that makes funding easier, but it cannot be used as an excuse to simply shift costs on to families already dealing with rates increases, mortgages, and everyday expenses in the cost of living. Ultimately, we can\u2019t solve one affordability problem by simply shifting and creating a problem somewhere else.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe infrastructure levies, we acknowledge, can help new houses to get built, which is a good thing, but those levies remain attached to a property, sometimes for 20, 30, 40, 50 years. A developer or a current owner may support the levy because it makes a project easier to proceed with initially, but it\u2019s often the future homeowners who are the ones who are going to make those payments. They almost certainly wouldn\u2019t have been involved in the original decisions, so they might not fully understand the long-term costs when they purchase that property. Labour\u2019s concern is that removing the affordability assessments, which has been done in some circumstances, could make a house appear more affordable upfront, which is alluring, but it does leave the new owner with a substantial ongoing charge.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other thing that we are concerned about is the expansion into transport, and that raises some unresolved questions. One of the most significant changes is allowing this type of financing model to be used more widely for transport projects, including projects that have traditionally been led by national transport agencies for national transport infrastructure, and therefore funded through those national mechanisms. Labour doesn\u2019t want this bill to become, essentially, a backdoor to fund things that have traditionally been funded by central government\u2014just shifting it on to local government and, therefore, local communities and ratepayers. This concern is even sharper when, obviously, the Government is also proposing a cap to rates. Some of that doesn\u2019t quite add up, and I think that that does require a little bit more scrutiny. Obviously, the councils could be expected to collect new infrastructure levies via this model, whilst also having a restriction placed on them about how they could fund their own essential services. That contradiction, I think, remains unresolved via this process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think the other important factor to take note of is that local communities and councils absolutely have to retain a meaningful voice in this process. The bill significantly narrows the circumstances in which a council can refuse to endorse a levy. In practice, this means that councils may be required to support a levy unless collecting it would put rate collection at risk. What does that necessarily even mean? The process around that remains a little bit opaque. Whilst we, again, support the streamlining of a process, we think that communities deserve some proper information and, actually, some genuine consultation so that they can have confidence that not only are their views being taken into account but the ultimate outcome is a good one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004605\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe select committee, we believe, has strengthened protections around some of the forced land sales, which was a really important topic. As has been noted last night and this morning, the bill as introduced gave special purpose vehicles (SPV) a very broad power where development failed. An SPV could have sought the sale of undeveloped land based largely on its own assessment\u2014sometimes, possibly, without even the requisite necessary information to make that independent process very clear to the landowner, to challenge the debt, which is an important part of that process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy colleague Arena Williams talked a little bit last night about the situation that M\u0101ori land owners would find themselves in, and the fact that they absolutely deserve more than a tick-box consultation during this process. It\u2019s a different set of circumstances with unique and sometimes complicated but bespoke considerations. Any piece of legislation that we enact needs to account for that properly so that we don\u2019t create unintended or even intended negative consequences down the track.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004607\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGoing back to the SPV, the select committee has recommended that that vehicle must first obtain a court decision, a court judgment, before it can apply for a forced sale, and that seems absolutely sensible to us, and congratulations to those people on that select committee that made that happen. We welcome that amendment; it was important to go through that process. It restores, ultimately, judicial oversight and protects natural justice, which is always absolutely important, and it ensures that the amount claimed can be properly tested before someone risks losing their land. You can imagine all the various situations where that could occur. A forced land sale is always a stressful and unfortunate situation, and there absolutely has to be public confidence that that\u2019s done properly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004608\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe affordability must be assessed cumulatively, not levied by levy, and that was another important consideration for the select committee. Households don\u2019t experience rates, water charges, infrastructure levies in isolation; they experience it as one combined bill. They get their rates notice, they perhaps pay it annually, they pay it quarterly\u2014whatever\u2014but they get their rates notice, and not that many people go through it line by line and pontificate about the contribution that each thing makes to its overall rating. But that is how they experience the rating system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELabour therefore welcomes the select committee\u2019s recommendation that the Minister must consider the cumulative impact of a new levy alongside existing rates, water services charges, and other levies. This responds, we think, directly to concerns raised about double-dipping. Even just saying the word out loud\u2014no one likes the concept of double-dipping. We\u2019ve had various examples of that over the years. It feels, hence, like the fact that someone\u2019s doing something to you that you didn\u2019t realise was happening, and there\u2019s nothing worse than feeling like you\u2019re getting a bit ripped off.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn this particular example, where people may be charged several times for overlapping infrastructure costs\u2014and you can imagine how potentially complicated some of that levying could end up being\u2014it\u2019s really important that that safeguard be there. Labour will obviously continue to argue for affordability protections and make sure that they are applied consistently, including for future homeowners, who are the ones who are ultimately going to bear these costs, but we support building houses. We think unlocking the potential to ensure that the pipes, the roads, and all those other services are financed out-front\u2014because we acknowledge that that is often the sticking point for growth and development, and therefore we support this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b7cff05e64f346e68983b2fdbfba3ad8\u0022 data-id=\u002212c5f04a0be87845a8ced70a7a844990\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b7cff05e64f346e68983b2fdbfba3ad8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002212c5f04a0be87845a8ced70a7a844990\u0022\u003EDAN BIDOIS (National\u2014Northcote) (09:21)\u003C/span\u003E: This is such a good bill. I\u2019m going to commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u0022eddfe0ed39c0690fd359b2ae2734a7db\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004612\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022eddfe0ed39c0690fd359b2ae2734a7db\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (09:21)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill does build on an excellent initiative of the last Labour Government\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004613\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f94c1503e2f9d2d9a819c6ca9dc1bb2c\u0022\u003EHon Member: \u003C/span\u003EIs that Helen Clark\u2019s?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004614\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bcc058150ec5a635f627035dbf292102\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014because we\u2019ve always recognised the need for well-planned and well-funded development. This bill essentially improves in some respects the\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004615\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022802ebc96a1dc5534f20c386437df62bd\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, now they have opinions over there\u2014saying they can\u2019t give speeches!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c2286f0219815ef4e7f06a39f087fac0\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB\u003C/span\u003E: Why are you heckling me? Ha, ha! It improves in some respects the infrastructure framework that we put in place. In fact, here in Wellington, if I recall correctly, the sludge plant is funded exactly by this framework.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004617\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think we do need to remember that, essentially, what this does is it allows a funding stream to repay what is usually commercial lending. By having a statutory framework, it gives some assurance to any lender that there will be a long-term source of income to finance interest costs and principal repayments, but it is still, essentially, borrowing for infrastructure. There is no magic way to come up with this cash\u2014we\u2019ve got to come up with it from somewhere. This is simply deferring and stretching out the repayments, usually across 30 or 50 years. As my colleague noted, someone\u2019s got to pay. This framework essentially puts those costs on ratepayers and property owners across the long term. It\u2019s not some magical way to get infrastructure for free, but it does smooth the costs out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004618\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHaving said that, there is some concern that we\u2019re seeing a Government that wants to cap rates on the one hand for a cheap political win, but, in fact, this will simply impose other costs on ratepayers. It\u2019s a little bit of the old magic cup\u2014moving the costs around. Let\u2019s be upfront about this, and it\u2019s quite right that we need to be very careful about making sure that the overall costs imposed on homeowners in particular are affordable, because we\u2019ve set up a new water system and we\u2019ve seen water rates going up pretty significantly. We\u2019ve got a framework of levies already. We\u2019ve got special rates\u2014in Christchurch there\u2019s a special rate being imposed for some rebuild work. Then we\u2019ve got this additional levy. Here in Wellington, we\u2019ve had some accounting errors with the sludge levy where that\u2019s caused some issues as well. It\u2019s all costs, and if we do have infrastructure funded this way, it will increase, essentially, the bill of ratepayers. It\u2019s just another way for rates to go up, so we\u2019ve got to keep an eye on affordability.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004619\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do want also to just express a little bit of concern about the watering down of protections for M\u0101ori land. Obviously, development does benefit M\u0101ori land, but we need to be cautious that we don\u2019t think that just because we\u2019re building some infrastructure plant or roading which benefits M\u0101ori land, we\u2019ve got an untrammelled right to levy that land. Consultation on those projects is very important. In fact, as I understand it, previously, M\u0101ori land owners, iwi, and hap\u016B were required to consent, but now, once you\u2019re across a certain threshold, it can be imposed on them. In terms of tino rangatiratanga, that\u2019s a bit of a concern, because M\u0101ori land\u2014how it\u2019s rated and how it\u2019s dealt with and how it\u2019s held\u2014has always kind of been the last bastion of autonomy for M\u0101ori. This is just encroaching on it a little bit. I\u2019m concerned about these small encroachments. I\u2019m sure there\u2019ll be more to be said about that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004620\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other thing, I guess, that I\u2019d just like to say is the dangers around failed projects, because exactly what amounts to a failed project? A lot of these projects take a long time. They might not take off\u2014look at Rolleston; didn\u2019t take off overnight, but it took off eventually. We\u2019ve got to be really cautious about leaping to a conclusion that there\u2019s been a failure, when, in fact, all that\u2019s needed is more time. I understand the select committee had a look at that\u2014that\u2019s good\u2014but caution is required there. But, overall, it\u2019s building on a good Labour initiative.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022 data-id=\u0022982b533b0dbb6d2703ab9279c396d15d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004621\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022982b533b0dbb6d2703ab9279c396d15d\u0022\u003ETOM RUTHERFORD (National\u2014Bay of Plenty) (09:26)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s time to get this done. I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022 data-id=\u0022078e9ec9b5aae3fa4d5c8c43050591db\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004622\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022078e9ec9b5aae3fa4d5c8c43050591db\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North) (09:26)\u003C/span\u003E: Kia orana. Good morning, Mr Speaker. Look, it\u2019s a pleasure to rise and speak in support of the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill. This was a bill that has been reported back to the House via the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I\u2019m not a member of that committee, but I did have an opportunity to sit in on some of the submissions and, indeed, some of the advice in terms of the committee\u2019s consideration on this bill. The report-backs are currently in front of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004623\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere were 60 submissions. I think it was around about half a dozen who did front up and appear in front of the select committee. I do want to acknowledge the officials, particularly what was the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development and the Office of the Clerk, and obviously the Parliamentary Counsel Office as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004624\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe support this bill because we do recognise the need for good tools in order to fund and deliver infrastructure. The funding is the important part, as is the delivery. As my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb has already indicated this morning, this was a bill that was introduced under the previous Labour Government. Naturally, we have had a look at this and have continued to support it, based on what we see currently in front of us.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand has, as we know, a bit of an infrastructure deficit in this country. What we do need is practical ways to unlock growth for housing, for further growth, and obviously for resilience, which is why we, as a team, do support the Infrastructure Commission\u2019s National Infrastructure Plan and obviously the response that was provided by our infrastructure spokesperson, the Hon Kieran McAnulty, who did provide a forward as part of that. We are serious about the need around tackling the infrastructure deficit in New Zealand. Part of that is looking at how things are funded and how things are financed as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is not whether infrastructure should be built; it must be built in this country. We\u2019ll go on to talk a little bit around what some of those particular parts of infrastructure will be in a moment, but whether the funding model is fair, whether it\u2019s affordable, and whether it is transparent is what we have been looking at when we have considered this bill. Funding models are important, yes, but it\u2019s not just an approach where some can be effectively introduced without consideration around where the transparency lens is. Colleagues have already touched on that in earlier contributions as part of this bill, as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004627\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EInfrastructure financing absolutely should help communities to grow, but it shouldn\u2019t just be about moving costs from one balance sheet to the other. We do need to understand that these decisions have an impact on households and on household budgets. That\u2019s why ensuring that infrastructure projects go through the Infrastructure Commission\u2019s independent insurance assessment process is really, really important. The reason why that is important is because, if we are looking at the funding opportunities and how things will be financed, knowing that a project actually stacks up through an independent lens is going to ensure some certainty and longevity for the project. I do hope that the Government, in terms of thinking about the wider brief of infrastructure, do consider that as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004628\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe important thing is when we, I guess, look at this particular bill, and some might see that as a form of streamlining a particular process\u2014what is important is that that doesn\u2019t soon become a euphemism for simply removing safeguards that need to be in place to make sure that there are checks and balances; that there isn\u2019t a reduction in engagement with community as to how that might work, or, indeed, a weakening of accountability for when these decisions are made and when they\u2019re taken; and that there is accountability as a key part of that. For Labour, we have been constructive in this space. We support the objective of enabling infrastructure\u2014good infrastructure\u2014infrastructure that connects communities but that also stacks up, and we will continue to scrutinise the detail. That is certainly a responsibility.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004629\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the changes that the select committee did make\u2014and it\u2019s one that the Labour Party were very, very keen on\u2014is this issue of cumulative affordability. It\u2019s something that my colleague Dr Tracey McLellan has touched on, and that is looking at affordability through the lens of not just whether in isolation these costs and items can be afforded or not, but actually an acknowledgment of the fact that households get a number of calls on their household budget. The Minister, in considering any sort of levy proposal, whether to advance that or not\u2014one of the changes that has been made is that the Minister needs to consider that proposal alongside the existing levies, the existing rates, the existing costs that are already in place; the existing water charges that Dr Webb has touched on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve called for that change, and it\u2019s good to see that that is a change that has been included in here. It means that the consideration as to whether a proposal should succeed or not, or even be put on the table, will have those cumulative considerations on households and their budgets made before those future decisions are actually taken. While a levy may, in a traditional sense, sit outside traditional rates, for families, that is still another bill that is coming through the door. That\u2019s why there is a real need for there to be that active consideration.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004631\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the aspects that the select committee did spend a little bit of time on is the requirement for consultation with those landowners who would be affected by a proposal, and also with iwi and hap\u016B as well. I want to acknowledge the officials who, under the direction of the select committee, did spend quite a bit of time going through this. Permission was granted for them to go out and consult concurrently at the same time that the select committee was considering this bill, and on page 5 of the select committee\u2019s report, this arose out of concern that engagement needed to occur with iwi M\u0101ori organisations and other individuals around levy areas or charges that may affect M\u0101ori land, for M\u0101ori land that is subject to the Treaty settlement process, and also acknowledging the fact that infrastructure decisions that may be taken may affect M\u0101ori land. It\u2019s pleasing to see that a result of that is a change to the bill that will require there to be active consultation, and the requirement also indicates and shows the lengths that have been taken to ensure that that consultation has been disclosed with the affected parties, with iwi, with hap\u016B as well, and that that\u2019s part of the whole process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004632\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to just make some brief comments on transport because part of the focus of this bill is to allow for the funding, potentially, of transport infrastructure that leads to growth opportunities. In terms of transport infrastructure, we all know that this Government has a $56\u00A0billion suite of roads of national significance, and that number continues to grow. They accept that they need to reprioritise and reassess that, to rescope those projects, because right now they have a $30\u00A0billion fiscal hole in terms of that plan. One could say that that\u2019s why they\u2019re perhaps looking at any funding and financing opportunity around transport infrastructure to meet that .\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004633\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe need to be very clear that this is not to be seen as an opportunity to grab every single bit of coin and every dollar that is out in the community to fund transport projects that do not stack up. For the sort of shift in this space to allow transport agencies like Waka Kotahi, NZ Transport Agency, to trigger projects that may result in local levies, it is important that that transparency at the local level still exists. It is important that the accountability for the decisions that have been taken by those that make those decisions still exists, and it is important that the consultation and accountability exists there as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004634\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOur concern is not with enabling infrastructure per se. Our concern, and my concern in the transport space, is with who pays for these projects. Who decides where these projects are going to go? Do they stack up through that independent lens, and are those costs affordable over time? What is very clear, under the current Government, is that their roads of national significance are not affordable, they are not funded, they are not going to be delivered anytime soon, and so they need to go through a process of reprioritisation, and we all wait as to when that is going to happen. We all think that there\u2019s not going to be a Government policy statement on land transport before the election. That would be the first time in more than two decades that that has been the case. We do hope that the Government is serious about focusing on transport infrastructure, and moving forward we\u2019ll continue to keep watching.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b52eff5aa2a94fcc88903b73d0443de3\u0022 data-id=\u0022dccb802c1d63284d1fb4ff4c0fe03ed5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004635\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b52eff5aa2a94fcc88903b73d0443de3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dccb802c1d63284d1fb4ff4c0fe03ed5\u0022\u003ENANCY LU (National) (09:36)\u003C/span\u003E: This bill is part of National\u2019s plan to fix the basics, to unlock growth potential, and to build a future for New Zealand, particularly when most of the submitters have supported this bill. I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022d9e86ed1563b52584962f114a538b4a2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004636\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d9e86ed1563b52584962f114a538b4a2\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (09:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think this is a really interesting bill, because I think, overall, when it comes to public infrastructure and also facilities, there are some good aspects to this bill. I think one of the things in particular, as we heard from previous speakers on this bill, is around the ability or the streamlining of this in terms of the levies regarding infrastructure funding and financing (IFF).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004637\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill is an omnibus bill. While it\u2019s intending on making the existing IFF models more usable, flexible, and viable by making it easier for such infrastructure projects\u2014and I think we\u2019ve heard some of those, and I will discuss more in terms of both housing, urban development, as well as transport to be funded\u2014there are definitely still additional kinds of concerns that the Greens have regarding how this is going to work in other respects, particularly whether this is a way for the Crown, for example, to wash some of its responsibilities and look at further privatisation rather than putting in public funding. I think this is something that we mentioned and were looking at as a part of the select committee process\u2014that this bill will allow for something like that to proceed with ill-considered projects and lock people into unaffordable repayment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004638\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat\u2019s really interesting, I think, in the context of this bill, is that what has been characterised as unnecessary barriers to uptake of the IFF may actually be that projects don\u2019t stack up and shouldn\u2019t be built in the first place. I think the previous speaker Tangi Utikere has mentioned some of the unaffordability when it comes to roads of national significance. I think, when we\u2019re looking at some of the billions and billions of dollars that have been proposed on some of those, the burden it would have on both local government ratepayers as well as taxpayers, it is a concern. For a lot of those, I think we can agree, if we put them into other areas such as public transport, or even more varied things and diverse modes of transportation, like cycling and also rail, we\u2019d potentially see better use for money. I think there are great potentials for this bill, but it\u2019s the implementation that is going to be interesting to see as we develop.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004639\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think one of the other things around this bill, when we\u2019re looking at the levy aspect, is something that I think in general we\u2019ve seen the Audit Office being quite interested in, in terms of some of the nuances between whether we would consider this a levy, consider this a fee, or consider it as a tax. This is something we have discussed across quite a few varied bills here in the House this term, and I think some of this blurriness potentially has piqued the interest of the Audit Office, as we see in some of their latest reports.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004640\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn this particular case, when we\u2019re looking at the levy-making power, and particularly when we\u2019re looking at, for example, the cumulative affordability concerns and the fact that one of the new sections, section 27\u2014which will be interesting to unpack with the Minister more during the committee stage coming up\u2014will simplify the mandatory consideration that the Minister must make when taking into account before recommending a levy order be made. I think it\u2019s also important\u2014and this is something that I think deserves further unpacking during the committee stage\u2014when we\u2019re looking at that levy-making power, looking at where some of that levy-making power is and where some of that levy is going to go.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004641\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs I mentioned before, if the levy, for example, were looking at specifically going towards the same remit and within the same scope of a particular agency or particular local authority, that potentially is useful. It\u2019s helpful. However, what I\u2019ve seen, for example, in some of the other changes\u2014let\u2019s say the waste minimisation bill\u2014where the levy has now been used more broadly, in terms of the scope of other areas or the general operations of a particular local authority or agency, is not a very good use of a levy, and that\u2019s something that should rightfully be funded by the Crown. We\u2019ve also seen some changes to immigration where a levy has been used to supplement health and education, which also defeats the purpose of a levy. I think those are interesting to consider in the upcoming committee stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004642\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004643\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read second time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004644\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00222641bf21f6c7879116239b173cefd9d2\u0022\u003EPae Ora (Healthy Futures) (3 Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004645\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e263b0fe368e7fa0c57155022643a5fa\u0022\u003ESecond Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u002215ea9ea73565205975a576f010ea914e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004646\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002215ea9ea73565205975a576f010ea914e\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Associate Minister of Health) (09:42)\u003C/span\u003E: on behalf of the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Health\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsTerm\u0022 style=\u0022font-style: italic\u0022\u003EThat the Pae Ora (Healthy Future) (3 Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill is about guaranteeing women the choice of a minimum of three days of post-natal in-patient care after childbirth to ensure all mothers and babies get the support they need during this vitally important time. This Government believes that every child deserves the best-possible start in life. That start does not begin weeks or months after birth; it begins immediately, in those first precious days, when mothers are recovering from childbirth and families are learning to care for a newborn together. This bill responds directly to what women and families have told us about their post-natal experiences. They\u2019ve told us that greater certainty and support in the early days following childbirth is needed. We know that quality early post-natal care can shape positive long-term outcomes well beyond the hospital stay.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004648\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is for these reasons that this Government is proud to back this bill with significant new funding delivered in Budget 2026. We are committed to ensuring that this legislation is matched with the investment needed to deliver it. This new funding of $34.4\u00A0million over four years increases maternity system capacity so mothers can confidently choose up to three days of in-patient post-natal stay knowing it will be supported by the beds and the workforce required to do this safely.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004649\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFirst-time mothers will be the first to benefit. Starting immediately, up to 2,000 new mothers per year will be able to access a three-day post-natal stay within the first two years, utilising existing capacity. As access is expanded to all mothers after three years, we anticipate that up to 18,000 mothers per year will be able to access a 3-day post-natal stay.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004650\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to acknowledge the original sponsor of this legislation. How good, Catherine Wedd. This bill began its life as a member\u2019s bill grounded in a genuine concern for the post-natal experiences of women and families. This Government made the decision to adopt the bill because we agreed with the fundamental importance of guaranteeing three days of in-patient post-natal care for all women if they choose to access it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004651\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also want to acknowledge and thank the Health Committee, specially chaired by the very hard-working Sam Uffindell, for its consideration of this bill and for the work it has done through the select committee process. I also want to thank the many individuals, the midwives, and other health professionals who took the time to make submissions and share their experiences. There was widespread support for the intent of the bill and for the principle that post-natal care should be a stronger and more consistent part of our maternity system. That feedback reflects just how significant the post-natal period is for families across this country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004652\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETaking this bill forward with the support of my colleague the Hon Casey Costello also delivers on a clear commitment in the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement to strengthen maternity services and post-natal support for women. Crucially, it\u2019s a practical and compassionate step that puts women and their wellbeing at the centre of our health system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI intend to table an Amendment Paper as part of its adoption as a Government bill. The Amendment Paper will include transitional arrangements, requiring Health New Zealand to have a plan setting out how it will progressively build its capability and capacity across New Zealand to deliver this entitlement to all mothers. It also builds in more time to ensure that the system can safely deliver the entitlement to all women.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004654\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is about increasing maternity services to mothers and babies in a responsible, well-managed, and well-funded way. The Budget allocation of $34.4 million over four years will address the workforce and capacity constraints the system is currently facing. I look forward to consideration of this Amendment Paper when this bill is debated in the committee of the whole House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004655\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill established a clear entitlement that women can access three days of in-patient post-natal care if they choose, rather than leaving that decision uncertain or inconsistently applied. In doing so, it supports better outcomes for mothers and babies and reinforces that post-natal care is a valued and essential part of that maternity journey.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004656\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt does not mandate that women stay in in-patient care for three days. Many women will continue to choose to return home earlier, supported by community-based services and their families, just as they do now. What this bill does is ensure that women who would benefit from staying longer have that option available to them without ambiguity or inconsistency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004657\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFor some families, particularly first-time parents, the early post-natal period can feel overwhelming. There is a great deal to learn in a very short space of time. Having the option of additional support, monitoring, and reassurance within an in-patient setting can make a meaningful difference to confidence and wellbeing. Some women have told us they would have welcomed more time in in-patient care\u2014more time to recover physically, more time to establish breastfeeding, more time to receive advice, and reassurance before returning home. Others have reported leaving hospital within 48\u00A0hours, even though they did not feel ready because they were unsure whether staying longer was an option. This uncertainty adds pressure at a time when families already have a great deal to manage. The bill removes the uncertainty and replaces it with clarity and confidence. This bill respects that different families will make different choices about what is right for them, and it ensures the system is better equipped to support those choices.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004658\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis legislation is not the only change. The Government has a broader programme of work to strengthen the maternity system and ensure it can deliver high-quality post-natal care in a sustainable way. Health New Zealand is already taking action to build and support the maternity workforce needed to deliver the strengthened post-natal care set out in this bill. This includes targeted recruitment initiatives, including international recruitment where appropriate, as well as return-to-practice support to help experienced midwives and clinicians re-enter the workforce safely and confidently.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004659\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also understand that retention matters just as much as recruitment, particularly in districts facing ongoing workforce pressures. Supporting and retaining skilled staff is essential to maintaining safe services, continuity of care, and good outcomes for mothers and babies. That is why I\u2019m focused on backing the maternity workforce and ensuring they\u2019re supported to do their jobs well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004660\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe community sector will have an important part to play in the implementation of this bill. Primary maternity units run by both the public and community providers, including the private sector, will expand the range of in-patient post-natal care options available to mothers, including care that is closer to home. Mothers may remain in hospital, where hospital level care is required, or transfer to a primary maternity unit once that level of care is no longer needed, depending on their preferences and clinical need. Having a broader range of options, both public and private, reduces pressure on hospital facilities while continuing to deliver safe and appropriate post-natal care to woman and babies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004661\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETaken together, this work underpins the delivery of this bill and will support its long-term success. It reflects my commitment to ensuring women and their babies receive safe, timely, and appropriate care when they need it. I want to acknowledge the midwives and other health professionals who care for women and babies every day. Their experience and advice has been central to shaping the approach set out in this bill. They understand better than anyone the importance of post-natal support and the need for careful, well planned implementation. I thank them for their professionalism, dedication, and ongoing commitment to high-quality care. In closing, this bill delivers three important outcomes: it provides greater certainty for women and families about post-natal care; it supports choice at a critical moment in family life; and it strengthens our maternity system in a practical and responsible way. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022 data-id=\u002221c1cfdcdfabcae9e7dd6f83a2489bcf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002221c1cfdcdfabcae9e7dd6f83a2489bcf\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (09:51)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker, thank you; and thank you to the Minister for his remarks. It\u2019s good to hear a fulsome speech on a bill while the House is sitting in urgency. I want to take the opportunity to recount the background of the bill and some of the significant changes along the way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004663\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Minister gave credit to Catherine Wedd, who initially held this bill as a member\u2019s bill, but I should also add it was originally introduced in 2022 by Hon Louise Upston. It came to select committee last year, and I\u2019d summarise the discussion about the bill at select committee as focused on two main implementation concerns. The first was the operational impacts of introducing an entitlement without consideration to implementation. The second thing was the cost. There\u2019s been positive developments, since the select committee hearing, on both of those fronts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004664\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo elaborate a little, firstly, the Ministry of Health advised the committee that to implement this entitlement would cost $100 million in capital expenditure (CAPEX) to make sure that there were sufficient beds available for this, and then between $31 and $38 million a year in operational expenditure. The Health Committee also heard that absent that type of investment, there could be challenges in implementation. So for example, women taking up the right to this entitlement would occupy beds that might otherwise be occupied by others in greater need. They are very challenging decisions those managing those wards face, and wanting to balance those things would be quite challenging unless extra capacity was created.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004665\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo it\u2019s positive to see announcements in Budget \u201926 that do address some of these implementation initiatives. Appropriately, then, this has been taken over as a Government bill, and the announcements in Budget \u201926 included funding for these initiatives. The Minister gave the assurance that this investment matches the investment needed to deliver these entitlements. It\u2019s worth breaking down what the Budget \u201926 investments were, in that case. Firstly, contrary to the Ministry of Health presentation at select committee, all of the funding for this is operational expenditure. So there\u2019s no CAPEX related to this initiative. We look forward to seeing the Amendment Paper, to understand whether capital expenditure is also expected as part of the implementation plan. Otherwise, we have to conclude that the entire plan for building new beds would be to use outsourced beds.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004666\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019re told from press statements that the entitlement will apply to new mothers only, for the first two years, so that\u2019s the year starting from now and the year starting from July 2027. That\u2019s funded through $1.6 million of operational expenditure each year\u2014so in health terms, a very modest contribution in the first two years. We had the opportunity to go into the scale of this contribution of this funding at Estimates, and the Director-General advised that the funding needed was limited because new mothers\u2014those eligible in the first two years\u2014already occupy beds for 2.5 days. I think that was the number she gave when her statement was corrected in the House by the Minister; 2.5 days is currently the average length of stay for new mothers. So there\u2019s a minimal need, we\u2019re told, to increase the funding in the first two years because the increase in entitlement on average will be slight.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004667\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo the substantial implementation of this commitment is really going to follow\u2014well, 18 months after the election. It is a shame that opportunities to increase capacity in the maternity system weren\u2019t taken during this term of Government so that the commitment could be implemented in a more fulsome way. That is to follow in years 3 and 4, so the years covered by Budget \u201928 and \u201929. In those years, $13.3 million is appropriated, and $17.9 million, respectively. So returning to the Ministry of Health modelling that they gave the Health Committee back when the member\u2019s bill was considered, that\u2019s half. So the assumption is half of women will take up this this entitlement. Look, modelling is based on assumptions, so we understand that not every health entitlement is taken up by everyone. But it remains to be seen if, for this entitlement, half is a reasonable expectation\u2014or not. One might ask: how meaningful is it to describe it as it has been, as a right, if it\u2019s only expected that half of people will take it up?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004668\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhich takes me back to the stories that we heard from women, NGOs who work with women, and clinicians who work with women, in the select committee. We heard multiple stories about the wonder and happiness that a new birth, a new baby brings, a time that people really treasure and a time of closeness for family. We also heard stories of birth trauma and injuries, post-natal depression, challenge with family finances, challenge with travel around birth, and the juggle of caring for other children and the partners\u2019 other work commitments. All of these pressures are on families, and there might well be reasons why families choose not to take up the full entitlement. I\u2019ve seen many mums who are concerned about their other kid and their other children at home and therefore would rather be at home knowing that everything was OK there\u2014even though if they didn\u2019t have that commitment, they might well have taken up the opportunity to be in hospital longer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004669\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat was certainly how we felt after our daughter was born. We would rather be at home in an environment we were comfortable and familiar with, not in the busy hospital ward where all my former colleagues kept pulling back the curtain and saying hello, and where I had a far too in-depth knowledge of the number of hospital infections that get transmitted there. We got on public transport, waved our Snapper card and went back to my mother-in-law\u2019s apartment in the city. And I\u2019m excited that the almost 13-year-old who joined our family that day is going to wave her Snapper card and come to Parliament to hang out with her mum during urgency later on this afternoon.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004670\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnyway, families have other priorities. So it does make me think perhaps we should think broadly about the entitlements that we\u2019re looking to support mothers with\u2014and the Minister actually did mention these\u2014that support provided in the community can be part of an important part of the equation. Maybe that is where our efforts for further expansion of care should go. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004671\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy sister gave birth to my two nieces in the Netherlands, and they have a seven- to 10- day entitlement for post-birth visits in your home\u2014so someone who\u2019ll come and do the dishes and make sure you get a chance to have a shower and check that you\u2019re OK and, also, sometimes identify when families are facing particular challenges that need other social services to be involved. My sister\u2019s not like me; she\u2019s quite a private person. I think she found having a Dutch lady come and visit her every day for seven days a little bit more intervention from the Government than she wanted. But it certainly would make a difference for many people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004672\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221d4849a1cd44fa7caf790661ba21e0d8\u0022\u003EIngrid Leary\u003C/span\u003E: I hope it wasn\u2019t because they\u2019re Dutch!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004673\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222b68b7a3c7f7c6e01e634bf5acf86538\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL\u003C/span\u003E: No, Ingrid Leary, it wasn\u2019t.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004674\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWe\u2019re pleased to be able to vote for this bill today. We see it as positive that the Government has taken on funding challenges that were identified at select committee, and we take the Minister\u2019s assurance that the funding is in scale with the entitlement on face value, and we commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u002289b1fb44627fe9e57fe1cb7ad3b27036\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004675\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002289b1fb44627fe9e57fe1cb7ad3b27036\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (10:01)\u003C/span\u003E: T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Mr Speaker. I want to join my colleagues in acknowledging the Hon Louise Upston and Catherine Wedd in terms of the progression of this bill, and the Minister who was speaking to it earlier.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to start by acknowledging that I\u2019m sure lots of people in the Chamber today are feeling very tired, but the levels of tiredness and new levels of exhaustion are absolutely front of mind for me when speaking to this bill, because they were something that I\u2019d never experienced before after the birth of particularly my first child, my son. I was so exhausted after maybe 20 or 21 hours of birth that when he was put on my chest after giving birth, I literally could not even raise my arms to put them around him.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004677\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen I hear the comments about how critical and how vulnerable this time is for wh\u0101nau and parents and families and babies, I absolutely have that front and centre. So I want to, firstly, do a massive shout-out to the midwives, the carers, the hospital staff, the specialists\u2014to anyone who has been in this system and has had experiences, both good and bad. I acknowledge how critical they are and how formational those times are to, hopefully, a healthy, functional life ahead. I particularly want to shout out to my midwife, who was present for the birth of my children, Sheena Ross, in Christchurch, and the time that I spent in Christchurch Women\u2019s Hospital, and then was very lucky to be able to give birth at home for my second one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EYes, this is positive, and I really appreciate that the Minister talked about the support for this bill being about the intent, because there\u2019s no question that intent is really good. The thing is, there are so many aspects that come into it that mean that we need to make the intent real, we need to make it tangible, we need to fund it, we need to ensure that this isn\u2019t just a rubberstamp and a glossy outer window\u2014we need families and wh\u0101nau to be able to walk into these places at this critical time and experience true support. I think what\u2019s been really clear, in trying to understand and listen to the voices that have fed into this bill, is that we\u2019re so far away from that and we really need to make steps towards achieving that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004679\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe positive things about improving breast-feeding support and the potential to reduce neonatal readmissions is absolutely positive. That potential for the positive influence on maternal confidence and emotional wellbeing is absolutely vital. As has been mentioned, the essential nature of the education and support that comes in that post-natal period is absolutely critical, particularly for first-time parents, when this is all new and different and they\u2019re really in that learning phase.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004680\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat I really want to emphasise with this bill, which we absolutely will be supporting, is the voices of those who understand this and who know and who are signalling careful consideration of the bill\u2019s broader implications. I particularly want to note the joint statement that was put out by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the New Zealand College of Midwives, and the National Council of Women, because they talked about the risks with this. They talked about the risk that the policy could actually shift the provision of post-natal care from a model based on clinical need to one driven by entitlement. They talked about concerns about people being discharged before they\u2019re actually ready, in order to accommodate those who might not actually need that support but are actually entitled to it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWithin those comments, they made really clear the concerns about health system capacity. You know, we know, and it\u2019s well established, that the country had 330 midwife vacancies nationwide as at 2024. Now, I don\u2019t know what those more recent statistics are, but it is clear that this is a sector that is chronically underfunded and underpaid, and then we get caught up, within that, with the scrapping of pay equity, which means that that is going to continue. So, again, this is the call to really take this seriously. We know that where these shortages exist with midwives, this will simply be exacerbated with higher demand, and that\u2019s absolutely a concern.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004682\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other thing that has been raised by the specialists in the know is by the Paediatric Society of New Zealand Te K\u0101hui M\u0101tai Arotamariki o Aotearoa. They talk about the potential benefits and join others in supporting those with this bill, but they recommend new investment and clear investment in staffing and infrastructure\u2014you know, they talk about how these services must be properly resourced rather than relying on reallocations from existing services. They also talked about the importance of expanded lactation support when it comes to breast feeding. These trained consultants are absolutely pivotal, and I remember and again want to acknowledge the amazing services that do exist, however stretched and however much they are managing to operate on such, such little resourcing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004683\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThey also talk about the protection of neonatal care spaces and the fact that this increased post-natal bed occupancy should not come at the expense of vulnerable newborns needing specialist care. That is something that should be well understood, but the fact that even today, in 2026, they\u2019re having to reiterate that and point it out just shows how vulnerable our system is and how we can\u2019t take those basic things for granted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004684\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThey also talk about the need to strengthen primary birthing units, and ensure that not only do they have the midwives available but the social work support necessary to actually care for babies and their wh\u0101nau beyond the hospital settings. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004685\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, their plea is for that flexibility and that needs-based approach, because we know that people\u2019s experiences vary so greatly from the absolute joy and positivity to ones of real, severe, lasting trauma, and the needs need to cater to that, and the investment and the funding absolutely needs to cater to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004686\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe know that the bill requires Health New Zealand to ensure that sufficient maternity facilities are available, but, without additional investment, all this necessity could just lead to the shifting of already strained resources rather than actual system improvement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004687\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI again want to commend the intention of this bill. I applaud the people in this space who are making it really clear what the Government needs to do to make this real. My plea is just to actually back that up with funding and investment, listen to those voices, and ensure that new babies and wh\u0101nau are truly at the centre of all of this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004688\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002265e06a44ee6957ce6e46c98ec8cc24ea\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b064dd56673f4c1cb11c1242823abb92\u0022 data-id=\u002265edfb018161ee96ba3d77535716436a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004689\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b064dd56673f4c1cb11c1242823abb92\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002265edfb018161ee96ba3d77535716436a\u0022\u003ELAURA McCLURE (ACT) (10:11)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of this bill. Having had two children of my own, I know how incredibly special but also challenging that time can be, particularly if you\u2019re a new mum and things don\u2019t go as planned. I think this is a really great bill. I think that we should have the opportunity or option to be able to stay in hospital or post-natal care. There have been many, many stories within my friend circles and within my family where people are being rushed out of hospital within like a couple of hours, and, you know, not ready for what comes next. We want to make sure that we do take care of our new mums.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004690\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI think given that we\u2019re talking about being a new parent, we\u2019ve had three new babies in the ACT office in the last month. Our chief of staff has had a new baby, so we want to congratulate him; and we\u2019ve also got the senior private secretary from Karen Chhour\u2019s office, and Amelia and Jacob, a senior researcher in my office, welcomed baby Jude Edwards Butson-Gill\u2014I wanted to get that right. Congratulations\u2014the ACT party welcomes these new additions. And I just want to say that I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d92a09db28c44070bbfdcc9f0e6f3cca\u0022 data-id=\u002203029f4dee6d7d21d82e9987b39d7114\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004691\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d92a09db28c44070bbfdcc9f0e6f3cca\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002203029f4dee6d7d21d82e9987b39d7114\u0022\u003EJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) (10:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is absolutely a pleasure to stand and rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (3 Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill. The coalition agreement between New Zealand First and National was inked in November of 2023, and one of the commitments in that coalition agreement was to ensure proper funding for birthing units and maternity care, including providing for a for a three-day stay for new mothers. So this bill absolutely fulfils the commitment in our coalition agreement with the National Party, and we thank them for that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004692\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019d also like to acknowledge that Catherine Wedd, who inherited a member\u2019s bill from Louise Upston\u2014I congratulate you also\u2014was pushing on an open door to get her member\u2019s bill once it was drawn from the ballot. And what a thrill it must be to actually have a member\u2019s bill that you know is going to succeed. So well done to you, Catherine. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004693\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Health Committee, of which I\u2019m a member, and I would like to acknowledge all of the committee members, had a great process\u2014123 submissions on this bill; 20 oral submissions. One of the things that came through during that select committee process was that we were a little bit concerned with the language that was being used by the Ministry. So the Hon Casey Costello required the Ministry to use sex-based language\u2014no more of the \u201Cpregnant people\u201D or the \u201Cbirthing parent\u201D language. That was something which we felt was important during that part of the process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004694\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is a great bill for new mums. Everyone who has had the opportunity, the pleasure, the pain and the suffering of being a brand-new mum\u2014because some of that comes during that period of time\u2014will appreciate being told by their lead maternity carer, because it\u2019s really important, that, actually, as part of this bill, those lead maternity carers notify mums that they are entitled to this longer period of stay, up to 72 hours, should they need it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004695\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust in conclusion, we are very thrilled to be part of a coalition that is delivering on our commitment because at the core, this bill supports family-centred policies, it promotes fairness and access to healthcare, and it addresses some of those gaps in the maternity services that are provided. These values are central to New Zealand First, with our mission of putting families and communities first. I commend the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u0022baacd11d8fe3779620d980c08592a7e7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004696\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022baacd11d8fe3779620d980c08592a7e7\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (10:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Green Party is supporting this bill in it\u2019s a second reading. I want to acknowledge, like my colleague Lan Pham mentioned, that the intent of this bill is excellent. I think any bill that allows parents to have more time to access breastfeeding support, newborn checks, recovery care, and education before returning home is really important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004697\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI particularly wanted to reflect on why I think that, from an equity point of view, that extension could be particularly beneficial for some of our low-income communities. Prior to becoming an MP, I used to work a lot with mums, particularly new mums, many who were living in the likes of emergency housing, many who did not have a safe, stable home to go back to, mums who were transient and often moving between addresses even while pregnant. I acknowledge that for many, that additional time to recover is critical if they\u2019re going back to an environment that is not yet stable and provides that financial stability. And so I think that additional day to literally recover, to be well before returning to those environments, it will make a difference. I say this not just out of vibes or personal experience; I say this because even the Government\u2019s own statistics show that more children are growing up and birthed into households that just do not have enough to cover the basic essentials. This is what we call child material hardship rights. What we know is that new kids are currently being born into environments where the household just does not have enough. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004698\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis takes us back to my colleague Lan Pham\u2019s comments and plea to the Government to address issues in relationship to the resourcing that goes into staffing and making sure that we deliver this on the basis of need, and that we do more work to actually address those inequities that new parents are experiencing. Because, ultimately, as my colleague noted, the worst-case scenario we could see is that someone who actually has a high degree of need and is at risk of going back to a precarious material condition is not adequately served, simply because we\u2019ve created a system where someone who may not need this as much is entitled too. I do think we should, nonetheless, work towards universalising the support and making sure that everybody can get it when they need it, but the funding needs to come alongside it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004699\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI wanted to comment, as well, on the Minister\u2019s remarks in relationship to funding. I think too, like the Labour Party, that we will take those at face value and in good faith, because I do want to believe that the Government wants this policy to succeed. And we will be keeping a close eye as to whether the commitments from the Minister in relationship to funding will be met. I also want to encourage parliamentary colleagues to, perhaps, put more emphasis on fighting\u2014and this is not so much to the National Party members\u2014for the funding that is required and the conditions to be met so that every parent can thrive; rather than focusing on issues in relationship to language that, ultimately, in my view, make no material difference to the people who this bill is supposed to serve. I think the focus on that takes away from the feedback that submitters have rightfully given us, that there are concerns around funding. I think that\u2019s what, I would say, communities would expect us to be focusing on. Because, ultimately, the language in relationship to whether we are inclusive of all genders or otherwise actually makes no difference to the staffing issues, the funding shortfalls, whether the beds are there or otherwise. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004700\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut the Green Party will continue supporting this bill through its remaining stages. We will particularly be looking at, for example, exactly how the Government will look at engaging the community sector for the procurement of beds. I think, more broadly, we call on the Government to create the conditions so that every new parent has what they need to create a safe, thriving environment for the kids and for generations to come,  because I think, ultimately, the intent of this bill will not be matched if we continue having parents that go back home to houses that are cold, damp, and without enough kai to put on the table. Ultimately, no matter how education a parent may receive in that additional 24 hours, if they do not have the means to survive, they do not have then the resources to put in place, whatever they may have learnt in that additional time, and into practice. But, again, we are commending Catherine Wedd for continuing to fight for this bill, and other members who have brought this issue forward.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b52eff5aa2a94fcc88903b73d0443de3\u0022 data-id=\u0022e1e4d310432b8915e0fc0acfad7bd0c5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004701\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b52eff5aa2a94fcc88903b73d0443de3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e1e4d310432b8915e0fc0acfad7bd0c5\u0022\u003ENANCY LU (National) (10:20)\u003C/span\u003E: I will always remember when I gave birth to my first daughter and fainted in the birthing room. It was all the nurses and doctors who were there to protect me, to help me, and, when I finally gained consciousness, then to learn, as a new mother, the amount of help that we needed in the birthing unit and in the hospitals.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004702\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI absolutely commend this bill, and I commend the work of my colleague Catherine Wedd. This is the National Party\u2019s way of fixing the basics: by providing the healthcare for our mums and babies, and building the future for all New Zealanders. I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u0022aaf6f79d2569e6ec43e78129b7309f2f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004703\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022aaf6f79d2569e6ec43e78129b7309f2f\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (10:21)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It\u2019s been interesting to listen to all the speeches, because, outside of two of the speeches so far, it\u2019s been mainly women speaking, and I think this is a testament to having women in Parliament. I doubt that a bill like this would have ever reached this level of parliamentary process had there not been women championing it, and so I want to commend Catherine Wedd and also Louise Upston and all the people who have supported the bill and have enabled it to get here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004704\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is an example of why we do need women in Parliament: because we do have very particular issues. For many years, the birthing experience has not been taken as seriously as it should, nor, indeed, maternal health generally. So, hopefully, this is the beginning of a lot of good stuff.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004705\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think the question for us the whole way through on whether to support to this bill has been whether the intent of the bill can be safely delivered. As the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall has said, there have been some developments since the introduction of the bill through the Budget process that gives us more confidence, including the $34 million funding that would go to providing a boost to maternity services. That doesn\u2019t necessarily meet the capital and expenditure (CAPEX) requirements that we\u2019ve heard about through the Ministry of Health, which came to $100 million, which is, essentially, about beds. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004706\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut we have also heard assurances from the sponsoring member, Catherine Wedd, that the capacity would be provided through public and private providers, so that may answer the question, and, indeed, the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall said that based on all the maths and what has been detailed, it looks like it will mainly go to those outsourced, probably private providers. That raises a question for me about privatisation and the health service, because if we want to have universality and we want to have good maternal public services, in my view, the capital expenditure should be public, as well. I\u2019m not sure that relying on private providers is a way forward. Nevertheless, that is what is intended, and that would seem to resolve that CAPEX issue in the short order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004707\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen we looked at safety, the questions in my mind while I was sitting on the committee were around the funding of beds\u2014which I\u2019ve just talked about\u2014about workforce development, and we\u2019ve heard this morning that there may be an Amendment Paper coming that is going to require a legislative commitment to that. I\u2019ll speak shortly about how that might pertain to other facets of health law that we\u2019re looking at today in the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think I also was keen to see what would be happening around rural health support, as well as the protection of high-acuity births. Now, when it comes to rural health support, we\u2019ve seen, for example, GP funding decisions made lately that, on the face of it, look good for many practices, but actually disadvantage some communities, like the community of W\u0101naka, where they\u2019ll take an effective 11 percent decrease in rural funding, and they already have very stretched maternity services. So my question is: how are places like that going to be able to support this mandated entitlement? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004709\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere is also the question of the protection of high-acuity births. Given that there will be some mothers who will need more care than the three days that are now enabled, will they still get the levels of care and the length of stay in hospital that they need if there are other people who are sort of the first cab off the rank with their entitlements, particularly the new mothers?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004710\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do think that it is really important for new mothers to have those three days. I share the sentiments of colleagues around the House who have talked about the fairly surreal experience of birthing, particularly the first birth experience. I can say that in my situation, the people that were there, the wonderful people who supported\u2014particularly the midwives\u2014took on this kind of larger-than-life presence through the whole birthing experience, and when I went back to North Shore Hospital to thank them a few weeks later, I was amazed at how they had sort of reduced down to ordinary-sized people. In fact, I was a bit taller than the midwife, the Irish woman who supported me through my birthing experience, but, at the time, they just took on this huge presence. They were such an important part of the birth experience, and I also wanted to add my voice to thank those people who work in this really beautiful and critical part of the health system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004711\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen we look at the community provision of the delivery\u2014going back to safe delivery\u2014the Ministry of Health has said in its advice to the committee that those services are patchy. I think it\u2019s important that we do look at that, and if there is going to be an Amendment Paper around workforce support, it would be great to see if it speaks also to the postcode lottery of birthing provision, because that is something that may not necessarily be addressed by something that simply addresses workforce development.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004712\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also am concerned about bed block. We know, for example, that the hospital service loses between $8 million and $12 million worth of beds a year, not at this end of health, but through seniors being unable to be released back into the community because they don\u2019t have the appropriate enduring powers of attorney or care provision for those whose care they might be going back into. That is something that could be worked on to free beds up at that end.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004713\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBed block is, essentially, where somebody is taking a bed that might otherwise be available to someone with higher clinical need. We\u2019ve heard about that previously in this debate. If we think about bed block in terms of maternity services, we\u2019ve already got bed block around gynaecological services for women. We\u2019ve got real workforce shortages in particular parts of New Zealand, including the West Coast, Northland, Tair\u0101whiti, and Wairarapa, and then, when you put into that picture the types of issues that can come up after a birthing experience which might not be the textbook experience that we\u2019ve spoken about in the House today\u2014that includes things like infection, injury trauma, feeding issues, very fragile babies, and also mental health issues\u2014we cannot understate the significance of perinatal mental health and the importance of being able to provide for that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004714\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, certainly, being able to stay in the hospital longer might be one solution; equally, being able to get people back home into familiar surroundings might be the other solution, but all of those issues can create situations where mothers might need longer than the three days. It would just be reassuring to know that there isn\u2019t going to be pressure on other women to release their beds, even though they have a three-day entitlement\u2014there might be pressure on them to release their beds for the sake of women who are doing it really tough and are needing that extra level of care.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004715\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe know that in 2029, the expected increase in the number of women who would use this entitlement will rise to 18,000. That\u2019s a significant number of women, and so if we don\u2019t have an equally significant uptick in the resourcing provided and the beds being available\u2014not just relying on the community sector but knowing where those beds are, and whether they are available across the motu and not just in particular centres, is really important. What we don\u2019t want to see is women wanting the three-day entitlement or feeling they need to take it and then finding that they have to have a birthing experience away from their own locale because they just simply cannot get that provision there. That would be another perverse incentive. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004716\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, I\u2019d just like to talk about two things. One is the workforce development Amendment Paper, if that is, indeed, what is going to presented to the House in the committee of the whole House stage. I would welcome that. I also think there\u2019s an opportunity in another bill that we\u2019ll be discussing later on today\u2014the Mental Health Bill\u2014to equally put a legislative requirement for workforce development to be able to achieve some of the things that the bill has said that it is intending to achieve. So if we can do it for this bill\u2014and I\u2019m hoping we will\u2014then I\u2019m really looking forward to seeing what transpires with the Mental Health Bill and the conversations I\u2019ve had with the mental health Minister around that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004717\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, looking at the wording for women, the New Zealand First member mentioned that the wording had been changed. Now, that could be problematic. I note that in the original bill the word \u201Cmother\u201D is not defined. There are intersex people who can have babies, and also families like my sister\u2019s family, where you have two mothers. If the birthing mother or birthing parent isn\u2019t defined, arguably in this bill, the other mother would be entitled to all of those entitlements as a mother. So that could raise a problem. Thank you, Madam Speaker. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022 data-id=\u0022004bb9d290744035b09ef0b340f24376\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004718\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022004bb9d290744035b09ef0b340f24376\u0022\u003EDr CARLOS CHEUNG (National\u2014Mt Roskill) (10:31)\u003C/span\u003E: First of all, I want to acknowledge my colleague Catherine Wedd for her hard work and continued advocacy on this service, because this is a very important service. That three-day post-natal stay is about giving every new mum and baby the best possible start. Those few days are critical for recovery, bonding, and identifying any early health conditions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004719\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EOne of the issues raised by the submitters was how this would be funded. I\u2019m pleased to report to the House that Budget 2026 has allocated $34 million over four years to support this service. This Government is fixing the basics and building the future. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004720\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226e32175200100f4e2306a85fc16a2b54\u0022\u003EDr Tracey McLellan\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c562dc86e974914b8878595e580f138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c0f28e108cb1fcae7e34b168c52136e4\u0022\u003ECatherine Wedd\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004722\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022586cdba64cfc791c244e462e6a76deec\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: This is a split call, and the call goes to Tracey McLellan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022 data-id=\u0022cae2136ed01a08582592caf9737363ed\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cae2136ed01a08582592caf9737363ed\u0022\u003EDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (10:32)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. See, I almost relented because of Catherine Wedd\u2019s connection with the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004724\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThank you, Madam Speaker, for the chance to say a few brief words about this bill. I\u2019d like to start and echo the acknowledgments and the congratulations of the members who have shepherded this bill through. I try not to have magical thinking and I try not to conflate luck with random occurrence, but I also have to acknowledge that Catherine Wedd has been very successful in getting bills drawn from the tin. I have no doubt that that success has contributed to the inevitable pathway that this bill has taken.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004725\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELabour is supporting this bill because, ultimately, we support the principle behind the bill. We do think that new mothers and babies should be able to stay in hospital for longer, should they need that support. I know that there\u2019s a great deal of variance in the type of support that people opt for or that people are comfortable with, but I think the backstop to all of that should always be a universal health system that is prepared to support people when they genuinely need it the most, should that be of their choosing, and no one should ever feel pressured. We\u2019ve heard lots of stories, both during the course of this debate and in our own lives, of people that have felt really, really discombobulated at the concept of being told that they can\u2019t have that support in a medical setting after they\u2019ve given birth to their children, and so we acknowledge that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004726\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do note, as my colleagues on this side of the House have introduced during this speech, that a right written into law only means as much as the support and funding behind it and the mechanisms by which to turn something on paper into actual delivery. I do also acknowledge\u2014as my colleague the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall said earlier\u2014that there has been some additional funding. Because of the relatively new information that has come through during the select committee process, that has made us feel a little bit more comfortable about this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004727\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also note, however, that as part of that funding, there is a real lack of capital funding. What that could mean ultimately is not just for the bigger questions in the health system in terms of universality and of public health as a public good, but I wouldn\u2019t like to see us become over-reliant more and more on the private sector to provide this particular provision for women and babies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004728\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAside from funding issues, which we do have concerns about, I also want to acknowledge the fact that the bill could potentially\u2014and it is something that we do need to be mindful of and keep an eye on\u2014put already stretched maternity services under even more pressure. I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the amazing midwives and the super-amazing nurses and everybody that works in the health system\u2014and particularly in maternity services\u2014for choosing to perform a role that traditionally has been under-regarded and under-resourced, and has faced decades and decades of always having to advocate for themselves to the nth degree to have their voices heard for the stellar work that they do. As we\u2019ve said, a change like this is not just about beds; it is also about making sure that those human resources, who are the difference between a safe environment and an unsafe environment and who carry huge risk for us, are well resourced and able to do the job to the best of their ability and to work to the top of their scope.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004729\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe ministry also during the select committee process warned that hospitals may have to make room for a legal entitlement by making different choices. We have to be really vigilant that we monitor and make sure that the implementation of this bill is able to monitor that and make sure that some people aren\u2019t being deprioritised to make way for people who have a legal entitlement, because it would be a shame for this bill to end up being simply a snapshot window-dressing. We do want to make sure that it results in a good outcome, and it\u2019s in line with Labour\u2019s previous work. It was Labour that changed ACC to make sure that we included birth injuries, and so we continue to support this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226c562dc86e974914b8878595e580f138\u0022 data-id=\u00226c48cd317c0229d3c3324a9dc996cb74\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004730\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c562dc86e974914b8878595e580f138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226c48cd317c0229d3c3324a9dc996cb74\u0022\u003ECATHERINE WEDD (National\u2014Tukituki) (10:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Look, I rise with great pleasure to support this three-day stay bill, which, of course, started as my member\u2019s bill. It\u2019s wonderful to see the progress in the House here today and see the cross-party support that we have for this really important issue where we want to, obviously, give mums and families across New Zealand better post-natal care.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004731\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s wonderful, of course, to hear a few birthing stories here today. It certainly humanises the House, because we all understand how special those first moments are after giving birth, and it\u2019s really important that you bond with baby. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004732\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill enables mums and families to three days of post-natal care. It\u2019s a legal entitlement. I\u2019ve advocated strongly for this, and it\u2019s wonderful to see that we are implementing it here today. This is about strengthening maternity care across New Zealand, and so I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022 data-id=\u0022e9ac41501b08a2a952a3156afc865513\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004733\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e9ac41501b08a2a952a3156afc865513\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert) (10:38)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I went into this select committee just once, and it was on the bill that Catherine Wedd had put up. So the first thing I want to do is acknowledge Catherine\u2019s work and the work of Louise Upston in this area, and then I want to talk about my experience of coming to terms with the ask.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004734\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy experience was that I actually worked as the lawyer for the midwives for quite some time, and so I was aware in the area of health\u2014and it\u2019s not my speciality, at all\u2014of the issues around maternity care and the crisis in the workforce there. So my first thoughts when I looked at this bill were: is it going to push other things out? I thought about that really very seriously in the following few weeks. I thought that I was picking up a kind of scarcity mentality that is actually quite a dangerous feature of politicians, where we\u2019re too worried about the consequences of what we\u2019re doing to do something that\u2019s, essentially, something we should be asking for as women. Then I thought about some of the real risks. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004735\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere are real risks here. For example, one of the risks I think that was mentioned when I was in the select committee was the issue about the discharge of others in order to allow people into the beds because they had an entitlement\u2014so this would be someone who might need it more. That story was something that did resonate with me because my first child had been born and my doctor had wanted me out of the hospital very, very quickly. It turned out that within hours, my baby was in the Special Care Baby Unit and then the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, which is basically intensive care. I had no experience of children at all, so would not have picked up the symptoms which were quite a serious pneumonia if I had been at home. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004736\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo I totally appreciate those pressures, but I also say to those sceptical of this particular bill: it\u2019s almost impossible to know what people\u2019s needs are in those early stages. I wouldn\u2019t have known as a young, new parent what I needed out of the system. So that kind of standardisation of three days of expectation of care and listening and help with things like breastfeeding is an incredibly important expectation for women. Often women don\u2019t ask. Actually, my experience of being a young mother is that there\u2019s a lot of pressure that comes on from other people\u2014and generationally\u2014to tough it out, that you\u2019re not strong enough. There\u2019s a lot of judgment out there, and it\u2019s really important that there is a universal offering to people. I also think that\u2019s what the State\u2019s for. I think it\u2019s really important that the State says to young parents, \u201CWe\u2019re going to look after you. This is an incredibly hard job and we\u2019re going to look after you and see you through this process.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004737\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo while I do think there\u2019s a risk that the money comes from other parts of the system, I think that that initial commitment to getting to know a young parent and getting to support them and being more attentive in that early time is really helpful. I remind a lot of the grandparents listening that my mother\u2014I think that there was almost a forcing to stay for 10 days at that point. That\u2019s what our system used to give us\u201410 days. My mother bucked against it like anything. It was also the kind of system where she was fighting very hard to have her husband in the theatre while she was giving birth because there was a lot of dictatorialism in the system. Hopefully that\u2019s gone. We\u2019re not talking about forcing women to have this particular nurture in a way that we would have in the past\u2014that\u2019s fantastic\u2014but it\u2019s incredibly important we offer that kind of support.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004738\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, one of the concerns I also had was that there would be\u2014and I remember this happening, actually, to my brother and his partner. There was an offering of, \u201CIf you go home early, we\u2019ll give you this, that, and the next thing.\u201D I think it was a nappy service and various other things. I think we have to be really careful about those economic bribes, out of this system, and I know it will be tempting to do it. So I wanted to put on the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsTerm\u0022 style=\u0022font-style: italic\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E record my concern and my plea to people managing this particular expectation: please think about the economic consequences of that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004739\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs a young parent, I would have probably wanted the things that were being offered in that circumstance, because I had no money. I remember going home with my first baby, and it was this weird situation where we had no money in the bank, we had a child who was actually at that point still in intensive care, and we had no real income, because I didn\u2019t even have parental leave at that point at all, so we were down to really minimal money. I wasn\u2019t considering myself at all on the bread line, but there was nothing there, and the irony was I opened my fridge and there was a giant fish in there that was a beautiful salmon. My father-in-law, who wasn\u2019t really good at feelings, had translated all his love into this giant salmon. I remember being very hungry, because when you give birth, you get really hungry, and I\u2019d been through the trauma of having my child go straight into intensive care and I had to come home without him. Very few people in that system, despite absolute goodwill, had really looked after things like my need to eat. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004740\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI remember in those first few hours, things went wrong and my needs went totally out the door and, quite frankly, I felt like a train had run over me. Then I was being asked to manage an incredibly difficult situation. So I can see the nods on the other side of this House, and I know lots of us have those stories and it\u2019s really important that it bonds us all. A lot of people out in the real world, when I get to the door, ask for cross-party work. They ask for it over and over again. Sometimes that gets dismissed in here, when, in fact, 80 percent of what happens in here we should have in common. So it\u2019s really nice to have this law come up where we can find that common ground in the universal need to care for people in that situation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004741\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBefore I finish and go back to one thing, just to cheer everyone up, I wanted to talk about the value of parenting in our society. We have plummeting levels of parenting going on out there and that is directly connected with how hard it is to be a parent these days. We can see that it has become very economically burdensome for people to have kids. The fact that you have to try and get a home when the amount that it costs to do so is outrageous in comparison to the amount that I had to pay for my first home. I just told you that I went home with no money. So parents that are in that situation now are actually paying quite a high economic price. We need to wrapround parenting and actually give it more weight than we do in our policy making. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004742\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I promised that I\u2019d finish on a really high note, and this is a very personal one. Yesterday, my son Max, who\u2019s the child that I talked about right now, turned 31 and he\u2019s in England. He\u2019s just been through Cambridge University and I\u2019m so proud of him. I\u2019ve got to say I\u2019ve been so wrapped up in here recently. We\u2019re an urgency, etc. But this is the first time in my life I almost forgot his birthday. I was talking to someone saying my son\u2019s 30 and I realised that, actually, it was his birthday here and in England. I just managed to scrape in before he knew I\u2019d forgotten his birthday. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002288978fb9592a4911a8e47eae04d164f3\u0022 data-id=\u0022f0ab4cde449412ac9d2119f91aaa3145\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004743\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002288978fb9592a4911a8e47eae04d164f3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f0ab4cde449412ac9d2119f91aaa3145\u0022\u003EDr VANESSA WEENINK (National\u2014Banks Peninsula) (10:48)\u003C/span\u003E: It is a pleasure to take a call on the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (3 Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill. Three days may not sound like a long amount of time but, actually, when you have a new child, making sure that you are settled and to routines is very important, and not having to rush is a great step.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004744\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWhen I was having my son, who\u2019s now 21, I decided to leave after two days\u2014well, a day and a half, actually\u2014because there was no space for me. I hope that we can get this implemented and that everyone can do as they need.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022 data-id=\u0022b1825002d4e33357682f1c30502b296d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004745\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b1825002d4e33357682f1c30502b296d\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (10:49)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Speaker, it is my son\u2019s birthday today so I would like to\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004746\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002232ef636b053b0c8f46140d08597cfc72\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, I didn\u2019t see you stand up, but I didn\u2019t forget your first acknowledgment that you wanted the call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004747\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c6297ee753153b88a7c41486563604cd\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. People have been sharing their birth stories, and I would like to acknowledge that my son was born in Grey Base Hospital 30 years ago today. He is my youngest and I would like to start by saying \u201CHappy birthday, Zak\u201D. It is related to what we\u2019re talking about, because he is my youngest. My oldest was born 18 months prior to Zak, but in Invercargill. Totally different stories and totally different things that happened to me at that time. Now, 30 years ago\u2014and this is why I think that this bill is going back in time, in a way, because 30 years ago, we had five days, as of right, if we wanted to choose those five days to stay in hospital. I think you might remember those days, Madam Speaker, that we did have the opportunity to choose five days to stay in hospital, and it was our choice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004748\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ENow, when my oldest was born, things were sweet. Everything went well. Within 72 hours, I went home\u2014and chose to go home. I thought that was what I was going to do when my youngest was born in Greymouth. I thought, I\u2019ve got an 18-month-old at home, I need to go home. I\u2019d had a brilliant pregnancy and, actually, had a brilliant birth, so this is not about a traumatic birth story.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004749\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022897a34b51bcb868ecf7fc8fcb0a3fe42\u0022\u003EHon Dr Duncan Webb\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004750\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229470d4df10d975af71690fc6a57834bb\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Dr Duncan Webb. So I had an 18-month-old at home, and 12 hours after my youngest was born, my husband was diagnosed with a very rare form of cancer, and my world fell apart. I thought I had to go straight home 12 hours after that birth. I had an amazing midwife who said, \u201CYou\u2019re not going home. You have the right to choose five days. You need to take those five days, because things are going to get tough for you. You\u2019ve got a mother-in-law at home that\u2019s looking after everything. You need to get your head in order because your world has changed and it has fallen apart. You have a brand-new baby; hormones are running; you have an 18-month-old; you\u2019re going to crumble if you go home.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004751\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI had that midwife make that fantastic decision for me because I had the right to be able to take the five days. And it was an amazing five days, because I was able to bond with that new baby, and that was so important. If I had gone home to the trauma that was sitting in my house at home, that bonding wouldn\u2019t have happened the same. And so, 30 years later, I have a wonderful young man who I\u2019m so proud of. I was able to have that time without any pressure on me.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004752\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHere we are, 30 years later, debating for the right for three days\u2019 stay. You know, we lost something along the way as women\u2014we lost something along the way. We\u2019re here, in this Parliament, fighting for this back. I know that that\u2019s what submitters told us during select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004753\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is the right thing to do. This is the right thing for women. Catherine Wedd, I totally commend you for taking up the bill from Louise Upston. People are right: you have so much luck at getting bills drawn out of the biscuit tin.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004754\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a8ff6469307c8789715b1dc5068cc4fe\u0022\u003ETom Rutherford\u003C/span\u003E: You don\u2019t have to remind us.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004755\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022832d136677a78c6ddfab67265d7027b9\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI\u003C/span\u003E: By the way, Mr Rutherford, I\u2019ve had just as many bills drawn out of the biscuit tin, so we\u2019ll call that as an even.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004756\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is such an important one. I\u2019m pleased that we\u2019ve got cross-party support. Yes, there are implementation issues; we\u2019ll work through those. Both sides of the House\u2014whoever is in Government\u2014will work through those. This is good for women. This something that gives us that choice back. It is something that I just feel is inherently right for us to do, knowing my own story, knowing what I lived through. But I\u2019m not the only one; people have talked about their own stories. There are things that happen and go wrong in that process every single day.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004757\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWomen need to have the right to be able to make the choice to stay or have an amazing midwife who can help them make that choice so that they have that ability to bond with that beautiful baby and then, 30 years later, they\u2019ll be standing there telling the world how proud they are of that child. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I commend this to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004758\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022619c9a0ab55468053286799e21f4d6e3\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I remember the 10-day stays, actually. Happy birthday, Zak. The question is that the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004759\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004760\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a second time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004761\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00222fe4d6983a6888726dc7c9ce3617bbb1\u0022\u003ECommunity Magistrates Legislation Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004762\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022482f8de6dad63874e2008cc8fb2ddcfd\u0022\u003ELegislative Statement\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u002222aab0b10e927a99c584e2db2c65bdc9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004763\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002222aab0b10e927a99c584e2db2c65bdc9\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (10:54)\u003C/span\u003E: I present a legislative statement on the Community Magistrates Legislation Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004764\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220a552bbab939217ddb072ddc41f33461\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004765\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a16974ebfa7e4503f62282b7676bb697\u0022\u003EFirst Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u0022ea89dd94d2886d4bc3a4eeedf1b4e0fd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004766\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ea89dd94d2886d4bc3a4eeedf1b4e0fd\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (10:55)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Community Magistrates Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a first time\u003C/span\u003E. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004767\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EToo many New Zealanders are spending too long caught in the court system. For victims, delays mean waiting a year or more for a case to be resolved. For witnesses, it means uncertainty and repeated disruption. For defendants, it means cases hanging over their lives. For families, employers, and communities, it means the justice system is not working as quickly as it should. Timely justice matters, because justice delayed is justice denied.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004768\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis Government is focused on practical changes that make the courts work better. This bill is a practical reform that improves access to justice, reduces delays, and makes better use of the resources that we already have. This bill expands the role of community magistrates so that they can deal with more straightforward matters from start to finish. It will reduce unnecessary adjournments, free up District Court judges to focus on more serious and complex cases, and will improve the public\u2019s confidence that the justice system can deliver.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004769\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ECommunity magistrates are not new. The role was introduced in the late 1990s to increase judicial capacity to take pressure off the District Court judges. They were intended to deal with lower-level criminal matters, represent the communities that they serve, and help the courts to operates more efficiently. Community magistrates generally sit part time. They preside over certain lower-level matters in the District Court\u2019s criminal jurisdiction. They are not required to hold a legal qualification, although many of them do. They bring practical experience, judgment, and community knowledge to the court system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004770\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut at the moment, they are not being used to their full potential. Too often, if a case reaches a point where a decision is needed outside of a community magistrate\u2019s jurisdiction, it has to be adjourned and transferred to a judge. That means another court event, another delay, another day off work, another round of uncertainty for victims and other court users. It also means some cases are never scheduled before a community magistrate in the first place, because everyone knows that they might have to be transferred again later on. That\u2019s not efficient, nor is it fair on court users, and it certainly is not the best use of judicial time and resource.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004771\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill changes that. It will enable community magistrates to take guilty pleas for all cases except those tried in the High Court\u2014that means murder, manslaughter\u2014to preside over trials and determine guilt for offences with a maximum penalty of a fine, community-based sentence, or up to three months imprisonment; to order pre-sentencing reports for offences being referred to a District Court judge for sentencing; to make a greater range of bail decisions, where the defendant has pleaded guilty before a community magistrate; and make a greater range of administrative decisions, including transferring proceedings from one District Court to another and hearing unopposed limited driver licence applications.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004772\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThese are sensible, practical changes. They do not ask community magistrates to replace judges; they allow community magistrates to do more of the work that they were created to do so that judges can spend more time on cases that genuinely require a judge. It is expected that these changes will free up a net 5.2 District Court judge full-time equivalents. Put simply, this bill is, effectively, five judges for the price of none. This is good value for taxpayers, good for court timeliness, and good for victims who have waited too long for justice. The benefits will be felt across the justice system. When cases move faster victims get answers sooner. Witnesses are not left waiting indefinitely.  Defendants are not held in limbo longer than necessary. Remand pressure can reduce as cases progress more quickly. Judges can focus on the work only they are able to do. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004773\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EExpanding the role of community magistrates is sensible, but it must be done carefully. The public needs confidence that the cases will continue to be dealt with appropriately and consistently. This bill does not change the sentencing jurisdiction of community magistrates. Community magistrates will still not be able to impose imprisonment or home detention. Where a community magistrate considers that either of those sentences may be appropriate, the case must be transferred to a District Court judge, and that is an important safeguard.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004774\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill also supports stronger leadership and oversight of community magistrates. Judge Moses has recently been appointed as the first Chief Community Magistrate, recognising the growing importance of community magistrates in the court system in providing judicial oversight for the role. The bill will make it so that there must always be a judge in this role. Budget 2025 also provided funding for three additional community magistrates and extra training to support them in their work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004775\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill is practical, it is targeted, it is common sense, and it makes better use of community magistrates. It frees up more than five full-time judges\u2019 worth of capacity. It helps cases to move faster, it supports victims, it reduces pressure on the District Court, and it does all of that while maintaining appropriate safeguards. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004776\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002242cdb78937c4b7bbc82ec80260d794e3\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u00226e182984dc6189dc7b46a5e48fcabdff\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004777\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226e182984dc6189dc7b46a5e48fcabdff\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (11:02)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It\u2019s a pleasure to be able to take a call on this bill, the Community Magistrates Legislation Amendment Bill. This is something which introduces an issue that is a fundamental pillar of the justice system, and that is the premise that justice delayed is justice denied. No matter what the system we put in place is, if people are unable to utilise the systems we have, especially in criminal law, due to the fact that we don\u2019t have the resourcing, that will result in delays.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004778\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe know there are lots of issues with delays, many different issues for the people who have been charged, in terms of the pause that\u2019s on their life until an issue is resolved\u2014that might have implications on employment\u2014and issues for victims in terms of wanting to get justice and understanding what will happen after an alleged crime has been committed. Also, we have practical concerns around the evidential basis of many of our criminal cases, as based on people being able to recall what happened. Of course, with the passage of time, no matter with the best will in the world or how traumatic that is, that does dissipate over a period of time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004779\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019re pleased to be able to support this bill to the select committee. We\u2019ll listen to what is said in select committee, and I hope that we will have the opportunity to hear from magistrates and judges. I know that that is probably not something they usually do, but this is specifically in relation to the work that they do; also the criminal bar, because they will have to be liaising with them as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004780\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThanks to the Minister for bringing a practical change to help delays in the system. I\u2019m sure that, hopefully, we can find a way to implement this in a way that doesn\u2019t affect due process. I\u2019m sure there will be issues that will be raised around due process. In New Zealand law, magistrates, as I understand, are not required to be lawyers. They\u2019re not required to be legally trained, although many are legally trained\u2014many are former lawyers as well. I understand we\u2019ve got around 20 in New Zealand at the moment. This change is, really, just to let them be able to hear a wider range of cases.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004781\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI was just discussing with my colleague how that works and the difficulty that often occurs when you\u2019re deciding who is able to determine a case. We heard from the Minister that the community magistrates will be able to hear any cases that have, as a maximum penalty, three months in prison, but they would not be able to, themselves, sentence for imprisonment. There will be a bit of a tricky way of making sure that that process is smooth. For example, if a community magistrate was hearing a case and did determine that, possibly, a sentence of imprisonment or home detention was appropriate, they would then have to allow a District Court judge to sentence in their place. That would be, possibly, two appearances in court or in front of a community magistrate; whereas, perhaps, under the previous system, there would have been only one. However, I suppose the likelihood and the way that this particular bill would work would be the fact that many, many cases are determined that don\u2019t result in a home detention sentence or imprisonment. Assuming that that continues, there would likely be, hopefully, a slightly sped up process in the District Court.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004782\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt was interesting reading the regulatory impact statement on this to see that numbers of cases in the District Court have actually fallen, but the number of procedural appearances\u2014so the work of the District Court judges\u2014has actually increased. I suppose this is something that will look to address that. There will be issues around\u2014and there are issues raised around\u2014trust and confidence in the process. I think that will have to be something that we will need to work through and assess. I do think this is something that should probably be reviewed after a period of time, once it\u2019s been in place, to see if it\u2019s effective and working. I also think there is an important role for the very busy Justice Committee. Obviously, it is the appropriate committee for the Minister to send it to, but we do have a lot of bills. I know that the Justice Committee will do its due diligence on making sure that this is a good bill, and I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00220a65f3a55d8c119b76094b82b0ada4de\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004783\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220a65f3a55d8c119b76094b82b0ada4de\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:07)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I also rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa to support the Community Magistrates Legislation Amendment Bill to select committee. I also want to acknowledge the Hon Nicole McKee, as well, for allowing us the opportunity to have a conversation on this particular bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004784\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I think, across the House, this is something that we agree on\u2014that, when it comes to access to justice, the idea of core timeliness is the important one. We have seen a number of those bills coming through the House that the Green Party has supported, including the High Court changes, including the Judicature (Timeliness) Legislation Amendment Act, and also the Community Magistrates Legislation Amendment Bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004785\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think there are a couple of interesting things to touch on in this case. I think that both of the previous two speakers have covered a number of them, but just to highlight some of the key areas, we do see that community magistrates can fulfil an important function in our legal system when it comes to the ability to undertake more case reviews, the ability to hear more bail cases, and, basically, alleviate some of the burdens we see on the District Court judges, and the District Court in general.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004786\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe previous speaker, Camilla Belich, has already mentioned that it\u2019s interesting to see in the regulatory impact statement that, although the number of cases in the District Court has fallen\u2014I believe by about 15 percent over the last six years\u2014there are still significant delays that impede access to justice for complainants and defendants. We are hoping that this is something that, potentially, could move in a direction that allows there to be more timely access to justice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004787\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHowever, of course, for us in the House, although we have this understanding of the principle of comity\u2014that both the legislature and judiciary, in particular, in this case, are independent and should be operating independently\u2014their expertise in this area, and the ability for us as a select committee to hear from experts, is an important one. In that case, we do encourage people from the judiciary, those who are involved within the community magistrates system, or legal experts who are involved in that, to submit to the best of their ability during the select committee process, so that we\u2019re able to hear a balanced view of how this works in practice. Again, very few of us in the House have had that level of in-depth experience in the judiciary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004788\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other couple of things I want to touch on with regard to this bill is when we are looking at this\u2014and I think the previous speaker, Camilla Belich, has already mentioned that a community magistrate doesn\u2019t necessarily have to be a trained lawyer or have that kind of legal background, although it is preferred and many of them do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004789\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAlso, I think another important angle when we\u2019re looking from a select committee perspective\u2014that we should keep in mind\u2014is the fact that across all levels of our criminal justice system, we do see an overrepresentation of M\u0101ori, and we do see an overrepresentation of Pasifika. This is something that, through a number of hearings, whether it\u2019s Estimates week or annual review week or long-term insights briefings, etc., is one of the key focuses for both the Minister of Justice and also the Justice Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004790\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think this is an important moment, when we\u2019re looking at the broader landscape of the judiciary, which includes community magistrates. As we\u2019re seeing some of these cases manifest, the expanded scope of power comes with the expanded scope of responsibility. With that, what then are the requirements or considerations around cultural competency and culturally appropriate advice or judgments or consideration of cases\u2014whether its bail, whether its criminal, or whether its others\u2014before the community magistrates? I think this is something that we would like to hear more about during the select committee process, and particularly from officials, on how that side is going to work and what are some of the resources and considerations that have already been given.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004791\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWith that, the Green Party does support this bill, and we look forward to considering it in the Justice Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022 data-id=\u0022a9bc6288889adb556ad82301c2fe4920\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004792\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a9bc6288889adb556ad82301c2fe4920\u0022\u003ETOM RUTHERFORD (National\u2014Bay of Plenty) (11:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It\u2019s great to see some universal support coming from across the House on what is really very simple and fixing an anomaly around community magistrates being underutilised in our justice system and expanding the powers they have so they can hear more cases in the District Court end to end, which is ultimately going to free up District Court judges to progress more complex trial work. I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225f6c5b1a97f24773a8aaeb3a8e3b0e7b\u0022 data-id=\u00228e5d82c09bcc736269a51ee8fc7dbfc2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004793\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f6c5b1a97f24773a8aaeb3a8e3b0e7b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228e5d82c09bcc736269a51ee8fc7dbfc2\u0022\u003EJAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) (11:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Community Magistrates Legislation Amendment Bill. As we know, community magistrates were created in the late 1990s, but they remained underutilised. New Zealand First has always campaigned on getting tough on crime and fixing the flaws in our justice system. I look forward to the select committee and the submissions on this bill. I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ab32b09663ea48b199aa59e4d88f77e4\u0022 data-id=\u002244212a3173d2515ed145ac06ae90e667\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004794\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ab32b09663ea48b199aa59e4d88f77e4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002244212a3173d2515ed145ac06ae90e667\u0022\u003ETIM COSTLEY (National\u2014\u014Ctaki) (11:13)\u003C/span\u003E: National are fixing the basics and building the future. Law and order is so important. It is important that we take it seriously and move these cases through the court. I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u0022684dee6dd3565495a5954bbef110adbe\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004795\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022684dee6dd3565495a5954bbef110adbe\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (11:13)\u003C/span\u003E: Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I do think it\u2019s worth spending a little more time reflecting on what this bill does. As you\u2019ve heard, we do support this bill, but there will be some important points to consider at select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ECommunity magistrates are not legally qualified. At their inception, they were instituted as a model of, essentially, community-based justice\u2014that is to say, people who knew the community, were part of the community, making decisions about minor offending within that community. I endorse that view, but we do need to be cautious\u2014so we\u2019re supporting this with some caution\u2014about expanding the jurisdiction of magistrates to more serious offending. I will be interested to interrogate exactly what kind of decisions magistrates can make, in respect of what kind of offending, because justice delayed is justice denied but an outcome which is unjust is also problematic.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004797\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhilst we can train them\u2014lawyers aren\u2019t the be all and end all of the justice system; don\u2019t get me wrong there. We can train up non-lawyers to have some legal capacity, and we see that in the Disputes Tribunal\u2014although, in fact, most of them are lawyers. In fact, if you look at community magistrates, the fact of the matter is\u2014and I\u2019d be interested in the statistics on this\u2014many of those are lawyers as well, who are doing this, essentially, as a side gig or a retirement gig or something along those lines.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004798\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I do think that, in terms of community magistrates directing traffic, that is a good idea\u2014that is to say, doing case management, preparing things for trial, and addressing some bail hearings. That is a good thing. I think the regulatory impact statement is a little ambitious, or it perhaps overestimates the impact of this. For example, it suggests, on page\u00A021, that there will be fewer people on remand in prison as a result of this. I find that highly unlikely given the jurisdiction of the community magistrates. The cases that go to community magistrates are by definition low-level offending where imprisonment is very, very unlikely indeed. It\u2019s unlikely that by speeding up these cases in particular you\u2019re going to be taking people off remand. They\u2019ll certainly be on bail and therefore under the supervision of Corrections, in a sense, and Police, but, in fact, remand is unlikely to really have much of an impact.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004799\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf you like the professionalisation of community magistrates, I think that\u2019s a good thing. There\u2019s the suggestion\u2014or the intention\u2014that there be a chief magistrate by law and that that person be a District Court judge. That\u2019s a very senior lawyer. The good thing about having a chief of a bench in that sense is that they can give direction and have a certain degree of mana, so when people aren\u2019t getting things quite right, they can have that chat and say, \u201CWell, look, that\u2019s not how we deal with people\u201D or \u201CThat\u2019s not an appropriate process.\u201D That\u2019s actually a really good thing. The head of bench\u2014the Chief Community Magistrate\u2014will be networked with other heads, so they\u2019ll be no doubt in touch with the head of the District Court and other judicial officers. It\u2019s actually about creating a structure that builds capacity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004800\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ECommunity magistrates are a good thing, but I guess, with the expansion of them, we\u2019ve got to be careful that we\u2019re not doing this simply because it\u2019s cheap. At the same time, I\u2019m aware that community magistrates are remunerated on a very modest scale. It\u2019s certainly not anywhere near what a judge is paid. It\u2019s a bit more than an honorarium. I think it\u2019s around $450 a day, but I\u2019d have to be educated on that. You see that that\u2019s not a huge amount for that kind of work. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004801\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s a good initiative that we\u2019ll support and give it a good working over and yet again another piece of legislation going to the Justice Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022739b3bbed7fe4186aa30494700144b3a\u0022 data-id=\u002278c2765e9241206a13496f1674c36a75\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004802\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022739b3bbed7fe4186aa30494700144b3a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002278c2765e9241206a13496f1674c36a75\u0022\u003EPAULO GARCIA (National\u2014New Lynn) (11:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Community magistrates already exist. The bill expands their jurisdiction to facilitate access to justice\u2014and not just for the expanded jurisdiction but also for District Court judges. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022 data-id=\u002271d7994048fa81cf8558cd7e05cd5539\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004803\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002271d7994048fa81cf8558cd7e05cd5539\u0022\u003EDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (11:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It\u2019s a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Community Magistrates Legislation Amendment Bill at its first reading. We have two special guests in the House there. We have Andrew Bayly. He\u2019s actually recently departed as chair of the Justice Committee, so I\u2019d like to acknowledge his service. Then we have the new chair of the Justice Committee, Tom Rutherford. He was actually appointed yesterday, and he\u2019s off to a good start. It\u2019s good timing that they\u2019re both there this morning.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004804\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELabour will be supporting this bill at its first reading. It\u2019s a practical bill aimed at helping the District Court work more efficiently. The Government\u2019s own explanation is straightforward. Criminal cases are taking too long to move through the courts. Community magistrates are not being used at their full potential right now, and this legislation is designed to make better use of an existing part of the justice system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004805\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think most members of this House would agree that delays in the justice system help nobody. They don\u2019t help victims waiting for a case to be resolved; they don\u2019t help defendants, whose lives are, effectively, on hold while matters work their ways through the courts; and they don\u2019t help public confidence in the justice system. If we can safely reduce unnecessary delays and unnecessary court appearances, that is something Parliament should be willing to consider.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004806\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ECommunity magistrates have been part of our court system for many years. They were established to provide additional judicial capacity to allow District Court judges to focus their time on the more serious and more complex cases. Yet the legislative statement makes clear that restrictions on their jurisdiction mean that they are often underused. Cases can end up being passed back and forth between community magistrate and a judge, creating extra hearings and additional delay.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004807\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne example is where somebody wishes to plead guilty. At present, a community magistrate may have to refer the matter to a judge before that guilty plea can be formally dealt with. The bill allows community magistrates to take guilty pleas for category 1, 2, and 3 offences, order pre-sentence reports when needed, and make limited post-guilt bail decisions before the case goes to a judge for sentencing. The intention is to remove unnecessary steps and avoid multiple court appearances where one would do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004808\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill also expands the ability of community magistrates to manage and hear lower-level criminal cases. In particular, it allows them to hear those minor offences, as mentioned, and we see merit in that approach. Importantly, this is not a proposal to give community magistrates more power and to send more people to prison. The legislation specifically leaves imprisonment and home-detention decisions with District Court judges. Where a community magistrate considers that a sentence of imprisonment or home detention may be appropriate, the matter must still go before a judge.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004809\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill also includes some fairly practical changes that will allow community magistrates to deal with certain unopposed, limited licence applications and to transfer proceedings between court locations where all parties agree and jury trials have not been elected. These may not be headline-grabbing changes, but they reduce paperwork, reduce court events, and save judicial time, so they\u2019re absolutely worth considering through the select committee process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004810\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnother feature Labour welcomes is the requirement for a District Court judge to be appointed as a principal community magistrate. If community magistrates are being entrusted with additional responsibility, judicial leadership and oversight becomes even more important. The bill recognises that and provides a framework for it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004811\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, supporting this bill at first reading does not mean giving it a free pass. The justice system is one of the most important institutions in our democracy and changes to our judicial powers and court processes should always be tested carefully. Labour expects the select committee process to examine whether the right safeguards are in place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004812\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOn that note, it\u2019s an important bill, and I look forward to it going through the select committee. I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022297bc572c27f45308dffb067ca3e7915\u0022 data-id=\u0022724ca7996dc774d036fea4ee79743c98\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004813\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022297bc572c27f45308dffb067ca3e7915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022724ca7996dc774d036fea4ee79743c98\u0022\u003EDr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National\u2014Ilam) (11:23)\u003C/span\u003E: Excellent. Thank you. It\u2019s a great honour to rise in support of the Community Magistrates Legislation Amendment Bill. This bill will support timely access to justice in the District Court; therefore, I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004815\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a first time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004816\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a73daf3683b4a1d7708f3dfe06193c97\u0022\u003EReferral to Select Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022 data-id=\u0022a99dc3181146c15850f4b1ae52d56920\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004817\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a99dc3181146c15850f4b1ae52d56920\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono) (11:24)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Community Magistrates Legislation Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004818\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004819\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill referred to the Justice Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004820\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002298ed04757b4403b2245649a421ef38b1\u0022\u003EEnvironmental Reporting Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004821\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00221b934f1604a158a7b63d1f9a70b44c0a\u0022\u003ELegislative Statement\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f537d6f7e9d0407792892b239af9ec7f\u0022 data-id=\u0022868ae3930d1f63855506e9d81e7bb875\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004822\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f537d6f7e9d0407792892b239af9ec7f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022868ae3930d1f63855506e9d81e7bb875\u0022\u003EHon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister of Statistics) (11:24)\u003C/span\u003E: on behalf of the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister for the Environment\u003C/span\u003E: I present a legislative statement on the Environmental Reporting Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004823\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229af97eb626f0a113f06de4f526e6080a\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004824\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00224dd223cfb1323fc011190330e69d4b02\u0022\u003EFirst Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f537d6f7e9d0407792892b239af9ec7f\u0022 data-id=\u002250e0f5051b35325b73c2ba083d6da297\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004825\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f537d6f7e9d0407792892b239af9ec7f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002250e0f5051b35325b73c2ba083d6da297\u0022\u003EHon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister of Statistics) (11:24)\u003C/span\u003E: on behalf of the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister for the Environment\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Environmental Reporting Amendment Bill be now read a first time\u003C/span\u003E. I nominate the Environment Committee to consider the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004826\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand is undertaking significant transformations regarding how we protect, conserve, and restore our natural environment, how we sustainably use our resources, and how we mitigate and adapt to climate change. However, to understand the impacts that our activities have on the environment and to respond accordingly, we need a comprehensive, reliable, consistent data and information base.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004827\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn 2015, the Environmental Reporting Act was enacted to do exactly that: to establish a trusted, reliable, and independent environmental reporting regime. Since then, we have completed four cycles of environmental reports. The Act has made significant improvements to the previously ad hoc way New Zealand reported on the environment; however, we need to extend its functionality and flexibility so that trustworthy data and information is at the heart of decision making.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004828\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn 2019, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment released a report raising concerns about gaps and inconsistencies in environmental data. The commissioner noted a reliance on passively harvested data and information collected under other pieces of legislation and a lack of a coordinated environmental monitoring and reporting system. The high frequency of report production placed the Ministry for the Environment and Stats NZ on a never-ending treadmill of report-making. These often recycle old, patchy, and inconsistent data collected using a myriad of disparate monitoring practices. We have a significant opportunity now to address the Parliamentary Commissioner\u2019s concerns, so in this piece of legislation a number of changes are being put forward.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004829\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Environmental Reporting Amendment Bill before the House represents a commitment by the Government to quality environmental data and information. The bill will refocus reporting content and time frames. It aligns roles and responsibilities, and a more active collection of environmental data and knowledge. The bill ensures improvements to environmental reporting are safeguarded for the future. These include making data available to the public and decision makers when it is ready, rather than when a report is merely published. It also means expanding the reporting and setting up an interim strategic, in-evidence panel.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004830\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill will require the Secretary for the Environment to publish a \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EState of the Environment\u003C/span\u003E report every six years, independent from political interference. This will achieve a more appropriate balance between reporting timeliness and the rates of change in our environment. The bill stipulates that the first \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EState of the Environment\u003C/span\u003E report must be published in 2031.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Pressure-State-Impact framework embedded into the Environmental Reporting Act has been expanded to include drivers and outlooks. Drivers describe the long-term social, demographic, economic, and environmental factors that cause pressure on the environment. Outlooks describe how the environment may change in the future based on projections and trends. Their ongoing inclusion will render a more complete picture and bring New Zealand more in line with international best practice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004832\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe report must continue to describe changes to the state of the environment over time and how it measures against national and international standards. In addition, they can now report on progress towards Government priorities and limits, goals, and policy outcomes set in other legislation. This could include, for example, reporting on limits as proposed in the Natural Environment Bill and any measures set as part of the climate adaptation system, including managing the risk from natural hazards.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004833\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBetween the six-yearly \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EState of the Environment\u003C/span\u003E reports, a commentary report must be published at least once every 12 months. One of the foundational objectives of the bill is to ensure reporting flexibility. Commentaries report on an issue or topic that sits across one or more of the five environmental domains. The five domains of air, land, fresh water, marine, and atmosphere and climate will remain. All must be reported on at least once in the commentary reports between the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EState of the Environment\u003C/span\u003E reports. However, the amendments recognise that commentary reports may cut across different domains. This change allows for more flexible reporting, which better addresses the urgent needs we face.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004834\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill introduces a new requirement for the Secretary for the Environment. In consultation with the Government Statistician, the secretary will produce a priorities report within six months of every \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EState of the Environment\u003C/span\u003E report. The report will discuss environmental data, monitoring, and research. It will also list recommended indicators and priority areas for improving data and evidence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004835\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESeveral technical advisory groups have provided expert advice on the preparation of synthesis and domain reports over the years. This bill will, however, amend the Environmental Reporting Act to require the Secretary for the Environment, in consultation with the Minister for the Environment, to appoint a strategic evidence panel. The panel will provide independent advice to the Secretary for the Environment on matters related to environmental data monitoring and reporting. The bill also clarifies the roles of the Secretary for the Environment and the Government Statistician. The bill proposes clear roles and also stipulates where consultation between the two organisations is required, such as setting environmental indicators or producing data and evidence priority reports.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004836\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, to bring together all the proposals and drive a cohesive, robust and fit-for-purpose reporting system, the purpose statement has been extended. The current purpose statement simply stipulates that the purpose of the Act is to produce national environmental reports. This has been clarified to align with the underlying policy to inform New Zealanders on the state of the environment and to support evidence-based decisions. This bill responds directly to a review of New Zealand\u2019s national reporting regime. It improves efficiency of our reporting regime, making useful improvements to the frequency of reports, and does so without compromising their timeliness, impact, or independence. Therefore, I commend the Environmental Reporting Amendment Bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004837\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022479061c0178b1fcc11f620af319a9e08\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022 data-id=\u00224bb88f7b5f60fc308b3ccbb807478a2a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004838\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224bb88f7b5f60fc308b3ccbb807478a2a\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour\u2014Dunedin) (11:31)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on the Environmental Reporting Amendment Bill. I thank the Minister for that fulsome speech in describing what some of the differences are between the bill and the Act that it\u2019s amending. I do note that both of them are quite little Acts\u2014well, a little Act and a little bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004839\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c562dc86e974914b8878595e580f138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ec5d8ccdf88bcac364bf30ccba715ac4\u0022\u003ECatherine Wedd\u003C/span\u003E: Unlike our other ones.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004840\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022881e1b463882230dee2a91b96cb61b87\u0022\u003EHon RACHEL BROOKING\u003C/span\u003E: And that is right. The chair of the Environment Committee is noting that it\u2019s quite different from the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill that the Environment Committee is currently looking at. But that does not diminish their importance at all. It is, of course, very important that all of that other stuff is based on good evidence and good data. We\u2019ve heard from across Parliament, the importance of that data and that we\u2019re not doing it quite right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004841\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Hon James Shaw\u2014in, I think, his capacity as an associate environment Minister\u2014was working on amendments to the Environmental Reporting Act when he was the Minister, and we see in the departmental disclosure statement a reference to consultation that happened in February and March 2022, which, of course, was in the last term of Government. Subsequent to that, obviously the Government changed, and I have been asking the previous Minister for the Environment what happened to that work, because it seemed to be bipartisan-type work that surely this Government could have been getting on with. The response was always that something was happening; so it is, though we\u2019re now in 2026, good to see the something. Of course, it would be useful to know the differences between that work, that the Hon James Shaw was consulting on in 2022, and then what happened with the targeted engagement that happened in 2024.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004842\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis departmental disclosure statements says that, \u201CFollowing the revision of the amendments by the current Government, the Ministry undertook targeted engagement with the regional sector advisory group in 2024. Feedback received was supportive of the proposed amendments. In February 2025, the Ministry undertook departmental consultation on these amendments, including separate engagement with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.\u201D It is very important that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is involved, because he, the Rt Hon Simon Upton, has been saying to anybody who will listen, for some time, about the importance of data and that we need to make significant changes on what we do and also how we account for this in the scrutiny that we do in Parliament. He\u2019s also spoken a lot and is doing written letters about the need for a federation of information as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004843\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat does this bill do, and how is it different to the current Act that it is amending? We know that the frequency of these reports\u2014the requirement for the state of the environment reporting\u2014is reduced. We also know, as the Minister has just said, that data will be available when it\u2019s ready, and that can be very useful for the reasons that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is concerned in. There\u2019s also, as the Minister noted, this change in purpose, which I think is important, because it does include there \u201Cto inform New Zealanders about the state of the environment and support evidence-based decisions that lead to effective and enduring environmental stewardship\u201D. That seems like a good purpose to me. And there\u2019s this new panel as well. We see that in Part\u00A02 clause 14, there is a Strategic Evidence Panel established. That is to provide advice on a particular matter, if requested by the Secretary, or they may provide advice to the secretary on their own resolution. The panel consists of a group of at least seven, but no more than nine, with a three-year term, appointed by the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004844\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust as I wrap up, Labour is supporting this bill to go to select committee because we are interested, and Government members might like to inform the House about the differences between what happened in that 2022 consultation and the 2025 consultation. I look forward to hearing thoughtful submissions on this important but small piece of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022 data-id=\u0022ee0c2a7087e8e2fd2735fc43d664b9b6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004845\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ee0c2a7087e8e2fd2735fc43d664b9b6\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM (Green) (11:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This morning at breakfast time, my daughter was reading a book that she got from the school library about baby turtles. Simultaneously, my phone was showing me a headline about green sea turtles. It was recalling a story about a green sea turtle that was found on a beach in Sydney, that was sick, and that was taken in by a rescue centre at a zoo. That baby green sea turtle pooed plastic for six days. What that made me wonder was whether my daughter would experience green sea turtles when she gets to my age. I recall the privilege of being on Rangit\u0101hua, on Raoul Island, in the Kermadecs, and seeing green sea turtles around there. They are around New Zealand, but it made me wonder whether they\u2019ll continue to be.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004846\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWhy I wanted to start this contribution with that is because it is so important\u2014and it was so great hearing the Minister\u2019s comments just before\u2014that we know and understand what is happening with our natural environment. Most importantly, he talked about how we respond accordingly. The reason that the Green Party will not be supporting this bill today\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004847\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c562dc86e974914b8878595e580f138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aa47afd7b85636ae7b3551d516ce9180\u0022\u003ECatherine Wedd\u003C/span\u003E: Why?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004848\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203a9a78995df41d999aa5550770febd3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022353615c2ff505507109de9f86a8461c6\u0022\u003ELAN PHAM\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014is because we need to know and understand and respond accordingly to the stats, the figures, the information that is in front of us. And to illustrate my point about that\u2014because I can hear Government members saying, \u201CWhy? Why?\u201D The reason is because our latest domain report, which is the exact reports that are dictated and mandated under this Act, was \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EOur Freshwater 2026\u003C/span\u003E report. That told us that between 2020 and 2024, 44\u00A0percent of New Zealand\u2019s total river length was not safe for swimming. It told us that more than half of our rivers are polluted. It told us most of our lakes are in poor health and that groundwater in many areas is increasingly unsafe to drink. It also told us that the area of land used for dairy farming almost tripled between 2002 and 2022.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004849\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe associated increase in cows across the country increased 71 percent nationally between 1990 and 2023, from 3.4 million to 5.9 million. The modelling tells us that the long-term decline of that, when it comes to river and freshwater quality since 1990 were closely associated with how much farming and forestry\u2014but particularly the intensity of farming\u2014there was upstream.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004850\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, what is really concerning about this is this is what we were told in 2026. If we agree with this bill and we put this bill through, the next reporting would not be until 2032. The reason why the Green Party cannot support this is because, even despite the fact that James Shaw, our previous co-leader, was part of the development early on, the landscape has changed so much. We cannot afford, as New Zealanders, to not be reminded of this stuff. If we\u2019re not reminded in these domain reports, how many of us are going to notice the absence of green sea turtles when we\u2019re out in the ocean, when they\u2019re already so rare to see. We are not up for that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004851\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat we are up for is actual protection, actual response, where we turn this tide in environmental. Because with this Government, the brakes are off, we\u2019re in a race to the bottom, and New Zealanders deserve and expect so much better. We can do so much better. The Government should know this. We want to see them respond. We want to see them act. The information is right in front of them. Just use it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022574355e682ca05ea8aee2ce44699b54d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004852\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022574355e682ca05ea8aee2ce44699b54d\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (ACT) (11:42)\u003C/span\u003E: Firstly, I have to disabuse the member, the environmental catastrophist Lan Pham, about the fate of the sea turtles. The Department of Conservation (DOC), on their own website, says: \u201CThe status of this species is least concern\u201D. DOC are the least concerned they could possibly be about it. They also say that green sea turtle sightings have increased around Northland and that if seas actually warm due to climate change, these sea turtles that don\u2019t breed in New Zealand might actually decide to breed in New Zealand. There could be a net benefit from climate change that New Zealand could become a breeding colony for these sea turtles.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004853\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ELet\u2019s get back to the bill. This is a fantastic bill. It streamlines environmental reporting, and actually, increases to the time between reports so that more information can be developed is useful. There\u2019s no point in having a three-yearly hop-in, stop-in on environmental conditions. We do need to let good policy and good environmental controls take effect. Thank you, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225f6c5b1a97f24773a8aaeb3a8e3b0e7b\u0022 data-id=\u002222e9e694b7b15adbf701ba67930958b4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004854\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f6c5b1a97f24773a8aaeb3a8e3b0e7b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002222e9e694b7b15adbf701ba67930958b4\u0022\u003EJAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) (11:43)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Environmental Reporting Amendment Bill. This bill is consistent with the New Zealand First manifesto commitment to support an evidence-based approach to complex environmental issues. We are also proud to see the establishment of the strategic evidence panel, which will provide the independent expert advice needed to safeguard our reporting programmes. On that, I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226c562dc86e974914b8878595e580f138\u0022 data-id=\u0022bf3cdc955d1a964a4a2c7269388568cc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004855\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c562dc86e974914b8878595e580f138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bf3cdc955d1a964a4a2c7269388568cc\u0022\u003ECATHERINE WEDD (National\u2014Tukituki) (11:43)\u003C/span\u003E: I rise to support this bill. In order to protect an enhance our environment, we need good data to do that. We need good reporting. It\u2019s really disappointing to hear that the Green Party is not supporting this bill, because, to enhance the environment, we need good data. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f988bc72b5e47b8856ba70e41dfbbaf\u0022 data-id=\u002293c728ed13ff0287748ffba482202349\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f988bc72b5e47b8856ba70e41dfbbaf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002293c728ed13ff0287748ffba482202349\u0022\u003EGEORGIE DANSEY (Labour) (11:44)\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003ET\u0113n\u0101 koe e te M\u0101ngai o te Whare.\u003C/span\u003E I\u2019m rising on behalf of the Labour Party to speak to this bill. Look, the Labour Party supports good reporting. We support good reporting across the board, because reporting informs everything that we can do and what we can achieve in legislation in Parliament.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004857\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe support this bill\u2014with caution. Caution because of what this Government has done in regards to the environment over this term. Over the last two-and-a-half years, we\u2019ve seen this Government deprioritise the environment. So in a way, I\u2019m proud of this Government for finally doing something that could help the environment after a long list, two-and-a-half years, of deprioritising it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004858\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELook, Labour\u2019s supportive of the aims of the bill in regard to reporting because we know that there are data and reporting gaps in the legislation. We\u2019re interested to see how this goes in select committee and getting into the detail about what this reporting will look like and how it is going to be effective in caring for our environment. We will look carefully at this bill through the select committee process. I don\u2019t sit on this select committee, but I know that my colleagues will do a good job of that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004859\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think one of the aspects of this is the importance of robust and credible environmental data and research, which is the intent of the Environmental Reporting Act 2015. For 10 years since that Act was enacted, feedback has been that we need more efficiency and more flexibility within the Act. So I look forward to the robust discussions throughout the select committee in that space.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004860\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI wanted to talk a little bit about something I read in the departmental disclosure statement regarding the regulatory impact statement (RIS). So there was a regulatory impact statement provided for this bill, which is great, but some of the notes in the departmental disclosure statement, which I\u2019d just like to refer to, was that the Ministry for Regulation did not provide an independent opinion on the RIS, but there was feedback from\u2014the Ministry for the Environment Regulatory Impact Analysis Panel has reviewed it, which is good. But there was a part there that I found interesting in regard to the way that the RIS\u2014and when I first came to Parliament and heard \u201CRIS\u201D, I thought it was \u201CRIZ\u201D and I always wondered what the \u201CZ\u201D stood for, but it\u2019s actually \u201CS\u201D. So it should be pronounced \u201Criss\u201D but I think \u201Criz\u201D sounds much better. So we\u2019ll go with \u201Criz\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004861\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is the point from the departmental disclosure statement that I wanted to mention. \u201CWhile the [RIS] is generally clear and concise, it would benefit from additional evidence in the options analysis and cost-benefit analysis under each proposal \u2026 the RIS could have gained more from a broader public consultation \u2026 [it could] provide a \u2026 robust foundation for decision-making and enhance the overall effectiveness of the statement.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004862\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe point there is that our RIS doesn\u2019t quite meet the standard that I would expect. Since coming to Parliament, I\u2019ve learnt how important it is to read the RIS, understand the RIS, to come speak in the House on it. It\u2019s such an important document, and it\u2019s a shame that, over the past little while, under this Government and under the Ministry for Regulation, the RISs haven\u2019t been up to scratch, and I think this speaks to it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004863\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe had a briefing from the officials from the Ministry for Regulation who talked to us about the new RAS and CAS that we\u2019re getting. So the regulatory analysis summary, which is going to replace the RIS, and the point I want to make here is just\u2014oh, sorry. The CAS is the consistency accountability statement\u2014the RAS and the CAS. The RAS is going to replace the RIS, and I hope that that means we have a more robust process in ensuring that we get the information that we need to consider bills in the broader context. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002227d19573a8ba4d8283b17374978c8ea2\u0022 data-id=\u00222d2f0dd511bd7d57983f022c182f16c4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004864\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227d19573a8ba4d8283b17374978c8ea2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222d2f0dd511bd7d57983f022c182f16c4\u0022\u003EGRANT McCALLUM (National\u2014Northland) (11:49)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, if you\u2019re going to make good environmental decisions, you need good data. This bill will help deliver it. It was ironic that it\u2019s been developed, in part, by James Shaw in the past, and to have the current Green Party think that it\u2019s not relevant to have good data says it all. They have really disappeared into a deep, dark hole. They don\u2019t care about the environment, and, therefore, they don\u2019t deserve to be called a Green Party. I commend this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022 data-id=\u0022fc30ef401ab3f740434083efc1f42a41\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004865\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fc30ef401ab3f740434083efc1f42a41\u0022\u003EHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (11:49)\u003C/span\u003E: This bill has indeed had a very long gestation. Looking through the regulatory impact statement, we see that part of what kicked it off was, way back in 2019, a report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment saying that we actually did need better environmental reporting in this country. We have a great deal of respect for the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment\u2014on all sides of the House, I think\u2014especially for the current commissioner, appointed by Labour and the appointment continued by National. He\u2019s a former National Party MP and I think a man of great intellect and insight and is doing a good job for us. And then, in 2022, the Hon James Shaw, someone for whom I have a great deal of respect, also kicked off the policy process on this to work us towards getting better environmental reporting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004866\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHaving had this very long, long gestation, it does seem odd that we now have to introduce it into the House in the closing months of this Parliament under urgency. It does seem a shame that the former Minister for the Environment couldn\u2019t have gotten it into the House sooner. We\u2019d have liked to have had the opportunity to examine it in this Parliament and get the whole legislation sorted out for the next Parliament. However, that\u2019s the way things go sometimes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004867\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to talk about a number of things with respect to this bill. I just want to direct the members\u2019 attention to the purpose statement, which is being amended. It says it\u2019s to \u201Cinform New Zealanders about the state of the environment\u201D and \u201Cto support evidence-based decisions that lead to effective and enduring environmental stewardship\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004868\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt does raise quite an interesting issue, and that\u2019s the issue of whether having better information actually does lead to better action. It\u2019s a long-discussed point. You know, the ancient philosophers thought that a person who knew the good thing would do the good thing, but David Hume quite correctly pointed out that you need, actually, motivation not just the information. I think that\u2019s where we\u2019re seeing a little bit of a gap in the debate on the different sides of the House. We know that good information is great to have. It\u2019s great to improve the quality of information. But then people actually need to act on it, and that\u2019s a different matter. So while we applaud this process of improving the information we\u2019re getting, the real test that we hold the Government to is what action they take based on it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004869\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of whether or not this is going to be better information, going back to the regulatory impact statement and the history of this bill and that 2019 report from PCE\u2014the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment\u2014did recommend some changes. The improvements\u2014and some of the improvements have been undertaken anyway in a non-legislative process\u2014included focusing the broad purpose of environmental reporting, including incorporating drivers and outlooks into the reporting framework. There was a science advisory panel established to help with the formation of these environmental reports, and further clarifying the roles was built in via policy processes within the Ministry for the Environment and so on, rather than doing it as a matter of legislation. The risk is that if it is just\u2014I shouldn\u2019t say \u201Cjust\u201D done\u2014done within a Government department without legislative authority, then it doesn\u2019t carry on. It can be changed subsequently.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004870\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI was particularly interested in the science panel because, looking at the legislation, one of the things the legislation does is it does establish a strategic evidence panel. The purpose of that panel is to provide independent advice to the Secretary for the Environment on environmental data monitoring and reporting. And the members of that panel need to hold relevant expertise on matters related to environmental data monitoring and reporting. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004871\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019d like to see the committee examine that a little. In particular, I want to see science expertise on that panel. I\u2019m looking to see if there\u2019s a way that we can put that into the legislation rather than just leaving it up to the Secretary for the Environment. So something for the select committee to look at, and I\u2019ll be interested to work on that committee if possible.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b27d8609c612411686d517d0f9b09b28\u0022 data-id=\u0022a7fb26f0c03c264908e9da80af5184f8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004872\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d8609c612411686d517d0f9b09b28\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a7fb26f0c03c264908e9da80af5184f8\u0022\u003EDAVID MacLEOD (National\u2014New Plymouth) (11:54)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The quality of decision making is dictated by the information that it receives. This very small bill makes amendments the Environmental Reporting Act 2015. It does exactly that, by improving the data, improving the information that is received by decision makers, and that\u2019s a good outcome. I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004873\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the\u003C/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003E Environmental Reporting Amendment Bill be now read a first time\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004874\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 101\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004875\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004876\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 20\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004877\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004878\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004879\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a first time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004880\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 91, Noes 20.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004881\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022459cb9063527ed9afe8b245b2b163aae\u0022\u003EReferral to Select Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022 data-id=\u00221401b0d9dc13f84c3ddcf06245a86514\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004882\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221401b0d9dc13f84c3ddcf06245a86514\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono) (11:56)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Environmental Reporting Amendment Bill be considered by the Environment Committee\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004883\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004884\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill referred to the Environment Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004885\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a381c49ba82f316c85c822175171e892\u0022\u003EBuilding (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004886\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00222b5fd9e440c85d59879167bbe38c7228\u0022\u003ELegislative Statement\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022 data-id=\u002292b5c552fab4b59cf4cd144cb8ea5839\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004887\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002292b5c552fab4b59cf4cd144cb8ea5839\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (11:56)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, sir. I present a legislative statement on the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004888\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002220f99bb1b0c3eb7e1f87e9fee9e2a2bd\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022790e11bef5e1f1add57e669cc4a6ba72\u0022\u003ESecond Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022 data-id=\u0022c6b9faaddb745efd0f4fffd34257f2c3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004890\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022624b5e5ecd274e178a4554c1ae59f723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c6b9faaddb745efd0f4fffd34257f2c3\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (11:56)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill be now read a second time\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004891\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Transport and Infrastructure Committee has considered the bill and recommends that it be passed with amendments. I\u2019m grateful to the people and organisations who made a submission on the bill and of course to the select committee itself, who took the time to hear those submitters and to consider improvements on the bill. Following the Canterbury earthquakes and royal commission of inquiry, the current earthquake-prone buildings regime was introduced.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004892\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI just want to take a moment to acknowledge, as I\u2019m sure all in this House would, the considerable tragedy, the loss of human life, that was entailed by those tragic events. And I don\u2019t wish to bring you into the debate, Mr Speaker, but I will acknowledge that you more than most were familiar with the nature of the tragedy, and of course I commend and salute you for your work following that, of course, to bring that beloved region of yours back to more normal circumstances.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAll that said, of course, I think it\u2019s fairly acknowledged that the introduced legislation at that time\u2014albeit, of course, in good faith and balancing all the relevant considerations\u2014has not worked entirely as intended. It has inadvertently imposed large costs on building owners and communities, including throughout New Zealand, without focusing enough on the buildings that present the greatest risk to people\u2019s lives.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004894\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis cannot continue, and so, even with the recent earthquakes in Venezuela providing a salutary reminder that we do need to prepare further for such events in New Zealand, nevertheless, we have decided that it is important to reform the earthquake-prone building regime to target or refocus on those buildings most likely to cause fatalities in an earthquake. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004895\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe changes will remove barriers to strengthening high-risk buildings, making retrofits more affordable for their owners and better protecting people in and around them. Focusing effort and investment on the highest-risk buildings will ultimately save more lives than the current one-size-fits-all approach.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004896\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EToday I will briefly reiterate the bill\u2019s key elements and summarise the key changes recommended by the select committee. As I say, we have decided to accept those changes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004897\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFirst, the bill narrows the systems scope so that it targets only high-risk buildings in medium and high-risk seismic zones. It introduces tiered remediation requirements, amends the definition of priority building, and provides greater flexibility through deadline extensions and lower-cost pathways for alterations and change of use.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004898\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOnly two types of buildings will remain designated as earthquake-prone buildings (EPBs): unreinforced masonry buildings and tall heavy material buildings. These are the buildings most likely to cause harm in an earthquake, and these will be only those located in medium- or high-risk seismic zones. Territorial authorities must identify and remove other building types from the EPB register in the three months from 1 July 2027.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004899\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMeanwhile, buildings in Auckland, Northland, and the Chatham Islands will be out of scope. These areas have a scientifically determined lower seismic hazard than other parts of New Zealand. On Royal assent, therefore, earthquake-prone buildings in these areas will have that designation removed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004900\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAt the same time, other provisions of the bill go through coastal Otago, including Dunedin and Oamaru and Stewart Island, will shift from a low to medium seismic zone to reflect the latest scientific understanding of seismic hazard in those places. Current earthquake-prone buildings (EPBs) there will retain their existing remediation deadlines and territorial authorities will have until 1 July 2032 to identify potential EPBs there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004901\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill also narrows the so-called identify at any time pathway for designating buildings as EPBs. Too many low-risk buildings have been designated as earthquake-prone using this pathway. So the bill, as introduced, narrows the pathway to cover only the post-1976, tall, heavy-material buildings that were constructed before 2027. This includes buildings akin to the CTV building in Christchurch. For buildings that remain EPBs, territorial authorities will determine their required remediation measures in accordance with the updated EPB methodology, issue EPB notices, and keep the EPB register up to date.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004902\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill narrows the definition of \u201Cpriority building\u201D. Under the bill, only buildings that could fall on to a busy street or block a strategic transport route will qualify. Buildings that were priority simply because of their usage, such as hospitals or fire stations, will lose that status. Together, these changes provide clearer rules and a stronger focus on the buildings that matter most for public safety.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004903\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill also introduces a tiered approach to remediation, replacing the current requirement to strengthen all buildings to 34 percent of the new building standard, commonly known as NBS. There will be two principal forms of remediation measure. Most unreinforced masonry buildings will need to mitigate their risk of facades falling on to people below. Multi-storey concrete buildings and large unreinforced masonry buildings will need targeted work to prevent those buildings collapsing. For unreinforced masonry buildings then that are one or two storeys high and located outside urban centres, no remediation will be required by a set deadline. But, at the same time, I note that owners will need to mitigate the risk of fa\u00E7ade collapse if they want the building to be taken off the EPB register. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004904\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EEPB owners will be able to apply to territorial authorities for deadline extensions of up to 15 years, even if the original deadline expired before commencement. This will replace the current \u201Cup to 10 year\u201D extension, open only to heritage EPB owners.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004905\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill also supports lower-cost compliance pathways for owners carrying out seismic work or changing the use of a building. If the work only involves seismic remediation, no fire or accessibility upgrades will be required. Similarly, if an owner wants to change an EPB\u2019s use, it would only need to meet its remediation requirement, rather than anything higher. Together, these changes provide more practical and cost-effective solutions, more time to comply, and fewer barriers for owners committed to making their buildings safer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004906\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Transport and Infrastructure Committee has unanimously recommended amendments to address issues identified by submitters, officials, and the select committee itself. I welcome these improvements and again place on the record my thanks to the committee for their detailed examination of the bill. I note the chair, Mr Andy Foster, and I thank him and his colleagues who did such a careful and coherent job of understanding and in turn explaining the changes that have ultimately been made.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004907\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn response to feedback from submitters, the committee clarified what areas are in \u201Curban centres\u201D, which helps to determine the remediation requirement of an unreinforced masonry EPB. For example, Wellington and Porirua are urban centres, whereas Featherston and Greytown are not. To acknowledge the unique barriers to remediation faced by various buildings, the committee added heritage status to the list of matters that territorial authorities must have regard to when determining whether or not to grant a deadline extension. Some submitters were concerned that the alternation provisions may allow for reduced building code compliance. For example, drilling stabilising rods through walls can increase the risk of fire spreading in one room to the next. The committee introduced a backstop into the bill to ensure that seismic work needs to be done in a way that doesn\u2019t increase the risk of fire spreading or reduce disabled peoples\u2019 access.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004908\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe committee also amended the bill so that warning signs must be displayed on all earthquake-prone buildings, including those that are only recorded on the register or have a seismic work exemption. The committee updated the terms for the required remediation measures to fa\u00E7ade risk mitigation and targeted retrofit. This will ensure that approaches to remediation mitigate risk but do not necessarily involve securing a fa\u00E7ade or a full retrofit of the building can be used. This bill now also includes high-level descriptions of these measures.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004909\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESome submitters were unsure how buildings with unusually tall storeys or part storeys will be treated\u2014a fair question. The committee clarified that the thresholds for determining how many storeys high an EPB will be will be set out in the EPB methodology. One way that a building can be a priority building with half the remediation time frame is if it may impede a strategic transport route if it were to collapse during an earthquake. Submitters recommended that territorial authorities be allowed to revisit their strategic transport route\u2014again, I think, a very sensible recommendation. The committee therefore amended the bill to empower territorial authorities\u2014councils, in other words\u2014to revise and remove strategic transport routes up to 1 July 2027. No new strategic transport routes may be added, ensuring that no building owners will be worse off.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELast, in my remaining minute, the committee clarified the meaning of a building within scope. This makes it clearer which buildings are within scope of the system before the reader then looks to the EPB methodology for further technical detail. An unreinforced masonry building must have an exterior masonry wall and satisfy other criteria in the methodology to be within scope. A tall, heavy material building must have one or more significant elements, such as a roof or a floor, built using concrete or other heavy materials and satisfy any other criteria in the EPB methodology. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004911\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOverall, in summary, the bill creates a more focused and workable earthquake-prone buildings system by targeting the buildings that present the greatest risk, introducing tiered and more cost-effective remediation requirements, and reducing barriers to remediation for building owners. For all those reasons, I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004912\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222102e28cff3530bc271ad748d37bede2\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u002217acae09170349e334be7749d8112ab5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004913\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002217acae09170349e334be7749d8112ab5\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (12:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is an important bill and an important piece of reform that Labour continues to support, with specific reservations. I\u2019m going to use this speech to set out what those things are. They will be parts that we consider are the most sensitive and are the least well-supported around the House. It is important that we come to consensus on these rules which impact on the long-term viability of buildings and not only those that are being built now but in expensive and costly remediations that are to come in the next five to 10 years. So it is important to flag where we have bipartisan support which is for a sensible set of rules for remediation of the highest-risk buildings, but to indicate that we do have reservations around how some of the exclusions have been applied, particularly around Auckland.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004914\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMaintaining affordability has been our concern here. We want a building system and a built environment which is affordable, where remediations happen from either existing owners or there is an incentive for buildings to be sold to people who can remediate them. Because you do not want a situation like Wellington is experiencing now where some important civic sites and main streets have buildings which have not been remediated because the cost is very high and that continues to pose a risk to neighbours and to people on the street who walk past them. We want a system which incentivises that kind of remediation and where it is affordable in the public interest. So that is why we need some updates to these rules.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe have vociferously opposed at every opportunity the exclusion of Auckland from the rules for remediation of risky buildings. Colleagues, let me explain what has occurred here. Cabinet has set out to create a set of rules where the highest-risk buildings around the country are the ones that get fixed. That makes sense. We shouldn\u2019t fix buildings which are not posing a risk to peoples\u2019 lives and are not posing a risk to the neighbouring buildings around them. Those rules require expensive fixes and so they should be something which is sensible. There is also a category of buildings under that that require being fixed\u2014they need to be fixed. There shouldn\u2019t be rules which force people to adhere to a certain time line. Building owners in that category should be able to make their own decisions about what kind of risk they will put up with and what kind of risk the building\u2019s users will put up with.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004916\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen I\u2019m talking about these highest-risk buildings, some of those have been excluded from this bill. The way that these rules have been drawn is that if you have a very high-risk building in Auckland which is on the main street, it does not need to be remediated any more. The House must understand that by excluding Auckland, we have drawn lines on a map which mean that those remediations do not need to occur.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004917\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EYes, you could have designed a system where the highest seismic risk regions were the way that we decided what sorts of buildings would be remediated. But that\u2019s actually not what we\u2019ve done. If you drew lines on a map, you might use, say, faults, and areas where say, an eruption around the Alpine Fault was going to cause regional risk and regional land movement. You might have drawn lines around volcanic movements in our shaky isles.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004918\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut that is not the system we have used. We\u2019ve used a system, which is perfectly sensible, whereby you identify the buildings which are at risk of movement in any kind of event like that and how much they are used. So a building that might move the same amount and might have the same kind of risk on the main street in Auckland is a different sort of risk to the one that\u2019s on the West Coast and has two users a year for family weddings. That\u2019s sensible.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004919\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut addition, at the last minute, of an exclusion for Auckland does not fit with the uncontentious and unpolitical way of identifying risk here. It has overlaid a set of judgements that are, simply put, relatively political about whether Auckland should be included or excluded from the rules.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004920\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think that is the wrong decision. I think we will be back here in this House debating whether that has worked, because it is not a system that the public can have faith in, and it will test confidence and trust in our built environment system and whether central government stands behind the risk that we are asking Aucklanders to take on, not only as a community, but as individual business owners who, say, have buildings next to highly risky buildings and people who maintain other parts of built environment around them that are at risk because of this decision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004921\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is not also a minor issue for Auckland. The majority of earthquake-prone buildings are in Auckland, despite many people\u2019s assumptions about the earthquake-prone buildings being in Christchurch; that is a largely an area which has been through a pretty painful process of having to come up to speed with the rules that we required of them. People in Canterbury have done what they have been asked. They have fixed buildings; they have remediated buildings. For some people, have that has been at personal cost, huge personal investment of family savings. For many businesses, it has meant years of having to forward-fund capital investment in their buildings, but they have done that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004922\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is an exclusion, now, of another region, in fact, where there are 1,400 earthquake-prone buildings, which was in the queue, and this Government has made a decision to exclude them. That decision will have lasting consequences for generations to come and is, frankly, being made at a time where that is possible for the Government to do it because it\u2019s not in people\u2019s minds.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004923\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe deadline extensions powers in the bill have also been something that the committee worked very closely with, and, ultimately, that is something we do not support. There are shifting goal posts now in the bill, where deadline extensions of up to 15 years don\u2019t come back to this Parliament. They are made away from public scrutiny. What does that mean? It means that building owners don\u2019t have a clear indication of the time that they will need to make remediations in the rest of the country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004924\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFor Wellington apartment owners, who are an important constituency when Governments of both stripes have considered this bill, they now do not have certainty of investment decisions. Little old ladies who live in apartments, and that\u2019s their entire life savings, will be hugely impacted by this bill, and that is a very hard case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELabour\u2019s answer to this was not one that National politics supported. It was to use public money to assist those private owners with their private property because we recognise that there is a no-fault element of this and that it would be inequitable to treat this in any different way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004926\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut there were other choice for the National Government to make, and simply kicking the can down the road is what is being done here in this bill. It\u2019s a very difficult position to be putting those retirees, especially, but also first-home buyers, in, when they are now under water and find themselves without equity to invest in other properties that they would like to live in, especially in the current climate of the Wellington property market.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004927\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe committee had some very useful discussions around the idea of addressing the need for assistance that those apartment owners faced, but, ultimately, Government has not proposed either an insurance product which would help them or a financial scheme which would allow them to sell and then to recover some of the costs for the Government\u2019s coffers. That was what was in place 2022-23 under the Labour Government and that is not what the Government has announced.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004928\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThese rules in this bill should have been progressed at the same time as another scheme to properly spread risk between those who can afford it and those who can\u2019t were introduced. Things like body corp rules are critical to getting this regime right. Those have also not been progressed at the same time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004929\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EUltimately, this is an area where reform is welcome. We need sensible rules for remediation, and the rules aren\u2019t working for a sector which is struggling with the construction and the repair of these buildings right now. We do not have enough capacity in the system to fix all of the earthquake-prone buildings that we need to in New Zealand today. We needed a sensible way for the Government to direct when that work would occur and where.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004930\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut the exclusion of Auckland wholesale should not have been part of the planning of that pipeline. If we\u2019re serious about an infrastructure pipeline which works for people, we also need to consider the built environment and the private buildings which are associated with that\u2014our construction sector needed to be able to plan that out well. There is also an extension in here which means that it might 10 years, it might be 15 years\u2014nobody knows.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004931\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo when we\u2019re accountable to the people in our electorate who are looking at this Parliament and seeing an improvement of the earthquake-prone building rules, we all also have to know that the risk of earthquakes hasn\u2019t gone away, that there are risky buildings out there which this bill doesn\u2019t deal with. Simply sticking a notice on the door doesn\u2019t deal with it, and we all need to wear that for our communities, where there is not just private risk, it is public risk\u2014to our main streets, to the people who use the movie theatres, to the people who use the malls, all of this is something that this Parliament should keep a very close eye on because it does speed up building, but it also spreads the risk in ways we haven\u2019t anticipated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004932\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EDebate interrupted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004933\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022fcb4f78db770d8ac1d565c5bf38cb9c6\u0022\u003EVote Correction\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004934\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00224a4f5d21afa277a9ed3e22fda9b3bfd0\u0022\u003EEnvironmental Reporting Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022 data-id=\u002247ca7530fda34e01d6143e5ada57a0df\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002247ca7530fda34e01d6143e5ada57a0df\u0022\u003ESPEAKER (12:16)\u003C/span\u003E: Before I call the member, can I inform the House that the vote on the first reading of the Environmental Reporting Amendment Bill was incorrectly recorded as Ayes 91, Noes 20. The correct result is Ayes 101, Noes 20. The record will corrected accordingly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004936\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002273de344617ee47b832d29dead441f841\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004937\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f016d6b803c597a4fe2b30c6100d58d8\u0022\u003EBuilding (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004938\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ba93549291f5725617590f35dcf1f1a3\u0022\u003ESecond Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004939\u0022\u003EDebate resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022 data-id=\u0022cc05eb2e4565ccbd023a6dac32cc611e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004940\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cc05eb2e4565ccbd023a6dac32cc611e\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green\u2014Rongotai) (12:17)\u003C/span\u003E: T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Mr Speaker. T\u0113n\u0101 koutou e te Whare. I congratulate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for their work on this bill and the very helpful report that came from it. My colleague Celia Wade-Brown is currently the primary member for the Greens on that committee, as I have to be on the Environment Committee for the Planning Bill. So I wasn\u2019t there for the submissions on this bill, but I have a great interest in it, particularly as an electoral MP for Rongotai.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004941\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWellington City, which is mainly Wellington Central electorate and Rongotai electorate\u2014both held by Green MPs\u2014was significantly affected by the Kaik\u014Dura earthquake and by the changes to the earthquake building standards that were brought in following the Christchurch earthquake. So that was back in the prior term. I know the Speaker will remember this well, because I think he was involved at that time. I think that the changes that were made at that time were made for the very best reasons, which was to try to protect loss of life following the extremely damaging and tragic Christchurch earthquake.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004942\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHowever, while Christchurch, in the recovery, received a significant amount of central government funding to rebuild horizontal infrastructure and a significant amount of support, Wellington has not really received that level of central government support. And yet, it\u2019s had extreme damage to horizontal infrastructure like the pipes, which only became visible some years after the Kaik\u014Dura earthquake. Our town centres have really, really struggled with building owners who simply are not in a position to upgrade the building to make it functional. We have buildings in Newtown that have been just used as storage or sitting empty to perfectly good apartments on Riddiford Street above a commercial space empty because those buildings are not going to be repaired and it\u2019s affecting the vibrancy of our whole town centre.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004943\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo as a Wellington MP, I definitely had to support the changes proposed by the Minister. One thing that was great is sort of trying to make\u2014firstly the prioritisation is not stopping a building from falling down, but protecting loss of life. That is really, really important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004944\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESecondly, there was kind of no awareness. I think council engineers were quite conservative in terms of putting things on the schedule. They would say a one-storey building that\u2019s, say, a tennis club somewhere in Wellington, which doesn\u2019t have people living in it, doesn\u2019t have people working in it all the time, had to be upgraded, and it was the same test for a multi-storey residential building that had people living in it. Clearly, the risk is different for those infrequently used buildings that are single-storey versus a multi-storey residential building.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004945\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe welcome these changes, but we still have some concerns. The primary concern from my point of view is that everywhere else that I\u2019m aware of\u2014at least, this is what I understood from briefings from officials, and coming from an earthquake-prone part of the world, in California\u2014where there have been increases to building standards, there\u2019s usually some central government or State-level support for helping building owners to fix their buildings to make them safer. So it\u2019s unusual to massively put up the seismic standards and not provide any real support, which is, unfortunately, the situation we\u2019ve been in\u2014and there was a pathway for support.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004946\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI have a constituent, an older lady who lives in a residential apartment in the eastern suburbs of Wellington, who went through this whole process with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to try and access the support for remediation to her apartment in the building, to access financial support, and had just gotten through all the bureaucratic hurdles when this Government and the Minister Chris Penk announced that they were not going ahead with that programme. So, suddenly, the money was taken away and it wasn\u2019t available, which was incredibly stressful for a woman, if I recall correctly, in her late 70s or early 80s. During this period while the Government\u2019s been working on this legislation, we still have not seen any financial support for apartment owner-occupiers come through. I know my colleague Arena Williams referred to this in Labour\u2019s concerns around the bill. It is a major concern.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004947\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhile there will be fewer buildings that need to be remediated, there are lots of buildings\u2014and there might be 40 residential buildings in Wellington, mostly owner-occupiers; some will be investment properties with renters in them, but mostly owner-occupiers. For those owner-occupiers, where is the financial support to undertake the remediation, especially given that property values in Wellington are not up, so borrowing to pay for that remediation might not be available to those apartment owner-occupiers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004948\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt would be useful if central government had a fund, even if it\u2019s not grants\u2014but it would be great if it included some grants and some loans, low-interest loans to assist owner-occupiers to fix their buildings so that, you know, they\u2019re not at risk of death. We need them to fix these buildings\u2014like, as a community, we need these buildings to be fixed, and we cannot rely on city council, which has already been, particularly in Wellington\u2019s case, under so much pressure to upgrade its own buildings. It\u2019s made a whole lot of recent projects in Wellington City Council far more expensive because of the complications of the seismic standards, which now are, in some cases, being removed. So they\u2019ve already put a lot of money into this stuff. Ratepayers can\u2019t be the ones bailing out everyone in the city. So I think there is very much a role in calling on Government to do something about this, to offer some sort of financial support.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004949\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other big concern is the exclusion of Auckland from the rules for remediation of risky buildings. I think, unfortunately, as we saw with Christchurch, sometimes the most damaging earthquakes are happening in places where we\u2019re not expecting the earthquakes. My university geology professor I remember very clearly saying that if you\u2019re in an earthquake-prone area, the place that\u2019s most at risk of a catastrophic earthquake is a place where you haven\u2019t had lots of little earthquakes, because the pressure has built up over a long period of time. So while everyone\u2019s expecting it to be Wellington, you know, it might not be Wellington, and clearly a city built on a zone of volcanoes might be at risk. So we should probably not be excluding it, even if it seems cost-effective at the moment; it could end up being the wrong the wrong decision. So, concerned about Auckland\u2019s exclusion. There are 1,400 earthquake-prone buildings in Auckland, and that\u2019s the majority of the earthquake-prone buildings around the country. So excluding Auckland\u2019s buildings that are highly vulnerable in seismic events is not the right decision based on the evidence available.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004950\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019re not going to oppose this bill, because we know that the other changes need to be made, particularly for places like Wellington, and we were assured by officials during the briefing that engineers were working on far more cost-effective solutions to effectively remediate buildings without having to completely redo the structure. You know, when you\u2019re looking at those, like, 1940s concrete buildings, unreinforced masonry, there might be some more cost-effective solutions that address the issue without having to do everything that had been recommended prior. So that\u2019s what we\u2019re hoping to see.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004951\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI mean, the reality is we are an earthquake-prone nation; we need to build accordingly. We also have higher costs of building, in some cases, and we have an economy that is struggling slightly. So I think working together to address the public risk of earthquake-prone buildings and the cost of that and to share that cost makes sense, especially when it comes to retrofitting older buildings, because people really appreciate those older buildings, you know, like, there\u2019s a lot of really good design, and it would be a shame to have to knock them all down. As we\u2019ve seen in Wellington, people aren\u2019t knocking those buildings down; they\u2019re simply not going ahead with the remediation because it\u2019s not affordable. That means there\u2019s not as much housing available in our city as we need, there\u2019s not commercial space being utilised, and it\u2019s sort of a negative, self-reinforcing cycle for our communities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004952\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne other point in the last few minutes: we will be moving an amendment in the committee of the whole House around fire safety and disability provisions, because we do think that\u2019s really important. We do need those older buildings to address disability access and fire safety. Thank you, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u002257167b9ce84ffb19f54bbfea999e8547\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004953\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002257167b9ce84ffb19f54bbfea999e8547\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (ACT) (12:27)\u003C/span\u003E: ACT supports the amendment to the earthquake prone-buildings regulations. In 2016, David Seymour, ACT leader, was the only member of Parliament to vote against the legislation and the rules that we\u2019re now repealing. Seymour said the rules would be arbitrary, there was a lack of cost-benefit analysis, and there would be huge cost to many building owners with little benefit either to private or public users. It was an attack on property rights. That\u2019s what this Parliament voted for, 119 to one: an attack on people\u2019s property rights by forcing owners to spend vast sums of money on buildings that they could not justify commercially or ever hope to recover. As a result, as Julie Anne Genter has just pointed out, there are many buildings that\u2019ve never been remediated and never would\u2019ve been under the rules we\u2019re repealing today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004954\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESeymour said in 2016 these rules will cost a fortune, and since then we\u2019ve heard heartbreaking tales about people who are, essentially, in their old age, living on a fixed income, unable to afford their share of the cost of remediation and living heartbroken, ruined lives as a result of the rules this Parliament\u2019s repealing today, and the Government review of the rules agreed. They had imposed around or would impose around $8 billion in avoidable costs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004955\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EACT is proven right again, just like we were with the zero carbon Act\u2014119 to one. We will be proven right. New Zealand will have to get the Paris Agreement changed for our benefit or we\u2019ll have to leave. ACT was proven right about the firearms confiscation and the laws that the Labour Government brought in, 119 to one, and that is why Nicole McKee has to fix them with a new firearms Act. ACT is right more often than any of you\u2014excluding you, Mr Speaker\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004956\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223eae2b116fb1cab94701c8ca76677cac\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, no, that\u2019s right; I\u2019m never wrong.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004957\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cab02d9a0226be840ef2401b851db772\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014care to admit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004958\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f7f93d869c301e95d97c3d4a5752d775\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member does need to come back to the bill. I know that, look, the advertorial stuff is interesting but not relevant to the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002262b5d26ffde6274575570ee635806b6f\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: ACT looks forward to seeing this bill progress through all stages to give New Zealanders with earthquake-prone buildings a chance. Thank you, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002248ce26e54d83406399b875df20400dec\u0022 data-id=\u002235d4e0f0270266397befb94fa390b7ef\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004960\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002248ce26e54d83406399b875df20400dec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002235d4e0f0270266397befb94fa390b7ef\u0022\u003EANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (12:29)\u003C/span\u003E: Thanks, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First, and also having chaired the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, which considered this bill. I just want to say thanks to all the people who worked on this: the officials, the submitters, and, always, the great committee that it\u2019s my pleasure to work with.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004961\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill followed a public engagement process before the bill was introduced, which I think is a great process that\u2019s all too rare, if I might say, by any Government. The bill reduces the overall requirement for earthquake strengthening, reduces the number of buildings, and reduces the extent of work required in many cases, but not all. It takes a tiered approach, first of all, starting with information. We did say, as a select committee, that we want to make sure that buildings that are earthquake prone, even if you don\u2019t have to do anything with them, that at least there is a notice on those buildings to inform people\u2014a simple notice. Partial and facade strengthening is another step, and then full treatment as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004962\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe select committee tightened up on urban areas\u2014for example, churches in fields where we didn\u2019t seem it to be high risk. We tightened up on fire access so upgrade is no longer required, but you can\u2019t make it worse. We agreed with the exclusion of low-risk areas: Auckland, Northland, the Chathams, etc. We did test that, though we told, very clearly, to the Opposition, there was a low benefit-cost ratio and that\u2019s why they stayed excluded. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004963\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe biggest issue, though, just very briefly, was the lifting of coastal Otago\u2014so Dunedin and Oamaru\u2014into the medium-risk area. There was a lot of concern by those communities about that. Those are areas with some of the most significant collections of heritage buildings, and New Zealand First thinks heritage is very, very important\u2014the most significant collections of heritage buildings in New Zealand. Huge public benefit\u2014what Simon Court was saying\u2014and yet, in the bill for those, the strengthening is private. There\u2019s a real concern about the economics of strengthening in both of those towns, but the bill actually reduces the impact on those communities. We did explore the details of those\u2014things like the treatment of mezzanines, basements, two-storey buildings that are four storeys at the back, and so on. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E] Sorry, am I interrupting the good folks over there? Do you want me to\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004964\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022782c5106f562cb3c2acea784224c4089\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, Mr Foster. You were being interrupted and I\u2019d advise those who were interrupting to contain themselves.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004965\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002248ce26e54d83406399b875df20400dec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226eef53846986e7c4cf806f3aaebd87da\u0022\u003EANDY FOSTER\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. You know, we go through an extensive process; we go through a serious select committee process. Don\u2019t make the process a joke here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004966\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe assessment of coastal Otago, though\u2014one of the challenges there is that coastal Otago is based on 160 buildings which have been assessed at the moment; I\u2019m told by the folks in Dunedin Council that there are about 3,500 still to assess. So there is a serious issue there, which we are going to need to look at. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004967\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf I can just finish off, just in terms of Wellington, Julie Anne Genter was absolutely right: Wellington got no support whatsoever as the effects of the Kaik\u014Dura earthquake slowly emerged, particularly on the water infrastructure. She\u2019s also right about the parlous state of many of the apartment owners there. It is painful for them. They are trapped in that situation. There is no necessary answer in this; it\u2019s something, again, we should look to see if we can find an answer for them\u2014and it does blight areas. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004968\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m going to leave it there, but just to commend the bill to the House, and thank everybody for the hard work that\u2019s gone into putting it together.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004969\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d45055e3f4b4bcff8b806df01786ad98\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: This is a split call\u2014Tamatha Paul.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022 data-id=\u0022f4d4bf069aa27fafae9250f3b7a17ce3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004970\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f4d4bf069aa27fafae9250f3b7a17ce3\u0022\u003ETAMATHA PAUL (Green\u2014Wellington Central) (12:33)\u003C/span\u003E: Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you to the previous speaker for sharing those insights, because, as we know, being based here in Wellington, where shakes are common, this is something that we\u2019ve absolutely always got to be considering. We are going to be supporting this bill because it\u2019s moving towards a more proportionate risk-based framework that better targets life safety and reduces unnecessary compliance costs, which was looking like a very big bill for Wellington. We\u2019re glad that those costs might be spread out a bit more over time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004971\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe all saw those videos in Venezuela, watching all of those buildings come down, watching those buildings collapse on top of people, and just the misery that came about. Whenever there\u2019s a major seismic event across the world, it does really remind us why we have to make sure that our buildings are safe and compliant, and why it is so important. I think New Zealand, in particular, has done a really good job of making sure that our buildings are safe and reinforced and that things like chimneys or stone masonry won\u2019t fall down and crush people in the way that we saw in Venezuela. I think it\u2019s really good that we\u2019ve learnt the lessons from the tragedies that have happened. But, like the previous speaker said, in Wellington, after the Kaik\u014Dura earthquake, there was a lot of damage done in the city, especially to our main buildings that we rely on\u2014like our Central Library; basically our entire Civic Square, and that\u2019s only just getting open now, 10 years later. It would have been great to have a hand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004972\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI know, Mr Speaker, you did a lot of amazing work for the city of Christchurch following the big earthquakes, and I wish that we had a Gerry Brownlee in Wellington to help us hustle a bit more financial support\u2014but it\u2019s all right because we\u2019re here now. I do recognise the previous speaker\u2019s contribution\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004973\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224965b3942b4a6af68af11bb39576d2c0\u0022\u003EHon Matt Doocey\u003C/span\u003E: No, we\u2019re keeping him in Canterbury.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004974\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229ec6b21860ff42a8bfcfbf955e54750a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002220df9e6e26f275de74b0287fa707522a\u0022\u003ETAMATHA PAUL\u003C/span\u003E: Damn it. I do recognise the previous speaker\u2019s work, following the different quakes that we\u2019ve had here in Wellington.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy colleague the Hon Julie Anne Genter covered a lot of our position quite well. One thing that she mentioned towards the end of her speech is that we\u2019re really hoping that, through the committee of the whole process on this bill, we\u2019ll be able to get some amendments in here that make sure that disabled people or those with mobility requirements living in these buildings are able to safely enter and exit the building in the event of an emergency or an earthquake. We\u2019re really hoping to work pragmatically with the other parties to implement those amendments, which will make this bill and these changes more fair and reflective of the fact that a quarter of our population are living with disabilities. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004976\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, the other main point that I wanted to make in the short time that I have was around some of the constituents that I\u2019ve met with in Wellington, particularly those people who are living in earthquake-prone buildings, who are on fixed incomes, who are in a really difficult financial situation due to some of the legislation that addresses those buildings that they live in. I just wanted to highlight some of the solutions that they are wanting in addition to some of this work. Obviously, this is about the legislation, but there are also some financial schemes or assistance that we might be able to consider, to assist some of those owners. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004977\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESome of those recommendations include\u2014and I\u2019ve written to the Minister for Building and Construction early in the year to bring these to his attention\u2014but we respectfully request that we include, within the earthquake-prone building system reform programme, a dedicated workstream which looks at owners of multi-unit residential buildings, recognising the distinct barriers faced by body corporates and homeowners. We ask that there are financial support settings that are workable for owners of multi-unit apartment buildings who must still undertake remediation, including arrangements that recognise fixed incomes, limited borrowing capacity, and the collective decision-making required under unit title and company share governance arrangements. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004978\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, we request that the Government provides certainty and transparency on timing, transitional arrangements, and implementation so that homeowners can plan, secure finance where necessary, and make informed decisions. So, really, just acknowledging that for some of the superannuitants who live in these buildings or disabled people who are on fixed incomes, they have less financial ability to make different financial decisions. Sometimes, they\u2019ve put their lifetime savings into buying these apartments are now in this really tricky situation where they don\u2019t have the money to remediate. My request is that we consider the financial assistance that might sit alongside this bill, which will mean that people living in seismic-prone areas can stay where they are. Kia ora. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022 data-id=\u0022c91d42fe7ed6ac7cfd2952757cf45ea1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004979\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c91d42fe7ed6ac7cfd2952757cf45ea1\u0022\u003EDr CARLOS CHEUNG (National\u2014Mt Roskill) (12:38)\u003C/span\u003E: We had many submitters tell the committee how frustrating and confusing the current system is, especially in Auckland where the earthquake risk is relatively lower than in other parts of the country. This will provide a more practical and proportionate approach to manage earthquake-prone buildings. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022 data-id=\u0022a598f4f42beb7f774a14815bf8206d00\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004980\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a598f4f42beb7f774a14815bf8206d00\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North) (12:38)\u003C/span\u003E: Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Well, I have to say, the National Party member and the deputy chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee\u2014I was expecting for the member to be a little more fulsome in the contribution. Usually, we hear about Mt Roskill, but clearly not today. So that is disappointing, but none the less, we will box on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004981\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs my colleague Arena Williams as indicated, the Labour Party will be supporting this bill this afternoon. That\u2019s because we do agree that the earthquake-prone building system does need to be practical, it needs to be targeted, and it also needs to be focused on the buildings that do pose the greatest risk to life and, indeed, to safety. We acknowledge that when we step back and look at the current regime, it has placed some pressure on councils who have an active role in this particular space, on building owners, on communities, and particularly in regional communities and smaller towns where the costs of undertaking remediation can be, at times\u2014not all of the time, but at times\u2014disproportionate to the level of risk.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004982\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe do think that an approach that is looking at a risk-based approach\u2014one that is balanced\u2014is perhaps a sensible one. It\u2019s right that, when we\u2019re looking at the approach for buildings around priority 4, those that are unreinforced masonry, those that perhaps are seen as vulnerable because of the structure containing concrete, and other areas where the seismic risk is perhaps higher than in other places, it is the best way to go rather than treating every single building in the same way despite those particular aspects as well. But, there still does need to be an expectation that, across the board, throughout the country, when we\u2019re looking at things like this, the consideration for life and safety is paramount, and there should not be a dereliction of duty or responsibility in that regard. We must do this work, although we need to take a measured approach to it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004983\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to acknowledge the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. I want to acknowledge Mr Foster, who has made a contribution today. We\u2019re acknowledging Mr\u00A0Foster quite a bit. That\u2019s because there are a few bills from the Transport and Infrastructure Committee as part of the urgency motion. I do want to acknowledge the work that the committee did do on this bill. I think the fact that it\u2019s come back to the House with unanimous support, in terms of the report, is a direct indication to the work that colleagues have done. We did hear from a number of submitters, as you would expect for a bill like this, and also officials.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs colleagues have touched on, the committee did receive some advice around areas in New Zealand that would be considered as low-seismic zones. The resultant action from the committee is that those three particular areas would no longer be subject to the earthquake-prone building regime at the level at which they entered into the regime, and that relates to Auckland, Northland, and the Chathams. Now, this has led to the view from the Labour Party that we oppose the exclusion of Auckland from this regime, and that is because there are, naturally, buildings in Auckland where there is still a risk. There is still a risk that those buildings present a significant life and safety risk if an earthquake were to take place. We do remain concerned that the Government has gone too far in excluding Auckland from this regime, because low risk does not mean no risk, and there continues to be high-risk buildings in places all around the country that would cause harm to life and safety following an earthquake.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004985\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe know that, if we look at Auckland\u2014and set aside Northland and the Chathams\u2014Auckland is home to our largest population. It is our largest city by far. There are substantial levels of infrastructure in that part of the country, in existence and being built at the moment, and there are, as my colleague has said already, a significant number of buildings that have already been identified as earthquake-prone, in excess of 1,400. The select committee report identifies 1,544 Auckland buildings that are currently classified as being earthquake-prone that would no longer be covered by this particular law change. We do think that a complete carve-out of our country\u2019s largest city, which has the most population in the country located in it\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004986\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f59f8142c35615588941c69fdc667b23\u0022\u003EDr Carlos Cheung\u003C/span\u003E: Best city.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004987\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002240532ab7f9f35b5609c4274afc281fab\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014does create a gap in public safety and public confidence. Now, Mr Cheung says it\u2019s the best city. Well, he could have told us about that in his contribution, but he\u2019s given that opportunity up. We do think there was an opportunity for perhaps an alternative, where there could have been some middle ground, where Auckland could have still been subject to some provisions, maybe a lighter regime, who knows? That was certainly the preference rather than a complete removal from the regime in its entirety.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004988\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMr Foster has talked about coastal Otago and the protections that that would provide them. Now, this bill does move that area from a low- to a medium-seismic zone based on the updated information around hazards that is now available. The committee has inserted some transitional provisions so that there is a lack of disadvantage to existing building owners in that particular area. There are still the remediation deadlines that exist, but there is an opportunity for some time frames to be changed in that particular space, after the commencement around those medium-zone time frames as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004989\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne change the committee has also made is around the definition of an urban centre. This bill will require a different approach for those that are in urban centres, for those that have unreinforced masonry, and why that is is because of the likely higher damage and threat to pedestrians moving about in urban areas, and vehicular traffic as well, that might also block or impede emergency vehicles seeking to utilise the roads, which we\u2019ll talk about in a moment. The committee has narrowed the definition so that \u201Curban centre\u201D is not going to capture those smaller satellite towns that would be subject to some tougher requirements. Often, close to home for me, the Manawat\u016B District Council is a regular submitter to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee when it comes to these sorts of matters. They would be considering, for their community, where they sit in terms of being an urban centre or not, and adopting the Statistics New Zealand approach as to what the definitions are\u2014and that\u2019s contained in the committee\u2019s report\u2014we think it\u2019s a sensible way to go.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004990\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs you\u2019ll be aware, there are priority buildings that are identified that have, effectively, a shorter runway or a shorter period of time that the remediation work will need to be carried out. Now,  some regional authorities have gone through a process of identifying a large number of strategic transport routes, which means that any of those buildings that are priority buildings that have been identified as being positioned along those strategic transport routes will need to, effectively, create a quicker form of remediation. Why? Because, if an earthquake were to occur and those buildings were to collapse, that would impede the strategic transport network, and so there needs to be a quicker form of remediation around that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004991\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat has been brought to light, however, is that some authorities have perhaps been a little bit more loose around designation of those strategic transport routes, so the bill does provide for an option for councils to have a look, on a one-off opportunity, around their routes, sort of planning for transport, and to remove some routes if possible. It\u2019s not an opportunity for councils to add, or controlling authorities to add, more routes in, but rather to sensibly, where possible, rationalise what that route looks like. When it comes to highways, Waka Kotahi - New Zealand Transport Agency needs to be included in that particular process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004992\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust to wrap up, there are a number of other small changes, but they are changes that we think will make a difference. They\u2019re things like the notices on buildings being a little bit simpler than they are currently. Hopefully they\u2019ll be able to serve as a reminder and a guide to members of the public around what the particular state or assessment of an earthquake-prone building is, so that members of the public can make their own choices around that. At the moment, that is something that might need to be focused on through the regulations process. What this bill does is it changes it so that the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is able to sign off on that and that councils can go about making that happen. It\u2019s a sensible change that will hopefully not create bureaucracy\u2014another layer of bureaucracy\u2014around that but will ensure that it is a very clear, simple direction to the public around what the state of the building is if they choose to go into that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004993\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen, the final part is around the removal of some of the \u201CHenry VIII\u201D provisions. That was in response to the Regulations Review Committee, which is ably chaired by Arena Williams, that identified that aspects for the transitional purposes were no longer required, and so the committee was very happy to respond to that request from the Regulations Review Committee to change that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004994\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOn balance, the Labour Party is supporting this bill this afternoon; however, with the caveat that we still believe the time frame and the exclusion of Auckland is an issue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b7cff05e64f346e68983b2fdbfba3ad8\u0022 data-id=\u00222fbddcfe8c2aa5f822ae46aabc4b3223\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004995\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b7cff05e64f346e68983b2fdbfba3ad8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222fbddcfe8c2aa5f822ae46aabc4b3223\u0022\u003EDAN BIDOIS (National\u2014Northcote) (12:48)\u003C/span\u003E: This is a good bill, reflecting a risk-based approach to earthquake-prone buildings. It\u2019s very good for Auckland. It\u2019s all a part of this Government\u2019s plan to fix the basics and build the future. I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004996\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dfb212ed226429a6b95ec8f177894235\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: We have a split call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f988bc72b5e47b8856ba70e41dfbbaf\u0022 data-id=\u0022040cfb7ce91d5d4f7cfcb24283644aec\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004997\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f988bc72b5e47b8856ba70e41dfbbaf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022040cfb7ce91d5d4f7cfcb24283644aec\u0022\u003EGEORGIE DANSEY (Labour) (12:49)\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003ET\u0113n\u0101 koe e te M\u0101ngai o te Whare.\u003C/span\u003E Mr Speaker, firstly, it\u2019s very good to see you in the Chair. I think the last time I spoke with you in the Chair was at my maiden speech, so let\u2019s hope this speech is as heartfelt and good as that one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004998\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is a very important bill that we\u2019re speaking to today, the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge the effects of earthquakes and the importance of getting this legislation right, as other speakers have spoken to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30004999\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe are in a very earthquake-prone country, and we need to do really good and ongoing work on protecting people who deal with the repercussions of earthquakes across the motu and good work that\u2019s going to protect the lives of people and our communities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005000\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve all been affected by earthquakes. I acknowledge those living in cities who have been hugely affected by earthquakes. We all know the huge impact it has on communities, financially and otherwise, particularly the Christchurch earthquakes, which I know triggered a lot of work in this space. My colleagues have spoken of the impacts of that and I\u2019m pleased to support this bill in order to get that legislation right so that we can protect our lives and our communities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe need to keep safety at the centre of our system when we are considering this bill. Reforms should focus on genuine risks and public safety must remain the overriding principle. So Labour supports targeting regulatory efforts at buildings that present the greatest risks to life, safety. As I mentioned, we have learnt considerable lessons from Canterbury, and other speakers have spoken to the Kaik\u014Dura earthquakes. Governments have a responsibility to protect people from avoidable harm.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005002\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs other speakers have mentioned, although Labour supports this bill, we do not support the exclusion of Auckland, Northland, and the Chatham Islands from these reforms. Even though they have a low seismic hazard, Auckland doesn\u2019t have a zero risk. We risk building a two-tiered system in our country by excluding Auckland. A low risk does not mean no risk. We need to ensure that we are protecting everybody. As other speakers have spoken to, Auckland contains approximately 1,400 earthquake-prone buildings\u2014the majority of identified earthquake-prone buildings nationally. Excluding our largest population I don\u2019t think is a smart move.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI come from the sunny place of Hamilton. Hamilton and the Waikato also has a low seismic hazard risk. However, I wouldn\u2019t want the Waikato and the place that I live to be excluded from these regulations, because, as I said, a low risk doesn\u2019t mean no risk. In fact, Hamilton, as reported, is the largest urban centre with the lowest natural hazard risk. So a little plug there for the great city but also let\u2019s not exclude areas. We need to make sure that we are protecting all our people and communities across the board in this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other point I wanted to quickly touch on was balancing affordability with long-term responsibility. As natural hazards increase, or natural disasters increase, in our country due to climate change, this is something we need to think about more and more in regard to earthquakes and personal liability but also in other natural hazards. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s something that gets enough attention\u2014is how are people going to manage the personal, financial burden on them when a natural disaster affects them? I think that\u2019s a missed opportunity, and I would have liked to see more support for our public in that space.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022297bc572c27f45308dffb067ca3e7915\u0022 data-id=\u002293304939e5906c3a4181b83e20cdfb4e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022297bc572c27f45308dffb067ca3e7915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002293304939e5906c3a4181b83e20cdfb4e\u0022\u003EDr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National\u2014Ilam) (12:54)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a great honour to stand up and speak on the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill. A lot of previous speakers have, Mr Speaker, flattered you with many great compliments, but I just want to acknowledge all the work that you did do for Christchurch after the earthquakes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThis bill would make more pragmatic, tiered system, intended to better reflect the actual risk posed by individual buildings here in New Zealand. It would focus on mitigating the risk to life. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022 data-id=\u002246d6aa1c6784856bea2ced602670f326\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002246d6aa1c6784856bea2ced602670f326\u0022\u003EDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (12:54)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was a bit surprised that the previous speaker didn\u2019t look at the clock and maybe think to speak for a little bit longer and we may have been able to go for lunch, but, nevertheless, here I am, on my feet, and I\u2019ve got quite a lot to say. So I make no apologies for that snafu.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill\u2014where do we start? Well, let\u2019s start at point one. Labour supports the overall direction of this bill. Obviously, it\u2019s been argued that the current earthquake-prone building system has imposed substantial and, in some cases, disproportionate costs on building owners and on councils and on regional communities. That is something worthy of some reconsideration. So this more targeted system, which focuses on the buildings themselves, the earthquake risk, and the locations that present the greatest risk and threat to life, we do believe is sensible.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s not a perfect system. There are, as has been discussed, at least two or three major\u2014well, when I say \u201Cmajor\u201D, two or three very specific concerns that we certainly don\u2019t agree with. That\u2019s not what we would have done given the opportunity to do so. But a risk-based system that assesses genuine risk is something that we\u2019re happy to support in this instance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut we simply don\u2019t think that we can draw a line around Auckland and pretend that every vulnerable building\u2014of which there were, I believe, 1,400, at least\u2014on one side of a line are no longer a concern, because it doesn\u2019t take away the concern, it just takes them off a statutory list of concern.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo the central purpose, as has been said by almost everybody on this side of the House, who are, pretty much, the only people\u2014apart from Andy Foster, who made a very interesting contribution\u2014to have commented on what is a really important bill and we should have more to say about it. The most important principle that does have to be underpinning this legislation is that earthquake-prone buildings regulation exists primarily to protect people\u2019s lives.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs has also been noted, those of us from Canterbury certainly don\u2019t need a reminder that earthquakes don\u2019t just affect buildings; they affect people and they change lives. Within an instant, lives can be changed\u2014and lost. Many Cantabrians, as I\u2019m sure yourself, Mr Speaker, will remember walking past buildings that they had entered hundreds of times or driving pasts buildings, as I did just before the earthquake, paused at a set of lights because the lights were red\u2014a very frequent place for me to be paused. Two hours later, that building was down and the person that was unfortunately paused at those lights on that occasion lost their life.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo buildings that seem like innocuous bricks and mortar that serve the function of housing work, of housing people, conducting business, and all of those other activities that they afford us the opportunity to do aren\u2019t just buildings if they are not designed in a way or if legislation and regulation don\u2019t ensure that aspects of buildings aren\u2019t a little bit more safer for the reality that they involve housing people and accommodating people who are not nearly as indestructible as we might somehow like to think we are.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELabour, therefore, supports a greater focus that is in this bill on unenforced masonry buildings. That was certainly a big lesson from Canterbury\u2014vulnerable concrete buildings, falling facades, and other known life-safety hazards.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA more proportionate system, however, is, we do believe, a little bit more fairer for regional communities. The existing system tended to treat every building as if the community that it was functioning within presented the same level of risk. A small building in a low-risk town shouldn\u2019t necessarily face the same obligations as a large, vulnerable, concrete building on a busy pedestrian route.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI know that through the select committee process, that formula, those calculations have been taken into account to get to where we agree here: there were some aspects of that that Labour were in 100 percent in agreement with when it came to assessing that risk, but some of that was debatable and we put forward some alternatives. We don\u2019t think that our position was necessarily the perfect one either, so we were happy to contend with this\u2014acknowledging that the cost of strengthening has exceeded, for some people, the value of the building itself, and also acknowledging the stress and the uncertainty that lots of people have faced, wondering how they would be able to now making those buildings compliant under the previous regime.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHowever, proportionality must not become an excuse for an indefinite inaction. That is a huge problem. Extensions should be available where owners are making genuine progress, and we absolutely believe that, but not simply to push difficult decisions another 10 or 15 years further into the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EUltimately, we actually do want to be able to take this opportunity to say we live in an earthquake-prone country; there are certain well-known risks; given our recent history, we have been afforded the opportunity to look into and to research and to have experts and engineers on this, that, and whatever, design and innovate some possible solutions to make our lived environment a lot safer. So we should be moving with a certain pace to be able to afford our own selves the opportunity for that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs has been mentioned, excluding Auckland, we think, is entirely the wrong approach. I do understand the rationale behind it, and we listened intently to various people raising their methodology behind how they came to that decision or how they came to provide us with that advice. I still don\u2019t think it\u2019s the right thing to do. I think even if we think about the situation where we\u2019re discussing Auckland as if it\u2019s one homogenous area, just by virtue of the fact that it has some boundaries and we\u2019ve created a made-up, essentially, boundary\u2014and that\u2019s what we call Auckland. But even within Auckland itself, there are different geological considerations, and we just think that with a little bit more time we may have been able to work with the Government to maybe reach a compromise on how we could have got the best of both worlds.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut we accept that Auckland does have a lower seismic risk, we acknowledge that seismic hazard is not the only part of risk calculation, however, and a light-tough framework could have been retained, we think, which would have left highly vulnerable buildings\u2014lots and lots of highly vulnerable buildings still could have been identified, recorded, and subject to some targeted obligations, which I think was probably the place that we should have ended up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also do want to acknowledge the earthquake notices. I think both Andy Foster and my colleague Tangi Utikere mentioned these, in so far as it\u2019s one of the things I remember the most from select committee. Sometimes it\u2019s the little details. The earthquake notices that you put on a building\u2014just because there\u2019s no remediation required for that building, we didn\u2019t think that that should remove the need to have a properly displayed notice. People should still know that, yes, the building\u2019s got some issues; no, not enough to have required the full suite of treatment in terms of remediation\u2014I still want to know what those issues are and then I can make my own informed choice about how much time I may choose to spend in that building.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn closing, Labour supports this bill because it is targeted and more proportionate in a genuinely risk-based system. We do think that we probably do need this now as a pragmatic step forward. We support this bill at second reading while continuing, obviously, to argue for a more consistent national safety framework and better support for those people that are expected to carry out some of the costs to their own homes, including the apartment dwellers. Ultimately, we all want safer communities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002234e198f1ddf1ae420e8b8b8972b286ed\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 2 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterItalicsCentred\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 1.04 p.m. to 2 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221cdb4383e7890882fe36c75dd332f9a2\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The House is resumed. We\u2019re dealing with the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill. There\u2019s one call\u2014Dr Vanessa Weenink.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002288978fb9592a4911a8e47eae04d164f3\u0022 data-id=\u0022570e6306fe5396658a1445127fd20b47\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002288978fb9592a4911a8e47eae04d164f3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022570e6306fe5396658a1445127fd20b47\u0022\u003EDr VANESSA WEENINK (National\u2014Banks Peninsula) (14:00)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is an honour to speak on this bill. The Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill actually makes a very sensible and sensitive balance between respecting the legacy of those who lost their lives in the Christchurch earthquakes and being able to recover and move on from those events and future ones. This is just another way that National is fixing the basics and building the future. I commend the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022b3e073a419f6cca47ea6baac1e7dc7c4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b3e073a419f6cca47ea6baac1e7dc7c4\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (14:00)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229efbd2c7b8fd416326569dd5b4aeda83\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c5a26ea591041ccd4a6c7f276a2d2e6e\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: No, sorry, I\u2019m taking Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori\u2019s call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cb0d200c5771905121b63eadac33ce0a\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, we\u2019ve lost the opportunity there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b0acd13e963235faad68fd40e7f1bf93\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, point of order. My understanding of Appendix E of Standing Orders is that you lose your chance for first reading but for second and third reading we do have the opportunity to bid for a Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori call at the end, should no one else take that call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ced39f9eed0f6fa486baa0b4311c4018\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, OK\u2014way you go.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ba04fd589cb9c7f62cf3015165a4d55c\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to also take a call on the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill. I do want to commend the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the thorough work they\u2019ve done in this bill, but particularly the chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Andy Foster as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do want to start by saying that I agree with what everyone has said in terms of the need for us to look at this and exactly how this interacts with local authorities when it comes to the strengthening. Of course, we have seen the impact of earthquakes, both in terms of \u014Ctautahi Christchurch but also here in Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara Wellington. I think, as my colleagues both Julie Anne Genter and Tamatha Paul as local electoral MPs of Wellington have expressed, this is something that is of great concern. Even as someone from T\u0101maki Makaurau Auckland, this is something that is important for us as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe main areas of this\u2014and I think this is an interesting bill, because we\u2019ve seen quite a number of such bills in the building and construction space which allow for some narrowing of the methods available to territorial authorities for identifying new earthquake-prone buildings after the initial identification period. Some of these\u2014particularly some of the high-risk buildings\u2014could be identified after the initial period. I think, when we\u2019re looking at a bill such as this and the kind of flexibility it allows, it also allows for a more nuanced approach. So for those particular buildings, especially if they are older buildings, to be able to have the time to upgrade to a certain extent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think, from an Auckland perspective, I believe\u2014and I need to just double check\u2014some of these changes when it comes to Auckland are something that I am a little bit concerned about. This is where you get changes in Auckland, Northland, the Chatham Islands, and coastal Otago where those in a low seismic zone will no longer be designated earthquake prone. I think that is a concern because there is the possibility anywhere in Aotearoa, being on a faultline, has that kind of potential. I know personally in various electorates\u2014Auckland Central as well as Epsom\u2014that there are buildings that would be considered earthquake prone under the old regime, but I think under the new regime their fate will change to a certain extent. I think that that potentially is important for local authorities to actually monitor and territorial authorities to monitor as well, just because of the potential impact that comes to human lives, should something happen. I can think of particularly along Newton Road between Auckland Central and Epsom that has certain buildings that previously were designated, as there was on Manukau Road.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut overall, this is a bill that the Green Party does support. There are various elements in there that we\u2019ll be interested in asking the Minister further about. History suggests he\u2019s also a very engaging Minister who I\u2019m sure will be able to let us know the detail of some of these.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne last thing I want to touch on in terms of this particular bill\u2014and this is something that has been going through various bills. I mentioned that we have seen quite a few of these types of building bills, particularly around earthquake-prone buildings\u2014which is on the Henry VIII powers that it presents. Because this is something that has been noted by various members as well as other committees of the kind of Henry VII clauses that we are seeing manifesting in some of the building bills. They are important, some of them are required, but again some of those in general would have sunset clauses. But then how that gets managed and how that Henry VIII clause manifests is something that, I think, as a House we should continue to monitor and is something that we\u2019ll be asking the Minister on as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAlso, I think, with that, there are some areas, like I mentioned, with a level of nuance that need to be unpacked further. But overall we understand the requirements for this bill and we understand the necessity it presents, particularly for people in Wellington. Finally, I do want to acknowledge, Mr Speaker, your role as a previous Minister in the work that you did in the \u014Ctautahi earthquakes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a second time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00221254b230a34262b06e619dd6f41a8098\u0022\u003EVote Correction\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022694bab4b85c75af37b2201114bf4dde4\u0022\u003EOffshore Renewable Energy Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022 data-id=\u00220e5499cd81ac97b3e4eed0e9dc7bc702\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220e5499cd81ac97b3e4eed0e9dc7bc702\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (14:07)\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to correct two votes taken during the committee stage of the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill. In order to correct the Green Party\u2019s vote on the closure motion for Part 4, which should have been 14 votes opposed and on Hon Dr Megan Woods\u2019 tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 571, which should have been cast as 14 in favour.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220fc6d1370ef4d0c0a4559379201a028e\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought for that purpose, is there any objection? There appears to be none. The record will be corrected accordingly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022414ba399d2b60b57f93301ff53ad816e\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022dfd6cde64b184e91680d39e12519ea58\u0022\u003EEmergency Management Bill (No 2)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c4a9fd88c94fa48b4ef1d65e342690b2\u0022\u003ELegislative Statement\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u00224aad7a6e73ed3fc5eeb4582c282dee6d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224aad7a6e73ed3fc5eeb4582c282dee6d\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (14:07)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I present a legislative statement on the Emergency Management Bill (No 2).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223480197e336b0cf2eb60f13e5a130284\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022489956f8ed590a4b61d2887d29dd834f\u0022\u003ESecond Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022822ed8048d298b4fed2b78f48ffd42c9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022103925b6f9e64afea9688613b42f53f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022822ed8048d298b4fed2b78f48ffd42c9\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (14:07)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Emergency Management Bill (No 2) be now read a second time\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMr Speaker, while you\u2019re in the seat, I just wanted to acknowledge you. As a member of the National Party backbench when we were hit by the awful Christchurch earthquakes, I got to observe your tireless work as emergency management Minister leading the recovery for Christchurch. I just want to think, reflect, and mourn on those that were lost, but also now recognise that Christchurch is a thriving city that is a joy to visit and to see how far they\u2019ve come since that event. I want to acknowledge you, because I got a front-row seat that helped inform me in terms of what I needed to do when I took on the role of emergency management Minister. So thank you for that work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019d like to thank the Governance and Administration Committee for its work to consider this important piece of legislation. I\u2019m pleased to see the select committee was unanimous in its recommendations. This reflects the collaborative cross-party approach that we need to strengthen our emergency management system. In my view, like national security, emergency management should be bipartisan. I want to thank all of the parties that have worked hard and had input into the development of this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also want to acknowledge the submitters on the bill. Their input has improved the bill and will also feed into its implementation and other operational improvements. Emergency management is relevant to every person in New Zealand. Submitters\u2019 insights are important to supporting the whole-of-society approach to emergency management we need to adopt as a country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Government\u2019s objectives for reform are to strengthen the role of communities and iwi M\u0101ori in emergency management; provide for clear responsibilities and accountabilities at the national, regional, and local levels; enable a higher minimum standard of emergency management; minimise disruption to essential services; and ensure agencies have the tools to do their jobs effectively when an emergency happens.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe majority of submitters supported this intent. Where submitters sought changes, it\u2019s clear the select committee has given those views careful consideration, and, in many cases, has recommended changes to the bill as a result. These amendments have strengthened the bill, and the Government will be taking them forward. There are some changes I want to highlight, because I see them as particularly helpful in supporting improvements on the ground.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill as reported back extends civil liability protections to official responders when they\u2019re taking precautionary actions immediately before an emergency. These protections will also cover the likes of volunteers and civil contractors when they\u2019re acting under official direction. Concern about civil liability before a state of emergency is declared should not create hesitation to act, because hesitation can result in avoidable damage. At worst, it may cost lives. I welcome the select committee\u2019s recommended changes on this issue, and I thank the submitters who raised it. The committee has also recommended creating a formal link between regional emergency management plans and the long-term planning process under the Local Government Act. Good planning is fundamental to driving action on the ground across the four Rs of risk reduction, readiness, response, and recovery.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhile there was already an expectation that local authorities would implement their emergency management responsibilities through long-term plans, making this link explicit and clarifying how a multi-council planning process should flow into individual councils and their long-term plans was important. Emergency management committees are intended to achieve economies of scale and integrated management of hazards and risks, but they can only be successful if all councils play their part. Linking regional emergency management plans and long-term plans will ensure that committees\u2019 decisions translate into action.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis change reinforces a key shift the bill is making to put more emphasis on the emergency management role of individual councils. Related changes include creating specific roles for regional emergency management committees and their local authority members, making mayors primarily responsible for declaring states of local emergency and recovery transition periods within their own districts, requiring every territorial authority to have a district controller and district recovery manager with a clear line of accountability to the council\u2019s chief executive, and giving territorial authority chief executives an explicit mandate to coordinate resources provided by other agencies in the lead-up to and during an emergency over that longer-term recovery. In late October last year, severe weather events coincided with the local body elections. Because new mayors had not yet been sworn in, I needed to declare states of local emergency over Southland and Canterbury.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe committee has recommended a sensible change to address this gap, enabling mayors to be sworn in early on a temporary basis to declare a state of emergency or transition period. This will enable local declarations to continue to be made locally and avoid potential delays in the emergency disruption communications if the emergency is disrupted because of communications between the affected council and the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen it comes to improving our resilience to emergencies, this bill is only part of the picture. Councils also hold many tools to address specific hazards under the planning, building, and biosecurity legislation. To name just a few: like under the current Act, emergency management committees are expected to use these tools to support their emergency management responsibilities. I\u2019m pleased to see that the select committee has recommended making the connection between these responsibilities clearer by creating a requirement for emergency management committees and councils to consider whether functions, duties, and powers in other relevant legislation would help meet their emergency management responsibilities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand is one of the most exposed countries to natural hazard risk in the world. I\u2019m sure I don\u2019t need to convince the House about the need for a strong emergency management system. This need is reinforced by every severe weather event, let alone when we consider our most serious risks, like the Alpine Fault. It\u2019s critical we have legislation that sets us up to manage these risks. At its core, New Zealand\u2019s approach to emergency management is based on three key principles: (1) we consider all hazards, natural and man-made; (2) we manage the risk from these hazards by taking action across the four Rs: risk reduction, readiness, response, and recovery; and (3) all parts of society have a role to play in emergency management: central government, local government, communities and businesses, iwi and hap\u016B, and individual households.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOverall, this bill will better enable our emergency management system to achieve this intent, and deliver the improvements identified through past inquiries and reviews. For that reason, I want to thank, again, the select committee and all of the submitters for the critical role you have played in improving this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Emergency Management Bill (No 2) will provide stronger foundations for New Zealand to meet the growing risk we face as a country, and I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022 data-id=\u002294b8ee07ac3ac66d636ffe9116754edc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220fe7508c7b8a47378c4c88fe1ce69fcb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002294b8ee07ac3ac66d636ffe9116754edc\u0022\u003ECUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour\u2014Ikaroa-R\u0101whiti) (14:16)\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003ET\u0113n\u0101 koe e te M\u0101ngai o te Whare, otir\u0101 i te tuatahi i roto i te reo M\u0101ori, t\u0113nei te tangi aroha ki te tuahine o Parekura Horomia i hoki atu ki te k\u014Dp\u016B o te whenua i te T\u016Brei kua pahure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EN\u0101 reira Isabelle, haere, haere, haere atu r\u0101. Ka nui te aroha ki te wh\u0101nau pani.Hoki mai ki a t\u0101tou te hunga ora, tihei mauri ora e te wh\u0101nau.  \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThank you, Mr Speaker. Indeed, first, in the M\u0101ori language, I grieve for the sister of Parekura Horomia, who returned to the womb of the earth last Tuesday.\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do want to acknowledge the wh\u0101nau in Wairarapa who have, once again, recently, been flooded: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Eka nui te aroha ki a koutou\u003C/span\u003E [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003Ea lot of compassion to you all\u003C/span\u003E].\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAlso, a big mihi to you, Minister, for your k\u014Drero this morning and reinforcing how good it is that we have reached bipartisan agreement on this very important issue that affects all of our communities across Aotearoa. I also want to acknowledge both you and my colleague Camilla, who worked together on improvements to this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWh\u0101nau, as the Minister has laid out, this bill is about modernising and strengthening our civil defence emergency management framework. I have acknowledged the work that our former spokesperson Camilla Belich has done on this. So Labour does support this bill, with a couple of reservations or recommendations. Obviously, it\u2019s been great to hear the Minister acknowledge the value of iwi and hap\u016B in emergency management and recovery. While it\u2019s great to see that this bill creates statutory obligations to engage iwi M\u0101ori, Labour would have preferred and would have acknowledged the value of iwi and hap\u016B from the design, partnership, to delivery of these processes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to talk a bit about what iwi and hap\u016B involvement means. We\u2019ve talked a lot in this House\u2014across parties, which is awesome\u2014about the value of marae facilities in these scenarios. I want to talk about what that actually means in a community sense. It was great to be able to take Camilla, when she was spokesperson, to Hauiti, where they were still having recovery-related activities in their community. It\u2019s not only the exhaustion of the resource, which is, therefore, taken out of commission for the rest of the community\u2014who now has to think about where they\u2019re going to have their tangi, where they\u2019re going to have their birthday celebrations\u2014but it\u2019s also the exhaustion on the wh\u0101nau who have to man those facilities while also fulfilling their full-time jobs and other community responsibilities they have. That\u2019s what we\u2019re talking about here, but they do it because they know their communities, they\u2019re well connected with the regional civil defence and emergency management centres and, of course, with the National Emergency Management Agency. It\u2019s a beautiful model, and that\u2019s why we would strongly like to see, in the future, iwi and hap\u016B acknowledged as partners, as decision makers, as well as key deliverers of these services.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other point about that is it\u2019s not just iwi for iwi locally. That network stretches out across the motu, and descendants of iwi will support with things like Starlink, which we saw, but we\u2019ll talk a bit more about infrastructure later. It\u2019s also the \u201C\u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Eko t\u014D rourou, ko t\u0101ku rourou ka ora ai te iwi\u003C/span\u003E \u201D [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003Ewith your contribution and my contribution, the people will be well\u003C/span\u003E] mentality, where other iwi networks come in to support not just financially and with resources but with training and manpower.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnother area of this bill that is very important and Labour supports strongly is the progress in strengthening the resilience of essential infrastructure. One of the greatest honours I\u2019ve had in my life so far was to serve as a volunteer member of our local civil defence, the Rangitukia civil defence team, during Cyclone Gabrielle. Many of you will remember that during Cyclone Gabrielle, the East Coast was cut off in every sense. Power went down, our roads in and out were cut off, we had no internet, no phone line. But I must give a big mihi to good old Radio Ngati Porou, whose 585 AM frequency was still connected and still the only means of communication for the important local and national comms we were getting in terms of safety for our wh\u0101nau. Other than that, it was just good old door-knocking. So, absolutely, we support building resilience into all future investments in our infrastructure throughout Aotearoa.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill also updates the governance arrangements for our regional emergency management organisations, including renaming civil defence and emergency management groups as emergency management committees. I think a name is a name, whatever we call them; I just urge us all that we remain genuinely focused on locally led and locally driven.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnother slight point of difference is governance. Labour believe that the strongest emergency management system is one that empowers regions while ensuring national coordination where necessary. This bill shifts the balance towards centralisation. It introduces new ministerial powers, binding national rules, and compliance orders enforceable through courts. While there will certainly be occasions where national leadership is essential, we must remain connected to our local leaders who know their communities so well, they know their rivers so well, they know their whenua so well, they know their roads so well, and they know their bridges so well. A resilient system should trust local expertise as much as central authority.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve talked about bipartisanship, and I just want to acknowledge all the amazing people both in paid roles and voluntary roles across Aotearoa who do a great job in keeping our communities safe. What I\u2019ve observed during my visits around Aotearoa is that while resource levels may differ, responses may differ, what is absolutely key is that everyone has a really strong local connection, local leadership. I want to acknowledge, too, the training and professional development that has gone on throughout our communities. It\u2019s really awesome to see that when we get those heavy rain warnings, people are stood up, the Facebook pages are going crazy, and everyone knows what they should do. I\u2019m also pleased to say people are taking the warnings much more seriously, because we know all too well the damage of what we\u2019re calling, sadly, our new norm.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do want to conclude once again in reinforcing the value of having iwi and hap\u016B at as part of the design, as part of partnership in this, not merely because they are so well connected in some of our most isolated communities but they are connected across the whole emergency management network. They have already invested significantly in resourcing communities, not just with contributing to mobile civil defence units in containers but also in supporting the professional development of people who live in the communities that are affected by these each and every day.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI actually really love this portfolio, because while we go into communities, we go in often without our party hats on. We see people going through some of the most vulnerable times of their lives, packing up their worldly belongings at the end of their driveways while their houses are filled with silt and water. While it\u2019s absolutely devastating, it is wonderful that we as a Parliament stand by our people. It\u2019s also wonderful because we also see the best of humanity at these times, and so we see communities pulling together.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s why Labour are happy to make progress on this bill. We probably would\u2019ve been happy to see right through to the third reading under urgency, because we understand that this is beneficial for Aotearoa. As I said, could there be tweaks made? Absolutely, but I do want to acknowledge the mahi that has gone on to make the advancements that we have before us today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo, once again, a big mihi to all the wh\u0101nau still recovering out there, a big mihi to all the visionaries in this House who want to look at building resilience as we progress our responses to emergency management, and also a massive mihi to all our volunteers who continue to upskill, who to continue to train so that you are in the best position to serve your communities, communities who want to stay where they\u2019re from because it\u2019s beautiful and their whakapapa is there. On behalf of the Labour Party, I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022f897ea99d1113b0536152c02ca5fab66\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f897ea99d1113b0536152c02ca5fab66\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (14:26)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As we heard from both of the previous speakers, this is a bill that is important and very much needed, and the Green Party also supports this bill. I want to first acknowledge the Governance and Administration Committee for considering this bill and all of the members on that committee for doing a very thorough job of it. I also do want to acknowledge the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery for the role that the Minister has played in managing some of the emergency responses I\u2019ve seen. I\u2019ve seen the Minister firsthand going out to those affected areas, so I do want to thank the Minister for that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELike the previous speaker said, this is something that is facing Aotearoa New Zealand broadly, and it\u2019s really good to see that this bill has, broadly, the support of this House, and definitely the support of the Green Party. As mentioned before, the bill would replace the existing Civil Defence Emergency Management Act and then build this new legislative framework by this bill in terms of the 2023 Government inquiry into the response to the North Island severe weather events. In terms of the 2023 events, what we have seen from that, both in terms of the Auckland anniversary floods that affected areas such as Auckland Central, Epsom, and Mount Albert more severely, as well as areas over the shore, and the responses that MPs have had on that, but also personally having relatives on the East Coast and in Napier, Tokomaru Bay, Tolaga Bay, was going to those areas and seeing the ongoing impact, even to this day, that Cyclone Gabrielle had in those kinds of areas. This is something that very much is facing Aotearoa New Zealand on the whole.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think, with that, it\u2019s really important for us to address the first major issue that we have in this House, which is around climate change and how we are responding to both climate mitigation and also climate adaptation. Of course, this is something that the Green Party in particular is very interested in and would like to follow through in having this conversation, with any Government, and on this bill and during the committee stage in particular. Now, the reason for that is because what we have seen is an increase. What we normally have seen to be once-every-hundred-year events are now annually, and our local authority simply\u2014our people, our communities, our society\u2014is not at this stage prepared to handle that kind of level of frequency. Right now, we\u2019re seeing more extreme weather patterns all around the world, most recently with the heat waves in France hitting record highs again. We\u2019re seeing that happening every year. We just declared that El Nino is here in Aotearoa and the impact that that, potentially, will have in the coming months.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo climate change is absolutely an important focus when we\u2019re looking at the way we look at emergency management, of course, with all of the other natural disasters on the bill we have just spoken on, the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill, on other forms of natural disasters like earthquakes. With that kind of setting the scene, it\u2019s important then to ask: it\u2019s very well to have a bill such as this, but what is the level of resourcing that is needed to be able to undertake and actually do what is set out as a legislative framework to its full effect and give credit to what we\u2019re trying to do here today?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFor example, one of the things we have raised and we are concerned about is that in Budget 2024 we did see that ring-fencing for the Climate Emergency Response Fund has been taken back and nearly $1\u00A0billion has been wiped from that fund to subsidise other parts of that Budget. What we have seen is that the marae resilience fund is drying up, even though marae play such an important role in an emergency response. I want to give a specific shout out to the marae that supported the local communities, our tourists, our visitors\u2014not just M\u0101ori but everyone who was in the communities in the climate-charged extreme weather we saw in the Bay of Plenty earlier in the year. All of these are important considerations as we progress this bill further through the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat we have also seen is that the Government has given record investment and record funding to Defence but, proportionately, we have not seen the personnel, particularly when it comes to civil defence, receiving a proportion of that record increase in Defence. Again, we feel like, if we\u2019re really talking about emergency management and emergency response, there is a little bit of an imbalance in terms of what we see as a legislative framework and what we\u2019re seeing in action from a resourcing perspective. Another important aspect of that resourcing is what we have seen most recently here in Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara, in terms of the sudden flood that we saw only a few months ago, which has also left many, many of our families here in Wellington in hardship. I do want to give a special acknowledgment to our local Green MPs, Julie Anne Genter and Tamatha Paul, for the role that they played\u2014as all electorate MPs do in the event of an emergency, when it comes to the emergency response.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the things we did see, through a series of these emergency events that we\u2019ve seen since the beginning of this year, was a record number of local states of emergency being triggered; yet what we don\u2019t see is the corresponding response from, for example, the Minister of Social Development (MSD) when it comes to the civil defence payment. There has to be constantly this battle with MSD to trigger the civil defence payment, because, if a local authority doesn\u2019t ask for it, it\u2019s not triggered\u2014whereas, when people are in hardship, particularly when we were looking at a local state of emergency or national state of emergency, those civil defence payments should be automatically triggered rather than people having to ask for that. That all comes down to the package of what the Greens would really like to see when it comes to resourcing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnother area that I want to touch on is the disproportionate effect that this will have on certain communities. Two communities that come to mind in particular are our disabled communities and our seniors communities, as we saw when it came to Cyclone Gabrielle a few years ago. We noticed that when it comes to seniors, when it comes to the disabled, there was no really good record\u2014particularly for civil defence personnel, for firefighters, for those who were on the front line\u2014to know if a particular family or people that they were evacuating actually required those kinds of additional specialised support. It\u2019s really good to see this particular bill having a specific mentioning and acknowledgment of the importance of those disproportionately affected communities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWith that kind of legislative framework\u2014towards the policy framework, again\u2014it comes down to what sort of resourcing we need. What kind of collaboration with hap\u016B, with iwi, with disabled communities, with seniors, and with our elders are we expecting to see, to ensure that these sorts of things are being addressed, so that we are not in a position where older people are left stranded at home because those people who are on the front line don\u2019t know that they require additional support\u2014wheelchair access and all of those things?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, I think another important area when it comes to the idea of emergency management is that the idea of schools and also communities being local hubs in the event of emergency management is absolutely crucial. From the perspective of schools, we have seen that schools have also recorded an incredible rate of needing additional support from the Ministry of Education as a result of school property damage, which has also meant that our schools couldn\u2019t open as well. This is, again, something that we\u2019d really like to see: how can we build up schools\u2019 resilience as a local hub? We\u2019re looking at even more than what the Government has put in this year\u2019s Budget when it comes to solar panels on schools, as well as the ability for schools to have things like industrial grade kitchens and the broader school lunch availability that\u2019s done locally. That way, in the event of an emergency, the schools can also be a source or hub for the local communities as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, I think it\u2019s important for me to actually acknowledge all of our electorate MPs here in this House and every single one of you for the role that you play in response to any form of extreme climate-charged weather events, whether you are Grant McCallum from Northland to Ingrid Leary from Taieri, from David MacLeod in the west to Dana Kirkpatrick in the east, in East Coast.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df3e6766443b46819410ad4fedf34077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022703a026ccac9fbd32844c6f6501e55c1\u0022\u003EStuart Smith\u003C/span\u003E: What about Southland? You forgot Southland. Why aren\u2019t you going right to the bottom?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224f52b81c78253f48a765b48265514738\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: And also Kaik\u014Dura, Stuart Nash. I want to thank all of you, and with that we support this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df3e6766443b46819410ad4fedf34077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ef6dc58b0257e5059fe4b9e9906eb2b8\u0022\u003EStuart Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Stuart Nash?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226caffa77f9140a3de5ba5c8a9648841c\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Stuart Smith\u2014my apologies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u0022d25be4c33bbc9216777c23d15104a81d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d25be4c33bbc9216777c23d15104a81d\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (14:36)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It\u2019s a pleasure to take a call on the Emergency Management Bill (No\u00A02).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022191f20a3dce7d3006d22d8c56febf404\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: On behalf of the ACT Party!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f0f71e95df46fb91c8ff9f777f181302\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, on behalf of some party in the coalition Government. However, I am genuinely pleased to take this call, because this is a portfolio that I previously held for the Labour Party for over two years. I was pleased to work with people across the House, including with the Minister, and I want to acknowledge the Minister for his work. I was trying to think of all of the different emergencies that we happened to be attending at different times throughout the last two years, and there were quite a few. It\u2019s always a stressful time for a community, but I know that having your leadership there has always been appreciated every time you\u2019ve been there. Thanks for being inclusive.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI know that it\u2019s a desire of the Parliament to have this bill pass, and also it has gone across Governments as well, because some of these changes were first suggested even as early as, and some of the lessons learnt in this bill came from instances like, the Christchurch earthquake. So, this has been a long time coming. We\u2019ve had a problem, really, in New Zealand that we\u2019ve kept having disasters. We keep learning from them, and we\u2019ve been trying to change the legislation, so actually to get this here to second reading is a big achievement. It was a pleasure too\u2014I didn\u2019t make it through the whole select committee process but I did hear all of the submissions, and it was really good to get it through that stage and hear the different submissions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI don\u2019t think a bill like this will ever be perfect, and you\u2019ve heard from colleagues, including our spokesperson Cushla. I\u2019m immensely proud to see her in her role as emergency management spokesperson for Labour, because she\u2019s really passionate about it and also because she\u2019s lived this. She\u2019s lived this in her community. She\u2019s lived through disasters. She\u2019s volunteered. She\u2019s knows the pressure that comes from living in a community that is at the mercy of weather and climate change, and she gets in there and she mucks in and she knows what it\u2019s like to be there on the ground. I think she\u2019s really well-placed to do this work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere will, obviously, always be things that can be better with this bill. It\u2019s not exactly the same as the bill that was introduced by, I think, Kieran McAnulty or Kiri Allan under the last Labour Government, but there are very similar aspects to it and the tenor of most of the improvements has remained the same. It also, very importantly, has learnt from the 2023 events that we had with Cyclone Gabrielle and with the Auckland flooding. This is an unusual area. I\u2019m sure the Minister will agree that this couldn\u2019t be more serious, because we\u2019re talking about life and death\u2014getting it right is important, and we have to do everything we can to make the response as safe as possible\u2014but, in a response, you never see a better side of New Zealand than when people are responding to an emergency. People are hopeful. They\u2019re optimistic. They muck in. They help their neighbour.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI just think this is where New Zealanders really shine in these situations, and it\u2019s unfortunate that it\u2019s so often tinged with a great sense of loss. Often we see that sense of loss and that feeling\u2014once the original emergency has subsided, we see that sense of loss. I want to have an upbeat speech because I\u2019m really positive about this bill, but we have had some terrible disasters, and the Mauao situation with the slip was just so utterly tragic, and I want to acknowledge Tom Rutherford there as well for his commitment to the response there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat was extremely difficult for the community and I think something for the entire country to acknowledge, the danger of slips. This is an area that I was working in. To be fair, I feel that this is much more prominent now, in my mind, in terms of assessing the risks of disaster than it had been. In many ways, it\u2019s similar to how I hadn\u2019t fully appreciated the risk of flooding and rain until the Auckland floods as well. So we do learn from these situations, but we do have to stand alongside families. I will never forget that service where the families were there. That was incredibly moving and I think a real testament to the community in Mount Maunganui, to come together to support those families. Just wanting to acknowledge, obviously\u2014whenever we talk about these tragedies, we have to acknowledge the families who are the ones affected and we do what we can as elected members to support people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo this bill has changed a little bit since it was first introduced, and there are a couple of areas that the select committee changed that I think deserve mentioning. There had been a few changes that it\u2019s become apparent were needed as the bill was really progressing through the House, and one of those ones was enabling mayors to be sworn in early. Now, this is a really interesting one because we had a situation where mayors have a very important role in our emergency management system, leading the response. We had a few situations where it wasn\u2019t quite clear, because it was during an election period, which mayor we were meant to be relying on. That\u2019s not really OK because in emergencies you do need a leadership structure. You need a hierarchy of when decisions are made and you need those decisions to be made, if they are decisions that should be left for someone who\u2019s elected democratically, to be made by that democratic representative. So I think the ability to enable mayors to be sworn in actually might seem like an unusual thing, but, actually, because we have events so often in New Zealand, that probably will be something that does come up again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think enabling people to be co-opted is also additionally an important aspect of making sure that all of the skills are there on an emergency management committee, because sometimes you might have some communities that do have that expertise and there\u2019s more often than not a wealth of expertise, but you might not have all the skills. So enabling that is also really important, too.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s also a slight change in requiring engagement and representatives of iwi M\u0101ori, and Cushla Tangaere-Manuel spoke to that earlier. This was an area which has changed a little bit since the bill that the last Labour Government put in place. So the rules in relation to engagement with M\u0101ori are not as strong as they were under our proposal. So it\u2019s good to see that this proposal encouraging engagement is there as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI don\u2019t think this is a political thing or anything that anyone would disagree with, that the response from iwi M\u0101ori and marae in disasters is exceptional throughout the country, and it is built into the way that marae are set up. For a country that experiences these events, they\u2019re set up perfectly to respond to the events. I don\u2019t think that\u2019s an accident; I think that\u2019s to do with the way that tikanga have evolved and the way that marae have evolved in order to deal with events over the time. So we just see again and again marae, iwi, and hap\u016B standing up. I think what we haven\u2019t been as good at in this House in the past, and I hope with this bill we can get better at it, is not just expecting that and saying thank you and moving on. It\u2019s actually resourcing those marae to be able to do, with their leadership that actually respond, in the best way that they can, the way they want to with our support, and not only taking when we\u2019re in need, but actually supporting those marae to step up and do the job that they have always done in New Zealand, you know, well before any of us were here and will do well after all of us are gone as well. So that is a really important thing too.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe issues around climate adaptation are important. This isn\u2019t a bill that solves all of the future issues associated with extreme events. There are issues which are still on the table, and I know the Minister\u2019s been working on a joined-up system in relation to making sure that people in different parts of New Zealand, when there\u2019s a disaster in another area, can step up and use the same operating system, and, actually, we can utilise a much bigger workforce because of that common operating model. That\u2019s tricky work. It\u2019s expensive. There are a lot of existing operating models. But I think that that work is something that I would encourage the Minister to continue with and I know he has been doing that in the latest Budget.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other issue is with climate mitigation. Of course, that\u2019s so interlinked with a lot of this emergency management work. There is more to do in that space, and we have to acknowledge the fact, as a country, that we will be, especially with the confirmed El Nino weather pattern that we\u2019re having, having these systems and these issues again and again. So this bill is a great step in the right direction. It was built on the work of this Government, this Minister, and previous Ministers, and it will be something that future Governments will work on in the future. All we can do is take the best advice, do the best we can, and make sure we do everything we can to keep New Zealanders safe in emergencies. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u0022bd0d1a03c9fb3ec61c6fca54ada7ec46\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bd0d1a03c9fb3ec61c6fca54ada7ec46\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (ACT) (14:46)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. ACT supports this bill and the necessary changes, in particular extending protection from civil liability to persons with functions, duties, or powers under the bill, who considers an imminent threat of an emergency and take preventative or precautionary actions, actions designed to limit the impacts of the emergency on people and property.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThis is because during the 2023 Cyclone Gabrielle and other similar flood and storm events, people with decision-making power have often felt reluctant to take the necessary measures. Putting an excavator into a river to clear debris comes with risks of prosecution under the Resource Management Act (RMA). Putting an excavator or a bulldozer on to a beach to clear a river mouth comes risk of prosecution under the RMA. So it is important that new defences are established in this law so that when individuals, private people who might have a digger or a dozer, want to get in and do something to stop the flood damaging property or potentially harming people\u2019s lives, they can do it. So, on that basis alone and for many other reasons, ACT commends this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002248ce26e54d83406399b875df20400dec\u0022 data-id=\u00229b310cc2aa921baf59fe215f2044af76\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002248ce26e54d83406399b875df20400dec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229b310cc2aa921baf59fe215f2044af76\u0022\u003EANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (14:48)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker, thanks. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on this bill, proud of the work that we did as the Governance and Administration Committee. I just want to pick three things very quickly. The first one of them, as Camilla Belich has already said, was empowering mayors during that interregnum period, between an election and being formally sworn in, to actually declare emergencies. That was a real issue that arose last year and was something that the mayor certainly raised with me. So we fixed that. That\u2019s great.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESecond one is being able to take, as Simon Court just said, a proactive action where there is an emergency looming. Think about the Wairoa River Bar. Action wasn\u2019t taken quick enough\u2014Wairoa flooded. Also Lakes Forsyth and Ellesmere\u2014again, floods caused by the lack of proactive action. This will empower that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe third one is the Minister said the new clause 43A is clearly linking between councils\u2019 emergency management powers. If you\u2019re the emergency management controller or you\u2019re the chief executive of a council or a mayor of a council, you\u2019ve also got powers under the Resource Management Act, etc. to link those two together. We\u2019ve got to stop building dumb things in dumb places. That was one of the issues for Christchurch City Council. It didn\u2019t want to have development in what is now the red zone. It got forced to do that. We\u2019ve got to empower councils to avoid having dumb things built in dumb places.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe one other thing that I wanted to just mention is a large disagreement on the bill and one small issue, and that is the smallest area in which you can declare an emergency. We think it should be less than a ward. I mean, if you think of areas like Dunedin, if you\u2019ve got an emergency in South Dunedin, why do you need to declare that emergency in Middlemarch as well? Likewise, Gisborne\u2014if it\u2019s an emergency in Te Araroa, why does it affect Gisborne city? So we think that needs to be thought through. Otherwise, great bill. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d3972aa17aafe902f52315d06435e104\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke with a split call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022420f72e8bcc84c869a366ff712af8e49\u0022 data-id=\u002254fee311429475ebf09d0dbf29b63ba9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022420f72e8bcc84c869a366ff712af8e49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002254fee311429475ebf09d0dbf29b63ba9\u0022\u003EHANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori\u2014Hauraki-Waikato) (14:49)\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003ET\u0113n\u0101 r\u0101 koe e te P\u012Bka, otir\u0101 t\u0113n\u0101 r\u0101 t\u0101tou e te Whare. E t\u016B ana ahau ki te waha i ng\u0101 k\u014Drero m\u0101 Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori i t\u0113nei rangi m\u014D t\u0113nei o ng\u0101 pire.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThank you, Mr Speaker; indeed, greetings to all of us in the House. I stand to give voice to statements on behalf of the M\u0101ori Party today regarding this particular bill\u003C/span\u003E.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EPapaki t\u016B ana ng\u0101 tai ki Mauao \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EI whakanukunukuhia, e whakanekenekehia \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EI whiua reretia e Hotu a Wahinerua ki te wai \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EKi tai wiw\u012B, kia tai waw\u0101 \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EKi te whai ao, ki te ao m\u0101rama  \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003ETihei mauri ora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThe waves beat continuously against the rocky cliffs of Mauao, \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThey tried to shift the canoe forward and aloft. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EWahinerua was thrown overboard there by Hotu, \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInto the swirling waters, the roaring ocean \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ETo emerge into the world of light \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EIt is the breath of life!\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EKo te take e t\u016B ana ahau ki te waha i ng\u0101 k\u014Drero, ki te whakah\u014Dnore, ki te tuku whakawhetai atu ki ng\u0101 whenua o Mauao. K\u0101tahi an\u014D au ka tae mai i Tauranga Moana, i te rohe o Tauranga, i te m\u0101takinga o ng\u0101 tamariki puta noa i te motu e t\u016B ana ki ng\u0101 whakataetae \u0101-motu, Te T\u0101wharau o ng\u0101 Waka, ki ng\u0101 kapahaka o te motu.And i te ata tonu au i tuku au ng\u0101 whakawhetai ki te maunga, ki a Mauao.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThe reason I stand to give voice to these statements is to honour and give thanks to the lands of Mount Maunganui. I have only just arrived from Tauranga Moana, from the Tauranga region, from watching children from across the country standing in the national competitions, Te T\u0101wharau o ng\u0101 Waka, at the national kapa haka competitions.\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EN\u014D reira\u003C/span\u003E, I start my speech with acknowledging that I\u2019ve just flown in from Tauranga this morning from the national kapa haka competition throughout the motu, and acknowledging the land slide at Mauao that I was able to go to this morning. I just want to mihi to all of the civil defence and mihi to the Minister. I acknowledge that there have been over 21 states of emergencies in this country alone this year, and I do want to acknowledge the Minister for his team and making sure that different MPs, like myself, were aware of what\u2019s happening with the National Emergency Management Agency crisis and response team. That\u2019s been really helpful for electorates as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe fact that we\u2019ve had 21 local states of emergencies this year this year alone, due to climate crises\u2014that could be floods, that could be landslides, that could be weather events, and also knowing that El Ni\u00F1o has just been confirmed as the state of Aotearoa. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn the first reading, Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori supported this bill with recommendations of implementing a Te Tiriti clause and also specific resourcing for funding to marae. From listening to some of the written submissions that were given in the select committee process, iwi Waikato-Tainui speaks from the strength of 68 marae, intergenerational planning, and a vision grounded in \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Emana motuhake\u003C/span\u003E. When emergencies hit, it is not Wellington bureaucracy that first knows which kaumatua need support, which marae can open, which roads are cut off, which whanau are isolated, which whenua is vulnerable, or which awa is rising. The National Iwi Chairs Forum speaks from the collective authority of iwis across the motu, iwi working together to protect our people. Many other iwi submitters know deeply what emergency means. They carry responsibilities as kaitiaki over lands, waters, islands, and communities. Their knowledge is not theoretical; it is lived, it is local; it is intergenerational.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo, for us, it\u2019s also making sure that there is specific funding given to marae prior to a weather crisis event, not after the fact. For many of us, that\u2019s actually what happens: we\u2019re given funding after a weather event has happened. I was able to go to \u014Ctorohanga during the flooding crisis at the beginning of this year, and the amount of people that marae have\u2014whether they are M\u0101ori, non-M\u0101ori, community groups, community halls, churches. We also had the museum that was flooded during their time. There were also local schools flooded at that time, and coming together as a community, marae were going through the night and through the day. We would be doing that even if we had a dollar or a million dollars, and we\u2019ll continue to do that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think it\u2019s unfair that marae usually carry the brunt with nothing. Being able to be properly resourced, whether it is a flood, whether it is a slip\u2014it\u2019s from the road cones to getting a cups of tea, to housing people overnight, to getting showers for people. It varies all across, and \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Ekoir\u0101 te tikanga o te marae []. E tupu ana ahau i roto i t\u0113nei momo \u0101huatanga i roto i ng\u0101 Koroneihana []:\u003C/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003Ethat is the purpose of a marae\u003C/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EI grew up in this kind of paradigm in the Coronation ceremonies\u003C/span\u003E you just turn up, and you house people, and that, often, doesn\u2019t come with any money whatsoever. But when you have 21 states of emergency consistently throughout the year, that\u2019s what we\u2019re asking for. \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003ET\u0113n\u0101 r\u0101 koe e te P\u012Bka\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022 data-id=\u0022a3176aed8702cc9aeca942d4c1f75db4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a3176aed8702cc9aeca942d4c1f75db4\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (14:54)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I arise on behalf of the Green Party to speak in support of the Emergency Management Bill (No. 2). I just want to acknowledge the Minister and the work that you have done\u2014I actually really appreciate you staying through these speeches as well\u2014and the impact of the emergencies we have been seeing across the country. I also want to acknowledge the Governance and Administration Committee, which I am a member of, and the work that we have done, and also my Green colleague, Mr Hernandez, who is the portfolio holder for emergency management and has done a lot of the heavy lifting for us in the Green Party as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFor the Greens\u2014and we support it\u2014we do have a couple of concerns. The bill\u2019s not perfect, and it\u2019s never going to be perfect, but then you can\u2019t let that get in the way of saying that\u2019s it\u2019s actually really good, and therefore that\u2019s why we support it. There are a number of clauses in here that do actually create really good outcomes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill did seek to strengthen the role of iwi M\u0101ori during emergency management, which is really good. I did move an amendment to ensure that the costs that they incur were actually reimbursed directly to them. Unfortunately, it was supported by the Labour colleagues that sit on the select committee, but it didn\u2019t pass. They can get reimbursement, but it has to go through local government, which I think is just a bit of a shame because as we heard just before, we have seen 21 emergencies this year. Every time there is an emergency, they open up their doors so quickly and they provide so much in the time of pain. They do that no matter how much money they have. It\u2019s a shame that they still have to go through this truncated way of actually getting money, which could have been, I think, better streamlined. So that is a bit of a concern. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also just want to highlight something that the Christchurch City Council said. I\u2019m from Christchurch and I worked for the Earthquake Commission at the coal face. I was a Christchurch city councillor, and a resident of Christchurch, obviously. We\u2019ve been through a lot through earthquakes, through fires, through floods, and the mosque attack. I\u2019ve seen the impact of these disasters, these situations, and, actually, how people rise, their communities rise, and the importance of having good emergency management in place. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the things that does concern me, and it came from this submission from the city council, was that, once again, it\u2019s the potential of increased costs to city councils and district councils with emergency management that this could put on them at a time when councils themselves are going through quite significant reform and obviously looking towards having rate capping\u2014what pressure this will put on them, and the fact that, for them to do this properly, they need to ensure that they have the support of central government to increase that workforce capacity and financial resourcing to do it. For too long, central government has put pressure on to local government without the resources to go with it to do the job properly. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is really good to see, at a time of an election, when we have a mayor elect, that they now have that ability to declare those states of emergency. That was obviously a significant gap in the legislation that created a significant workload for the Minister, so it\u2019s really good that that has been sorted. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnother thing I just wanted to note was, obviously, the change to ensure that animal welfare is addressed, which I actually think was quite an important thing to do, to ensure that people can enter properties to ensure that the welfare of animals is looked after in these emergencies, and they\u2019re not just left to suffer. It was really good that that was actually sorted out. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs I said, the Green Party had put forward a different view; that does not mean we don\u2019t support this bill. We absolutely agree with the intention, and therefore, we do support it. There are some concerns around how we ensure that we mitigate against the impacts of climate change and adapt, because it is not going to get better; it will get worse. We can\u2019t just keep having to react every time we have an emergency, because they\u2019re going to keep coming and we need to ensure that we\u2019re actually doing our bit to be more prepared. Kia ora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002209a9e0ddcd6341e8a20426318dc0e6c3\u0022 data-id=\u002210fd03d80baec37618013511f7acc625\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a9e0ddcd6341e8a20426318dc0e6c3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002210fd03d80baec37618013511f7acc625\u0022\u003EHon MELISSA LEE (National) (15:00)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill replaces the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002. I\u2019d like to acknowledge the Minister in charge, the Hon Mark Mitchell, who has done an amazing amount of work on this. This House is in unanimous agreement and I think it\u2019s wonderful that we can pass this bill through this stage. I commend the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022 data-id=\u0022e6e2aaf46420d1df76d54d24144ebddc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022258b65104d9046dfb49eb940c68bddda\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e6e2aaf46420d1df76d54d24144ebddc\u0022\u003ELEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour\u2014M\u0101ngere) (15:00)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I\u2019d like to say that we support this bill. I want to acknowledge the Minister for his work and especially the inclusion of many members across the House, and in particular those who\u2019ve experienced the need for emergency management. We support this important step in strengthening the emergency management system, because also communities must have their say before an event actually happens.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe progress of this bill could have been faster and stronger, had the Government not scrapped Labour\u2019s original bill, which had been through extensive policy development and public select committee process. Because there have been a number of events across Aotearoa. For some of us, we have been heavily involved, and it\u2019s really important that we acknowledge the partnership of iwi M\u0101ori, but also all of the first responders and those in the civil defence space.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s important that the efficiency of emergency response is understood. We\u2019re really pleased to see that iwi M\u0101ori, in terms of those specific communities, are around the table. I do want to acknowledge a number of speakers on this side of the House who have firsthand experience. For us in Auckland, some of us on the Auckland Anniversary weekend, we had experienced being in the thick of that specific event on that day. So the importance of acknowledging the communities that responded and all the emergency responders, in this bill it\u2019s really important that we identify the specific elements.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to acknowledge the select committee members that I was able to listen to the submitters. We were able to collaborate and debate on the specific elements that we wanted to bring forward because of our experience firsthand in different weather events around the country, but also the importance of arriving at the recommendations in select committee that will be able to respond. I do want to acknowledge, too, and reflect back to the event that I was involved in. We were on the motorway on the night of the Auckland Anniversary floods, and we were trying to get through as many people in Auckland were, because what you saw before you was a weather event and absolute chaos. So when you don\u2019t have a system for who is making the call\u2014whether it\u2019s the Mayor of Auckland or a person in charge\u2014this bill addresses that there needs to be very clear communication as to who is responsible for making that call and then spreading it across Aotearoa in whatever shape or form.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat was important in that event? On that Friday evening it was peak hour traffic and people were trying to get across Auckland, children needed to be picked up from daycare, people were finishing work, absolute chaos on the motorway, and people wanted clear leadership and clear information as to what to do. I go back to that time because it was one of those events where we recognised and I\u2019ve heard across the House many colleagues talk about specific events. I can absolutely attest that in that Auckland Anniversary event when Auckland was gridlocked there was just chaos. It was important that we were waiting for the instruction from the Mayor of Auckland at the time, and for whatever reason it wasn\u2019t made until a few hours later. This bill seeks to strengthen that there is really clear communication across the country when a disaster or when a weather event happens.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe importance of the bill and its purpose cannot be underestimated. We were very interested as select committee members that iwi M\u0101ori would get the recognition that they deserve because I have seen time and time again in different weather events that take place, iwi M\u0101ori and hap\u016B just set themselves up. I want to acknowledge the role that they play. They just get on with the job. I do want to acknowledge their leadership, their aroha for communities, and many times when the emergency management system is not set up adequately, they just respond. I am thankful that we are here now in addressing this bill. So we will be supporting it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWithin this bill, communities need the confidence that there is a framework that is robust, that there is clear communication, that also communities understand\u2014and I\u2019m talking about diverse communities. Because some of the communities when we had to respond as a local team do not speak English. So please don\u2019t make the assumption that when bills from this House are recommended and passed through every stage of the process, there\u2019s the next step that diverse communities need to understand the processes, who makes the call, and who is responsible to communicate that to the community.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI just want to go back to the importance of weather events in big urban places like Auckland, like South Auckland. We saw through that process a number of very good people come forward and offer what they had to help those who were vulnerable and did not know what to do. We had elderly who would not leave their houses. They had to be carried out because they were very frightened and they were very afraid. What we need to understand as a community is the trustedness that vulnerable communities put into officials and people from different responding agencies. So I want to acknowledge those too. I specifically want to acknowledge SPCA in M\u0101ngere. Why? Because we had some people in our local community who would not leave their homes, even though they were flooded, because they weren\u2019t going to leave behind their four-legged animals. So I do want to acknowledge them for their role and also the request that they made to the different services of the day.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill modernises the civil defence management framework. There were many lessons that have been learnt from Cyclone Gabrielle, the flooding on Auckland Anniversary, and events like Cyclone Hale. We heard from another of our colleagues that just this year alone there have been 21 weather events. So as we\u2019ve heard, the system needs to have strong legislation that then people are very clear across Aotearoa in terms of who makes that call in responding and the resource is really important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs you heard my other colleague talk about why we were supporting that iwi M\u0101ori and hap\u016B would have a very effective and efficient system, but also work alongside the emergency management system. We weren\u2019t supported in terms of a National M\u0101ori Emergency Management Advisory Group. I just want to put it out there in terms of the recognition and the acknowledgment of an advisory group that iwi M\u0101ori can sit on because they do their thing and they do it very well. Sometimes the connections channels don\u2019t necessarily work, but it\u2019s important that that is acknowledged through this bill and that it is strengthened, so that the people of Aotearoa in different communities and different diverse groups have the acknowledgment and the understanding that the bill will be very clear in terms of its recommendations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill provides full recognition in terms of emergency management. It\u2019s really important that when you\u2019ve got executive groups that there is a clear understanding of the coordination of that. Because, importantly, it provides clarity around national, regional, and local responsibilities, and that it strengthens those planning mechanisms and gives the National Emergency Management Agency the tools to improve the response and readiness. There are specific aspects for those affected communities that they know who to go to, where to go to, and there\u2019s a clearness of the channels of communication that come through. So those specific aspects are really important and they are fully supported by Labour. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022673069789fe74d02ac517109c173ccbd\u0022 data-id=\u00220c623e13e088d054b64467edfcab8a5c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022673069789fe74d02ac517109c173ccbd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220c623e13e088d054b64467edfcab8a5c\u0022\u003EHon Dr SHANE RETI (National\u2014Whang\u0101rei) (15:09)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I too want to acknowledge the courage and the contribution from our front-line responders to emergency management and also acknowledge the back office, particularly the staff and scientists at MetService and Earth Sciences New Zealand and commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226b47e40ff0aeb911bf44128a8c10609c\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Hon Phil Twyford\u2014this is a split call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022 data-id=\u0022ab577bdc502c5821493c4a321934d1ff\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ab577bdc502c5821493c4a321934d1ff\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B) (15:10)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well done to the Minister, Mark Mitchell, for shepherding this bill through the House in a way that has attracted such wide support across the Parliament. It\u2019s really good to see. It strikes me that this strengthening and modernising of our emergency management framework\u2014the whole system, really\u2014is kind of one of a handful of very, very pressing tasks that the country has as we try to equip ourselves for an era of climate change. Working out what to do about our transport network is another one. Managed retreat to reduce future risk for people and property is another. This is certainly one really important transition we have to make.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOther than the specialists, we all really reach for our own personal experience to try to make sense of these issues, and for me the relevant experience was as a local MP being right in the middle of the anniversary weekend floods in 2023, which had a huge impact in West Auckland. In my electorate alone, there were about 300 homes that had catastrophic flooding, with water knee or waist high inside the house; those homes made uninhabitable; and, on the night, many life-threatening situations, with old people and the disabled being kind of carried out of their homes by people through very high waters in the street.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the things that really struck me in the immediate days after the anniversary weekend floods was how little the emergency services actually touched the lives of the people who were affected. By and large, people were basically left to their own devices. I mean, obviously, ambulances and police and first responders and fire were out there, and there were some evacuations going on, and so on, but for a tiny proportion of the number of people affected. The great majority of people were left entirely on their own.  Maybe that\u2019s just the way it is. Maybe that\u2019s the way it has to be. I don\u2019t know. But I was shocked by that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other thing that I recall and know from those early days, and actually in the weeks that followed, was that both Government agencies and\u2014in West Auckland we\u2019re blessed with this incredible network of community agencies\u2014social sector groups, together they all mobilised. Carmel Sepuloni, a neighbouring MP and also the Minister for Social Development then, was at the welfare hub there. It was truly impressive, actually, to see Government agencies and the NGOs working together, providing income support, food, clothing, and an array of different social services. That was a very impressive part of the immediate post-disaster response.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI wanted to say something else about the cross-party consensus. I think it is extremely important. Citizens having confidence that Governments will respond both with efficiency and integrity and in an accountable way is extremely important. As parliamentarians and anyone in Government, it is at our peril if Government doesn\u2019t deliver for citizens in times of emergency. There are many examples, not really in New Zealand but internationally. I think of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. The political backlash when Governments don\u2019t do a good job and aren\u2019t there to protect their citizens in moments of need can be pretty formidable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI wanted to make just a brief comment about the importance\u2014not only in Labour\u2019s process in the bill that we had but in this bill and in the Government\u2019s inquiry that they did that informed this bill\u2014of marae. It says something about this unique institution in New Zealand society. It strikes me as an interesting analogy in COVID, when it was very clear that the Ministry of Health\u2014central government\u2014couldn\u2019t reach down into the community to deliver the vaccination programme and was reliant on marae and M\u0101ori organisations and community-based primary health organisations. This is another example, I think, of how critical marae are for the delivery of emergency services, and it\u2019s great to see that being recognised so fulsomely in this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022739b3bbed7fe4186aa30494700144b3a\u0022 data-id=\u00229eab85e0c1c563c2b8f7442a9b77eec4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022739b3bbed7fe4186aa30494700144b3a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229eab85e0c1c563c2b8f7442a9b77eec4\u0022\u003EPAULO GARCIA (National\u2014New Lynn) (15:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Emergency Management Bill (No\u00A02) replaces the Civil Defence (Emergency Management) Act 2002, ensuring that we are fixing the basics on dealing with significant emergencies that affect multiple regions all at once. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221c050687e0012e03b120defb66e0757b\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s my understanding from Mr Speaker that Labour had an earlier call and have forfeited this call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ab32b09663ea48b199aa59e4d88f77e4\u0022 data-id=\u002288eb56cbb1ddd481be7e0a064f5db2d3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ab32b09663ea48b199aa59e4d88f77e4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002288eb56cbb1ddd481be7e0a064f5db2d3\u0022\u003ETIM COSTLEY (National\u2014\u014Ctaki) (15:15)\u003C/span\u003E: I just want to commend the Minister on the way he\u2019s built a team and cohesion around delivering this plan, just as the National Party focused on building the future resilience. This is a key part of that. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a second time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00223eca350080bf7f2887885281b87ef593\u0022\u003ERegulatory Systems (Social Security) Amendment Bill (No 2)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00226a1fb62beaecc019e410088991b3a960\u0022\u003ELegislative Statement\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u0022bff2b05cfb94892ffb2537808cc7b063\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bff2b05cfb94892ffb2537808cc7b063\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:16)\u003C/span\u003E: I present a legislative statement on the Regulatory Systems (Social Security) Amendment Bill (No\u00A02).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022137b5d641d8b71e4575b6c84f4914819\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002268a3baa94bde4935e0dda556262c893c\u0022\u003EFirst Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u0022340a4bdc1f9e0736ecc08e0445fbf32f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022340a4bdc1f9e0736ecc08e0445fbf32f\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:16)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsTerm\u0022 style=\u0022font-style: italic\u0022\u003EThat the Regulatory Systems (Social Security) Amendment Bill (No\u00A02) be now read for a first time. \u003C/span\u003EI nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis amendment bill is an omnibus bill that amends legislation administered by the Ministry of Social Development and the New Zealand Defence Force. Specifically, the bill makes a number of minor policy and technical changes to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001, the Social Security Act 2018, and the Veterans\u2019 Support Act 2014, and repeals the Family Benefits (Home Ownership) Act\u00A01964. This bill is intended to improve the provision of social welfare benefits. The amendments in the bill will update statutory provisions, address regulatory duplication gaps and errors, and bring legislation up to date with public expectations. The bill will reduce the chance of regulatory failure and unintended consequences that harm the wellbeing of New Zealanders. The changes are small and do not warrant stand-alone bills, but together the changes will ensure greater effectiveness and efficiency of the social welfare system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe first minor policy change is to extend the sustainable employment trial for supported living payment recipients from 26 weeks to a maximum period of 104 weeks. The supported living payment is a benefit payable to people who are permanently and severely restricted in their capacity to work because of a health condition, injury, disability, or because they are totally blind. The purpose of the sustainable employment trial is to encourage and support supported living payment recipients who want to move into employment or increase their hours of work to establish whether they can sustain that employment and cease receiving the benefit. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFeedback from health and disability stakeholders and international evidence indicates that the fear of losing the supported living payment entitlement can be a significant barrier to work and that 26 weeks is not long enough for some recipients to test their ability to work. Furthermore, increasing hours of work incrementally over a longer period better supports people to sustain employment and become independent. Extending the sustainable employment trial to two years will therefore improve incentives for supported living payment recipients to work as much as they can, leading to a better financial position and improved wellbeing outcomes for those who can participate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second policy change is to ensure that residents of the Realm countries of Niue, Cook Islands, and Tokelau cannot use social security agreements to meet the residence requirements for New Zealand superannuation and veterans\u2019 pension. Social security agreements are bilateral treaties between Governments that provide for the reciprocal payment of social security benefits and pensions. These agreements are intended to apply to the residence of the two agreement partner countries. However, the Ministry of Social Development has advised that a court would likely find that some of New Zealand\u2019s social security agreements could apply to people applying for New Zealand superannuation or veterans\u2019 pension while resident in the Realm countries.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESocial security agreements are not intended to apply to residents of the Realm countries. Realm countries do not have the resources to participate in the cost-sharing aspects of social security agreements. Instead, New Zealand superannuation special portability provisions are extended to the residents of the Realm. Therefore, the bill will amend the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the Veterans\u2019 Support Act 2014 to exclude the application of social security agreements to Realm country residents.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe third minor policy change will enable people who are live organ donors to be eligible for an emergency benefit payment equivalent to the rate of the supported living payment. Currently, a supported living payment recipient who is caring for a person who would otherwise require hospital or residential care is not eligible to receive supported living payments should they be recovering from surgery for a live organ donation. This is because they are not caring for someone while they are recovering from surgery, which is a criterion to receive the supported living payment\u2014caring. Instead, they are transferred on to the emergency benefit while they are in their recovery period and can only receive the rate of the equivalent main benefit that they would be entitled to, which is either the jobseeker support or sole parent support. This anomaly in the supported living payment does not align with the Compensation for Live Organ Donors Act 2016, which is designed to remove financial deterrents to the donation of organs by live donors. Therefore, the bill will establish explicit legal authority to pay emergency benefit to clients at the same rate that they were receiving on the supported living payment on the ground of caring for another person for a period of up to 12 weeks after the donation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs I noted earlier, the bill also contains minor technical amendments. These minor amendments are mostly related to the Social Security Act 2018 and the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001. Rather than go through each technical amendment, let me highlight the common themes behind the changes. The majority of the proposed amendments will address errors or omissions found following the rewrite of the Social Security Act 1964 to the Social Security Act 2018. Other changes are aimed to improve the provision of social welfare benefits and strengthen the performance of the social security system. There are also changes which will repeal redundant legislation. For example, the bill will repeal section 190A of the Veterans\u2019 Support Act 2014, which has been replaced by section 127 of the Legislation Act 2019.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn conclusion, it can be difficult to find time on the parliamentary calendar for repairs and maintenance of existing legislation. This amendment bill is a vehicle for smaller regulatory fixes to be progressed in a timely and cost-effective way in order to improve the provision of social welfare benefits. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022abf5c03a1e0538250989d5b003f88ef8\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022 data-id=\u002264a59fc3bac066c6f22fe49aff3c43c7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002264a59fc3bac066c6f22fe49aff3c43c7\u0022\u003EHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:23)\u003C/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsTerm\u0022 style=\u0022font-style: italic\u0022\u003E:\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a short call on the Regulatory Systems (Social Security) Amendment Bill (No\u00A02).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI do want to remind the House that this bill was first introduced on 30 April 2024 but was discharged. I think we can all remember what happened at the time, and I think some of us found it quite ironic that that was the case\u2014that the Minister for Social Development and Employment didn\u2019t turn up to work that day. But here we are, apparently in a timely and more cost-effective way, making these amendments through an omnibus bill under urgency because this was discharged back on 23 July 2024. I\u2019m not sure why it is that we are in July 2026, now fixing up this error that was made.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d92a09db28c44070bbfdcc9f0e6f3cca\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226576e05b5cb4b7e399810191515de187\u0022\u003EJenny Marcroft\u003C/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsTerm\u0022 style=\u0022font-style: italic\u0022\u003E:\u003C/span\u003E Check your email.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224fc1a6bed320eb494fb2f815ed720af4\u0022\u003EHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME\u003C/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsTerm\u0022 style=\u0022font-style: italic\u0022\u003E:\u003C/span\u003E Oh, it might be Gmail\u2014that\u2019s what you all use on that side, isn\u2019t it? [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsTerm\u0022 style=\u0022font-style: italic\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E] Anyway\u2014this is going to be easy, to fill my five minutes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002242c1fa2951a35f0549673076f5513997\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsTerm\u0022 style=\u0022font-style: italic\u0022\u003E:\u003C/span\u003E OK. Order! Order! The member\u2019s made her points now. We\u2019ll come to the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002204d820e423aa3bd193a29134c44e0634\u0022\u003EHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME\u003C/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsTerm\u0022 style=\u0022font-style: italic\u0022\u003E:\u003C/span\u003E Kia ora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aaa9e17f9e33e273a17906f5abe247c8\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsTerm\u0022 style=\u0022font-style: italic\u0022\u003E:\u003C/span\u003E Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002229b8d22182614a1b8b6e8ef03bf61503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002290a611af3ffc840076cae80f1eacf114\u0022\u003EHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME\u003C/span\u003E: Now, coming to the bill that we have before us in July 2026, the disclosure statement says that it\u2019s important that the legislative framework for social development is fit for purpose, and, as the Minister outlined in her legislative statement, this is about ensuring that we are maintaining the currency of our legislation. It does make minor policy changes and minor technical amendments, and the idea is that the changes are intended to improve the provision of social welfare benefits and the functioning of the overall social security system and that it will make it easier for the Ministry of Social Development to perform its duties.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere are some changes from the original bill to what we have before us now, and I\u2019ve looked at the updates between the first and the second versions. Again, they are largely minor and technical corrections, cross-reference fixes, but there are a couple that have meaningful structural difference\u2014for example, clause 15 with the accommodation supplement. Then we have a new clause 17, which amends section 304A, and that is a cross reference. Then we have minor drafting changes. I note, from listening to the Minister\u2019s speech and also reading the legislative statement that has been tabled, that all of those changes are outlined there, and there\u2019s quite a list. That, essentially, is the main point about this\u2014to fix up these minor and technical changes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne thing I did want to point out for the House, from the disclosure statement, is just the point around the consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. In there, there was advice to the Attorney-General. It was noted that the amendment \u201Cprima facie limits the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of family status. However, it also noted that \u2018Social security legislation necessarily targets limited government assistance to those most in need of it. Assistance and obligations on those receiving it are then tailored to suit individual circumstances. Eligibility for benefits and obligations on beneficiaries are inherently discriminatory as they are based on drawing distinctions on many prohibited grounds.\u2019 The advice goes on to say that \u2018We consider the amendment serves the important objective in minimising the use of limited government assistance to support people who are unlawfully or temporarily in New Zealand\u2019\u201D and therefore concludes that it \u201Cappears to be consistent with the rights and freedoms affirmed in the Bill of Rights Act.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think it\u2019s important to point that out, and one of the things I was thinking about when I was reading this is that this is in the case of what is provided for in legislation versus what might be provided for in letters of expectation or performance management of staff members in making discretionary decisions. This is clearly\u2014and I\u2019m less concerned because this is clearly\u2014about what is in legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI don\u2019t have much more to add other than these are largely minor and technical amendments for consistency and to ensure that we have the overall functioning of the social security system, and that it\u2019s easier for the Ministry of Social Development to perform its duties. Kia ora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u0022ee0a7e8a749cea08fa2d2af755b013e6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ee0a7e8a749cea08fa2d2af755b013e6\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:28)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you so much, Madam Speaker. The Green Party is supporting the Regulatory Systems (Social Security) Amendment Bill (No\u00A02) at its first reading. I did want to take the opportunity to comment on the context of why we are debating this bill just now. I think there is something to be said about the fact that, if the Ministers applied the same standards they do to beneficiaries, they would probably be on the red or yellow light in the traffic light system, as beneficiaries often are put if they fail to meet some of their obligations or requirements. But, here we are today, and I do want to echo that these bills are intended to address small, non-controversial changes that ideally would garner cross-party support\u2014tidy-ups; things that may have not been identified. I notice and echo the comments from the Minister for Social Development and Employment that it seems like some of these changes have to do with omissions that were not codified in the rewrite of the Social Security Act that was finalised in the first term of the previous Labour Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis was supposed to be a policy-neutral rewrite, and I guess it raises a question, for example, with the changes in clause 10. From what I have read, it seems like this is just codifying existing practice. I\u2019d be keen to understand the legal basis for that practice, seeing as that wasn\u2019t carried over in the rewrite that occurred in 2018, and that is something that we are interested in being able to unpack in the select committee stage. What was the legal basis for the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to continue that practice, seeing as it wasn\u2019t carried over in the 2018 rewrite? That, to me, is something that raises some questions, and I note that, obviously, this was part of what was analysed\u2014not so much the sort of legality of continuing the practice but whether it limited any of the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. There\u2019s some commentary in there, as well, that will be worthwhile unpacking in the select committee stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe reason why I\u2019m focusing on clause 10 is that we know, in this country, there\u2019s about 20,000 people, according to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment\u2019s (MBIE) estimates, who are without a visa here. Many of them will have connections to people who are eligible for a benefit. Many of them will also be having family members and children that were born here in this country\u2014children who have never been or lived in another country at all. Therefore, I guess there\u2019s a question of, for example, whether the provisions and codifying the previous practice that was applied under the Social Security Act 1964 is contributing to material hardship for those families and for the children involved.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe reason why I say this is that the codification of the existing practice relies on calculating both people\u2019s assets and incomes together but then the person receiving a single rate of a benefit. What that means is that the threshold to qualify for a benefit, when it comes to the calculation of joint incomes and assets, is pretty low. You don\u2019t have to earn a lot as a couple to fully lose your eligibility to a benefit. I guess it would be useful to understand whether MSD, for example, has any data or information on how many people have not been able to access a benefit due to the provisions in clause 10 that are being codified through this bill. This is, I guess, one of the bits of the legislation that I would hope gets a little bit of further scrutiny, because the fact that we have had the rewrite of 2018 for about eight years now and this kind of being left out, in what was supposed to be a policy-neutral rewrite, raises questions of exactly how MSD has been applying, for example, the approach of giving someone the rate of a single person while also at the same time calculating both people\u2019s incomes and assets for the purpose of eligibility criteria.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI would invite people who tend to work with undocumented migrants to submit to the select committee so that we can understand exactly how this will apply to a demographic that is often more vulnerable to exploitation, who often are more vulnerable to financial stress, and who, ultimately, are part of our communities and our societies. Like I said, many of them are raising family members who would have been born here and know no other country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWith that, we are supporting this bill, and we look forward to being able to unpack some of the less non-controversial bits of this amendment. Thank you very much.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221a30b7d60a03452cb9b736efc6896cdb\u0022 data-id=\u002264d53db60a3b515ac04dfa0f608e9b36\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a30b7d60a03452cb9b736efc6896cdb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002264d53db60a3b515ac04dfa0f608e9b36\u0022\u003EDr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT) (15:33)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The ACT Party is supporting the Regulatory Systems (Social Security) Amendment Bill (No\u00A02). This bill is intended to improve the administration of social welfare and is intended to fix technical errors and omissions. It does not make any significant underlying policy setting changes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe Minister has already described the changes that this bill makes. They are minor policy changes. Otherwise, they are just omissions that are being corrected\u2014drafting errors that are being corrected. The ACT Party really believes in ensuring that our laws are kept up to date, they are clear, and they are fit for purpose, and Parliament should not be waiting for any big problems arising from these kinds of errors in our legislation. It\u2019s really important that we fix these things as soon as possible, so I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225f6c5b1a97f24773a8aaeb3a8e3b0e7b\u0022 data-id=\u00225c165056f6ec0bdf2f1ed1db2fb606ee\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f6c5b1a97f24773a8aaeb3a8e3b0e7b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225c165056f6ec0bdf2f1ed1db2fb606ee\u0022\u003EJAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) (15:34)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Regulatory Systems (Social Security) Amendment Bill (No\u00A02). This bill is to fix a number of common-sense fixes, correcting errors, clarifying rules, and removing redundant laws. I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f0d31505882949b1a768aad60863fba9\u0022 data-id=\u0022c61a4d5c4a0a57e2eb65580656647fcc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f0d31505882949b1a768aad60863fba9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c61a4d5c4a0a57e2eb65580656647fcc\u0022\u003EJOSEPH MOONEY (National\u2014Southland) (15:34)\u003C/span\u003E: I rise to speak on this bill. This is a sensible bill that will simplify the legislation and make it fit for purpose and operate effectively by making minor policy and technical amendments and ensure that we are fixing the basics so that we can build the future of this country. I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022 data-id=\u00229b183b4bb6c5630a1414c1405db95fe2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229b183b4bb6c5630a1414c1405db95fe2\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert) (15:34)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Speaker, thank you. This bill is coming to my committee, and I\u2019m pleased to see it come.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a8ff6e3602c492880b65258f59645c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221afc4346e83568b19cf614f5f01e92d1\u0022\u003EDana Kirkpatrick\u003C/span\u003E: Our committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222514e8b7b9fa99b4f7a7a8da4fec5c78\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE\u003C/span\u003E: Our committee, in fact. Absolutely, I\u2019ll correct that. There are some great people on the Social Services and Community Committee, and we will take it extremely seriously. It is one that is a cluster of quite technical changes. It is one that will take a little bit of getting our heads around, in terms of some of the things that are in it, but it will also be a real opportunity for us to look at the system we have and make it better.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI wanted to go through some of the things about the bill that have caught my eye. I was interested that we were repealing the Family Benefits (Home Ownership) Act 1964. Now, many people watching will remember\u2014if they\u2019re old enough\u2014that many of our parents got their first home through this Act, which was the capacity to take the family benefit, bundle it up, and then it was coupled with, I think, a 3 percent interest rate on the home loan. My parents were parents affected like that. They were not from any kind of inheritance. They had no money behind them. They were, in fact, in a little town called Kawerau, which some of my colleagues know well. They were able to buy a house under that scheme. So, in some ways, I\u2019m going to be sad to see that gone from the statute book, because I think it\u2019s a really interesting idea and it made a big difference in New Zealand. And we do, after all, have a housing crisis.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also wanted to just mention the part of the bill that talks about extending the sustainable employment trial. Now, this looks to me like a really good part of the bill. It\u2019s for people who are recipients of benefits\u2014supported living in particular\u2014based on medical grounds. They are able to work 15 hours at the moment, for a period of up to 26\u00A0weeks, without losing that entitlement. But then it stops. It actually puts people into a situation where the international evidence suggests that people are worried to go and do that work because they\u2019re worried that that benefit, that backstop, will stop. What is good about this legislation is that it extends the sustainable employment trial to 104 weeks, and that just seems like a really good idea. People are moving into work. It gives them a capacity to do that. That looks like a very good part of the legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnother part of this legislation is the extension of benefit entitlements to people on supported living payments who are caring for live organ donors. My recall is that there\u2019s another part of this Act that dovetails in with that and looks after people in that situation in a way that hasn\u2019t been possible until now. Now, it did say in the notes that I\u2019ve received that nobody\u2019s actually been put in that terrible position of not getting that kind of cover as a caregiver until now, but it\u2019s really nice that we\u2019re getting ahead of it and we\u2019re making sure that we\u2019re not disincentivising that at all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne other thing I just noticed in the bill, in clause 16, is that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) may grant a child disability allowance for a child with a serious disability if someone is caring for them. I was really interested to see that it\u2019s somebody who\u2019s in a private home and there\u2019s an accommodation part of that as well. I like to see that kind of discretion being given to MSD. I think we take away too many discretions, and that can cause real harm. The people who are working in these departments\u2014it\u2019s great if they\u2019ve got the capacity to do something in a humane way and support people. I look forward to seeing this bill in my select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221a8ff6e3602c492880b65258f59645c0\u0022 data-id=\u002299de161b979e01dd0b4421d87b7625ef\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a8ff6e3602c492880b65258f59645c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002299de161b979e01dd0b4421d87b7625ef\u0022\u003EDANA KIRKPATRICK (National\u2014East Coast) (15:39)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This of course is the Regulatory Systems (Social Security) Amendment Bill (No 2). It is a small\u2014well, it is a complicated bill, actually, for the Social Services and Community Committee. But, basically, it\u2019s small tidy ups and non-controversial fix-its, and I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f988bc72b5e47b8856ba70e41dfbbaf\u0022 data-id=\u0022a9c38e8fe93e192e911177ed3d6987e8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f988bc72b5e47b8856ba70e41dfbbaf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a9c38e8fe93e192e911177ed3d6987e8\u0022\u003EGEORGIE DANSEY (Labour) (15:40)\u003C/span\u003E: Kia ora. It is good to take a call on the Regulatory Systems (Social Security) Amendment Bill (No 2). I acknowledge that this is a technical-change bill, but, as the previous speaker mentioned, it is complicated for the Social Services and Community Committee. So I look forward to that process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI wanted to start, really, by acknowledging all of the people involved in the Ministry of Social Development (MSD)\u2014all of the people that work there and all of the people that receive the support of the Ministry of Social Development. It\u2019s a huge ministry that does very, very valuable work, and it\u2019s good to tidy up some bits and pieces to make sure that the ministry is operating at a level that is manageable for staff and those accessing the services. I see this bill as fixing up some of those minor policy changes and technical amendments, which will hopefully go towards a more effective use of MSD for all those involved.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe legislation that is being affected: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001, the Social Security Act 2018, and the Veterans\u2019 Support Act 2014, as well as the repeal of the Family Benefits (Home Ownership) Act 1964. And these changes will make sure that the legislation is fit for purpose for the Ministry of Social Development. The ministry, when it\u2019s most effective, ensures that people receive the right support at the right time, improves individual wellbeing, and strengthens communities across New Zealand. And this bill I see as making it easier for MSD to perform its duties. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think it\u2019s an important time for us to be having this discussion. You know, outside of this bill, MSD is in the news around targets, in their use of targets for staff, which could be used to see as gaming the system in emergency housing and putting pressure on staff to reach their targets in order to reach the approval of management.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe issue there is what\u2019s happening with the data and if people are being processed through the system as they should into emergency housing or if they are pushed off in other directions and what pressure staff might feel in order to reach those targets. That\u2019s not something that we want, and it\u2019s something that we need to make sure that people are getting access to\u2014affordable housing in whatever case that might look like\u2014while also being a very effective service and not taking too much time to get people the support that they need. And this is a good bill in order to tidy up some of those.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt would be good to see this Government go a lot further than they have in regards to support within MSD, and I hope to see a subsequent bill that addresses the huge inequities in our society concerning people\u2019s access to housing, as I mentioned earlier. But this bill, with its minor policy changes, will do that. I hope that it allows the ministry to promote its value of getting people into employment and independent through jobseeker assistance, training, and employment programmes and also goes further to protect children and families by connecting people with services that will improve their wellbeing and safety.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI wanted to, just before I finish, speak a little bit to the differences between the first and the second version. Other speakers have spoken to their concern around what happened with the first version and why we\u2019re in urgency now on the second version, so I won\u2019t go over that again. But there are some differences in the legislation between the first and the second version, particularly around the Accommodation Supplement under clause 15, the new clause 17, clause 21, and a new clause 24. Labour does support this bill, and I look forward to hearing back after select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022 data-id=\u00220c8acb59c5b28ceb7f93bfb729b07ccf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220c8acb59c5b28ceb7f93bfb729b07ccf\u0022\u003ESUZE REDMAYNE (National\u2014Rangit\u012Bkei) (15:45)\u003C/span\u003E: Look, this bill makes minor technical policy amendments to help ensure the legislation is fit for purpose. It\u2019s all about fixing the basics so we can get on with building the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a first time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022107e855ecf97480ccdf6cd5379ba6cf3\u0022\u003EReferral to Select Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022 data-id=\u00229ef26a351d594ae85bbb35ad72c48ae0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229ef26a351d594ae85bbb35ad72c48ae0\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER (15:45)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Regulatory Systems (Social Security) Amendment Bill (No 2) be considered by the Social Services and Community Committee\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill referred to the Social Services and Community Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00223afb02190beed2c0fd927bdb326161f6\u0022\u003ERegulatory Systems (Courts) Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e200c3151f8107b3fcae85b26c750ec9\u0022\u003EDischarge and Referral to Select Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u002204ff67b194301a6e6d44a51d37a9b153\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002204ff67b194301a6e6d44a51d37a9b153\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (15:45)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the order of the day for the second reading of the Regulatory Systems (Courts) Amendment Bill be discharged and the bill be referred to the Justice Committee for consideration of Amendment Paper 635 in my name\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill referred to the Justice Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f4926a741817a3032cefd18d5e475730\u0022\u003ERegulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f4926a741817a3032cefd18d5e475730\u0022\u003ERegulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022689473790bd78eadfc4b9356ea8d4e02\u0022\u003ELegislative Statement\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u00227c1ab1660fb22c58809553a3f2cc21f6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227c1ab1660fb22c58809553a3f2cc21f6\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (15:46)\u003C/span\u003E: I present the legislative statements on the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c0f8e605362bd0bf1624d1911ee749af\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Those legislative statements are published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002228303873a877b903ddc5fb45afaaa0a3\u0022\u003ESecond Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u002233c7113b6086924b69bb97747b5ba262\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002233c7113b6086924b69bb97747b5ba262\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (15:46)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill be now read a second time\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI am pleased to speak to these bills in the House again today. As I noted in my first reading speech, the regulatory system amendment bills are one of the ways that this Government maintains and repairs existing legislation and ensures that our regulatory systems deliver for New Zealanders. At a high level, these two bills reflect the Government\u2019s commitment to delivering fit for purpose regulation and to improving access to justice. They will have a significant impact on the regulatory regimes that govern tribunals and occupational regulation, enhancing their effectiveness and efficiency while improving consumer protection and the quality of justice legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill makes practical improvements to tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies. It removes barriers to justice by allowing successful applicants in the disputes tribunal to recover their filing fee from the respondent where it is appropriate. It strengthens the regulation of the private security industry by providing more effective information-gathering powers to investigate breaches. It also streamlines appointments and employment arrangements for tribunal members to ensure these bodies operate efficiently. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill strengthens protections for both consumers and regulated professionals while reducing unnecessary compliance costs. One important change allows conveyancers\u2019 professional undertakings to be enforced in the High Court, just as lawyers\u2019 undertakings already are. This promotes competition in the conveyancing market and benefits consumers. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill also removes a disproportionately harsh penalty that automatically disqualifies real estate agents from practising for five years simply because they failed to complete continuing professional development or pay fees on time. That issue has been recognised by the profession for many years, and this bill delivers a more proportionate response. At the same time, the bill strengthens the Real Estate Authority\u2019s ability to investigate unlicensed trading and ensure licensee\u2019s meet their obligations, improving consumer confidence in the industry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBoth bills have benefited from the select committee process, and I would like to thank the Justice Committee and the Education and Workforce Committee for their careful consideration, along with everyone who made submissions. Their constructive feedback has resulted in sensible improvements. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Justice Committee has clarified the role of the Complaints, Investigations and Prosecution Unit when dealing with complaints about unlicensed private security operators. The Education and Workforce Committee has recommended that the Real Estate Authority\u2019s new powers be exercised on a reasonable basis and clarified that provisions relating to unsatisfactory conduct apply only where behaviour is connected to a licensee\u2019s professional role and affects public confidence in the profession. These are practical improvements that make already sensible bills even stronger.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also thank officials and the Parliamentary Counsel Office for their work in developing these bills. Whether someone is taking a claim to the Disputes Tribunal, buying a home through a conveyancer, or working as a real estate agent, these reforms will make our regulatory systems fairer, more efficient, and easier to navigate. They demonstrate this Government\u2019s commitment to good regulatory stewardship, maintaining the laws we already have, reducing unnecessary compliance, and improving access to justice and ensuring regulations work for the people they are meant to serve. I commend these bills to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u00226eea3968e34d98b45a939272af87a9f8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226eea3968e34d98b45a939272af87a9f8\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (15:51)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It\u2019s a pleasure to be able to take a call on not one but two bills at the same time, the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill. These bills cover quite a few different things, and I\u2019ll talk about them both briefly. Essentially, as I understand, there was a programme that went through where four regulatory systems amendment bills administered by the Ministry of Justice were looked at, and I think this goes alongside the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Courts) Amendment Bill, which we\u2019ve just had re-referred to select committee prior to this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EFor anyone getting papers from the Table, be very careful about which regulatory systems bill you pick up, because there are three on the Table\u2014well, at least two or three on the Table at the moment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b8d62d2ed0e2c0c9667deb4a6726b521\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Very good advice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d39689ecf14e8dcfc151f74465319c89\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: So considerate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002258cf340af4396ee4c78893bf95166249\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I have looked at these bills\u2014and I\u2019ve looked quite carefully just to check, as a good Opposition spokesperson should do\u2014and they do appear in all my analysis to be minor and technical, and I was unable to kind of find any fish-hooks in either of them so far.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe interesting\u2014well, interesting for me; maybe not for anyone else. I was on the Education and Workforce Committee but, sadly, just missed hearing the submissions on the occupational bill, and now I am on the Justice Committee, but I also missed hearing the submissions on the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill. It does appear that both select committees have done a thorough job in looking through these proposals and have made some sensible changes as well, which I think the Minister touched on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do note, from the Table\u2014and I just quickly looked at them, so I may not have taken my own advice on noticing which regulatory system all the amendments related to! I did notice some amendments there from the Minister too, so I\u2019m sure, when we get to the committee stage, she\u2019ll explain what those amendments are and what they do. Again, we have looked at those, and they do appear to be minor and technical, along the lines of what these bills are meant to do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust briefly on both bills, I\u2019ll start with the tribunals bill, which we will move on to look at more closely in the committee stage. It is a bill that\u2019s structured in a way that we will be able to have a much closer look at in the committee stage, too, because it is an omnibus bill that does amend, I think, five different bills: the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988, the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003, the Parole Act, the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Act, and the Unit Titles Act 2010. We\u2019ll be able to look at those in a little bit more detail at this time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI suppose one criticism is that I\u2019m not 100 percent convinced these are very urgent bills. We are in urgency. In the real world, it\u2019s a Friday; here, it\u2019s still 30 June, a Tuesday. We are a little bit unconvinced about the urgency of these, considering they are, as the Minister said, minor and technical. None the less, that is not my call to make, so we will look through them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust to finish off on the tribunals bill, this bill does make a number of changes to those Acts that I did state before. I suppose, notably, a few things about that bill are the fact that you can get a filing fee back for the Disputes Tribunal. I think that\u2019s a good change. I think people are probably surprised that that wasn\u2019t already something you could claim back, and, obviously, it\u2019s a disincentive for people to seek justice through the Disputes Tribunal, so I commend the Minister for bringing in that change. There are some interesting changes to private security. I mean, that always is something you do look at more closely, and so we will have some questions for the Minister around some of those changes. They do seem reasonable, though.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen, to move to the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill, this has three major policy proposals: the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act, the Prostitution Reform Act, and the Real Estate Agents Act. There are some sensible changes there as well. I think the Prostitution Law Reform Act changes are around the people who are able to hold a certificate to operate a brothel and making sure that there\u2019s alignment between that and the Crimes Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act, which I think appears to be sensible. It also allows some changes to the Law Society\u2019s complaints mechanism, which I think appears to be sensible. For example, there\u2019s discretion given to the Law Society, rather than an automatic referral of a complaint. I think you can also see the potential value in that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s a new name in this as well, for the Real Estate Agents Authority is now the Real Estate Authority, which I think sounds better. I can\u2019t make much more comment than that. I don\u2019t know why they decided to change it. They did also decide to change the membership of the now\u2014well, soon after this passes\u2014Real Estate Authority, so  that the chairperson doesn\u2019t have to be a lawyer. As a former lawyer, I support opening up leadership opportunities for non-lawyers. That\u2019s also a good change. They do, importantly, have to have a lawyer on the authority, but it just doesn\u2019t have to be the chairperson\u2014so there we go; hopefully, everyone will remember that. There\u2019s also some discretion in relation to licences for real estate agents, and I know, in emergency situations, sometimes licences lapse, and so those changes have been made following events that we all lived through with Cyclone Gabrielle and the Auckland floods. Anyway, there\u2019s some further discretion there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe will have the opportunity to look at these bills separately. It\u2019s kind of an odd situation talking about two bills at a second reading\u2014two different select committee processes; two different sets of recommendations\u2014and then we\u2019ll have two totally separate committee stages. We will be able to look at that more closely, but I think, just reflecting that this is also the job of this House, not everything we do here is on hugely controversial pieces of legislation or pieces of legislation that we feel very passionate about. The fact that we\u2019re all here on a Friday doing this work because it makes the law of New Zealand work better should be commended. With that in mind, I commend both of these bills to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022784c81c194e6c2c3d189c8b6fefbaaf4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022784c81c194e6c2c3d189c8b6fefbaaf4\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (15:59)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa to speak to these two associated bills, the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI want first to address some of the context around these two bills. As we see with the regulatory impact statement\u2014and I think, from the previous contribution by my colleague Georgie Dansey, I now can\u2019t look at \u201CRIS\u201D in the same way without thinking it\u2019s \u201Crizz\u201D. But I do believe that these two bills very much do have rizz, despite the fact that they may come across as being reasonably boring.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002299c387dedcf6ed7b93d6c4c567b31270\u0022\u003ETom Rutherford\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s a test of generations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bb1b8812cb82ca2ecc518504362bfc53\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Tom Rutherford. As a millennial, I very much appreciate that particular shout out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think, in terms of the context, this is a broader suite being brought by the Minister around the regulatory systems justice package. Now, we have just heard previously that as one part of this package, the Regulatory Systems (Courts) Amendment Bill is being recommitted into the select committee stage, and we\u2019ll be interested to have further opportunities to analyse that particular bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other bills that are part of this package that actually extended beyond simply a regulatory systems bill were the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill and the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill (AMLCFT) bills, and those two bills previously were also associated. I am looking forward to the committee stage for these two bills, and hopefully we won\u2019t have the same hilarious, I guess, incidents we had with the two AMLCFT bills, where we kind of crossed over a little bit, and that was much to this House\u2019s enjoyment in general. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of the two bills that we have here\u2014the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill\u2014it is also important to understand that often we do have a lot of these regulatory systems bills. We just saw the first reading of one on social development and a few days ago in calendar days\u2014but not so much in House days, because it\u2019s still Tuesday here in the House\u2014we saw the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill. It\u2019s always what we consider as sort of housekeeping bills to update our legislation overall in a collaborative, non-partisan way. Because for a lot of these\u2014as we understand\u2014as primary legislation, the only way to amend them is through Parliament and through this House. These are a way for us to group a lot of that together, and we have other mechanisms around some of the other updates as well\u2014statutes amendment bills being a really great example of that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m going to start with the first bill, actually, which is the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill, which was heard by the Education and Workforce Committee. Now, I do want to say that originally the Green Party opposed this bill, but after going through the select committee stage\u2014and this is particularly due to the Real Estate Agents Act 2018. We did have some concerns around this part of the bill, but I just also want to acknowledge the Minister during the select committee process for her transparency in terms of responding to our questions, which has reassured us that the particular ways around the registration or in terms of unsatisfactory conduct, after hearing from the officials, is something that is more severe than any other professions that we have seen. I think in order for us to maintain that consistency, we were happy with what we\u2019ve heard both from the officials but also from the Minister regarding this particular section. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe did look at some of the comparable jurisdictions around de-registration, whether it is conveyors, whether it is from other professions, lawyers, etc. Again, upon balance, from what we\u2019ve been told by the officials, it is something that is more on the other extreme end. We are happy with where that particular part has landed, so I think overall, in terms of both regulatory systems bills, the Green Party will be supporting both. I think when we did the first reading of this, it is quite unusual in general for a political party to oppose a regulatory systems bill and we didn\u2019t do that lightly. But, again, like I said, we are happy with where we\u2019ve landed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust in terms of the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill, it is important to note that other than the Real Estate Agents Act, there are also other additional parts that have been touched on that this bill encompasses as well\u2014lawyers and conveyors being one of them. We will be just checking a few more things with the Minister as we go through the committee stage, but also noting that for this bill, the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill, but also for the tribunals, the Ministers do have some additional amendments to this, which we\u2019ll be able to hopefully check with the Minister during the committee stage as well. I think at this stage, both of them, in terms of updates, also seem reasonable, but I just want to be able to make sure, since we\u2019re only seeing these two quite recently.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other bill that I want to touch on, the second bill we\u2019re looking at, the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill\u2014there are sort of five parts to this. Again, we\u2019ve seen just previously when we are talking about whether it is the Community Magistrates Legislation Amendment Bill or I mentioned previously in terms of the Judicature (Timeliness) Legislation Amendment Bill, it is a way for us to look at how we\u2019re able to ensure that we have timeliness. I think overall, whether it\u2019s tribunals, whether it\u2019s community magistrates, in a lot of the conversations we\u2019ve had, what is important from our perspective and from the Greens\u2019 perspective is number one in terms of some of the delays we\u2019re seeing in our justice system but also in terms of some of that access. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAgain, some of the things we\u2019re seeing here, particularly with regards to the Disputes Tribunal Act and also the Parole Act, for example, hopefully, once these bills are passed through the House, we\u2019ll see some changes that will allow us to have more of an impact in terms of the ability for people to access justice in different ways, of course noting, as we discussed with the previous bills with the community magistrates, whether it\u2019s the disputes tribunal\u2014because, again, we\u2019re not looking at it from the lens of higher courts, from District Court and above, and with greater powers come greater responsibilities. It will be important for us to see how we\u2019re able to also balance the better access to justice with some of the outcomes that we see as a part of these changes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do want to touch on one particular aspect of this. For both bills, as we\u2019re going through the select committee and we\u2019re hearing from the officials\u2014I mentioned before we heard from the Ministers and also heard from the submitters\u2014we have also made amendments as a part of a select committee. I was glad to be sitting on both the Education and Workforce Committee as well as the Justice Committee for these two bills to be able to consider this. But I think one of the things I want to just quickly touch on is the Private Securities Personnel and Private Investigators Act. This is an interesting and significant improvement that we\u2019re making which allows for that greater transparency of the function of the Complaints, Investigation Prosecution Unit, which allows for the preparation of reports about complaints against unlicensed or uncertified persons when it\u2019s being requested by a licensed authority. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe last thing I just wanted to touch on\u2014and this speaks to most of the regulatory systems bills we\u2019re seeing in general. These two bills were referred to the committee 16 months ago. The two reports basically came back to the House about a year ago and we only have the opportunity to speak on the two bills now. Although they may not be prominent politically, like I said, they are important bills for this House. I think we should also, as a House, consider if there are better ways for us to be able to put up these bills without having to wait for a year to be able to update them. With that, we commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022 data-id=\u002225801f3c7c90d2ee30fa5362e6133e7a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002225801f3c7c90d2ee30fa5362e6133e7a\u0022\u003ETOM RUTHERFORD (National\u2014Bay of Plenty) (16:09)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It\u2019s a privilege to stand and speak on the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill. I welcome the direction the Minister has given around referring the Regulatory Systems (Courts) Amendment Bill back to the Justice Committee. We will obviously consider that in further depth as that bill progresses, but I support both of these pieces of legislation and I commend them to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225f6c5b1a97f24773a8aaeb3a8e3b0e7b\u0022 data-id=\u0022e17ed075ef87b86fdd240bf792770368\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f6c5b1a97f24773a8aaeb3a8e3b0e7b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e17ed075ef87b86fdd240bf792770368\u0022\u003EJAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) (16:09)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill in its second reading. I sat on the Justice Committee that heard the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill. We only received seven submissions, two of them being oral. They were very minor and technical changes. They didn\u2019t require extensive discussion from the committee, and I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223f34a95343b450f639cbed79ad64e294\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: This is a split call\u2014Steve Abel.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022 data-id=\u00220ff5edabea0ce83258e7b82f02690066\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002233a8db41ad0c4278b7eb829406824bb5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220ff5edabea0ce83258e7b82f02690066\u0022\u003ESTEVE ABEL (Green) (16:10)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to speak on the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill. These are not things I have any particular expertise in. I just had a brief look through the impact statement and to be very frank, reading these bills, it\u2019s one of those instances where it\u2019s witheringly boring. There\u2019s nothing of real excitement here except to say it is essential for us as a Parliament to go through and sort out pieces of legislation like this to make sure that they are serving their purpose: having the effect of removing barriers, in the instance of the tribunals bill, to the access to justice; clarifying and resolving inconsistencies and gaps in legislation; better enabling statutory authorities to conduct their prescribed functions; and ensuring independence of tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies. The quasi-judicial bodies is quite interesting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe bill would amend the following Acts and associated secondary legislation: the Disputes Tribunal Act, the Motor Vehicle Sales Act, the Parole Act, the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Act, and the Unit Titles Act 2010. I cannot trouble the House to speak any further on these except to say that we do support them and we support the principle of these sorts of amendments, so the Green Party commends these bills to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022739b3bbed7fe4186aa30494700144b3a\u0022 data-id=\u0022e35e31e41b06af1dae580c623bd1fc7b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022739b3bbed7fe4186aa30494700144b3a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e35e31e41b06af1dae580c623bd1fc7b\u0022\u003EPAULO GARCIA (National\u2014New Lynn) (16:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. We are fixing the basics by strengthening the ability of occupational regulators to protect consumers. By increasing the efficiency of the regulatory regimes, we are building the future. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u0022e2415e2b9fc50464597fd24bd9854bbd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e2415e2b9fc50464597fd24bd9854bbd\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (16:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I\u2019m surprised that people think that these are merely technical bills. I want to speak to the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill. Look, there are actually two quite important points to make here. The first one is in respect of undertakings of conveyancers. Now, in 2006, the law was changed to allow for this new profession of conveyancers, essentially to create competition in the market with lawyers for real estate transactions. One of the advantages it turns out that lawyers had that no one realised was that the courts would enforce undertakings.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, an undertaking is often used in conveyancing transactions, and I can actually remember using them when you get halfway through a transaction and you\u2019ve forgotten something. You might be like, \u201COh, I forgot to get that document signed, but I undertake that I will deliver you a signed copy of that document. It\u2019s sitting on my desk.\u201D or whatever. The courts would take that to be a binding and enforceable promise. If your lawyer didn\u2019t comply with it, not only could you be sued in court for it but it would be a professional breach. That didn\u2019t exist in respect of conveyancers. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn new section 38A, inserted by clause 5, the framework says that undertakings given by conveyancing practitioners are enforceable. That\u2019s what the heading says, but it\u2019s not what the section says. What it says in new section 38A(1) is \u201CAn affected person may make an application for summary judgment in relation to an undertaking\u201D That\u2019s all very good, but it\u2019s kind of narrow because you should be able to make any kind of application on the basis of an undertaking, including an application to the High Court under its general jurisdiction. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, it\u2019s recognised that the District Court doesn\u2019t have jurisdiction over lawyers in respect of undertakings, but you can basically go to the High Court in respect of a general undertaking by lawyers and get them enforced or injuncted or damages, whatever you like, any way you like. Summary judgment is a very narrow procedure which proceeds only on affidavits, so I\u2019m perplexed as to why, if you\u2019re suing a lawyer for an undertaking, you can use the whole jurisdiction of the High Court, but if you\u2019re suing a conveyancer, you\u2019ve only got summary judgment. That\u2019s one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second one is actually even more concerning. It might be that this needs to go back to select committee because it\u2019s about the complaints service for lawyers. As it happens, I have some experience in this, because in a former job I was, in fact, the legal complaints review officer, which was essentially an appellate role from Law Society complaints standards committees. One of the challenges of complaints frameworks is a flood of shall we just say meritless complaints, for one reason or another. They might just not understand the rules and they\u2019re just wildly wrong or they had unrealistic expectations or they could be vexatious or any other number, or it could have been 10 years ago. That was another one we used to see. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe way the complaints system works is you send your complaint to the Law Society and then the Law Society kind of triages it. Sometimes they have a phone call, but by and large, if you want to complain, it then goes on to a standards committee, which is a group of lawyers and some non-lawyers as well to resolve it, even if it\u2019s a vexatious or trivial or extremely old and stale complaint. What new section 135A, inserted by clause 7, does is it says that the complaints service itself can turn around these extremely low-level complaints.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI can see why you didn\u2019t send that to the Justice Committee, because there would have been a good bit of discussion around whether an administrator\u2014because that\u2019s what it is; probably a skilled one, but an administrator in the Law Society or the Society of Conveyancers\u2014gets to turn around these complaints and say, \u201CI think that\u2019s too old.\u201D \u201CI think that\u2019s too trivial.\u201D \u201CI think that\u2019s without foundation.\u201D or \u201CI think that\u2019s vexatious.\u201D But that\u2019s where we\u2019ve got to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy concern actually goes a bit further, because in my experience as the legal complaints review officer, as with most complaints services, most of my time was spent dealing with either some very difficult lawyers or very difficult complainants. If you really want to upset a vexatious complainant, the best thing to do is to tell them their complaint is trivial or vexatious and turn it around at the first hurdle. What I am almost certain will happen here is that these will be challenged. Now, the difficulty is, as I see it, there is no way to challenge this complaint within the Law Society framework, within the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act framework. If you go to the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act, in the depths of it at about section 210 or something, it says that a person can complain to the legal complaints review officer about any final decision at a standards committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe problem is this never got to the standards committee. This is a decision\u2014and it\u2019s final, because they\u2019ve said that we\u2019re not going to take it further to the standards committee, so you\u2019ve got no right of appeal or review to the legal complaints review officer. So what will a vexatious litigant do? A vexatious litigant will take a judicial review. The whole idea of this system, which is entirely funded by levies on lawyers, is to be low cost, quick, and effective\u2014it hasn\u2019t always been either of those things, but that\u2019s the idea\u2014dispute resolution system for lawyers\u2019 complaints. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do think there\u2019s a missing part here. I actually get the motivation behind complaints services being able to turn around complaints. I\u2019m not sure it\u2019s a good idea, but I understand why the Minister has taken that route. Certainly, one of the challenges with lawyers\u2019 standards committees is they take too long because they can become overwhelmed with the volume of complaints. But if you\u2019re going to have an administrator\u2014a faceless administrator if you like; not even a public servant but an employee of a private organisation\u2014turning around complaints on the basis that they are meritless for one reason or another, then you had better be very careful about how you go about that. It may well be, and I\u2019m hoping\u2014and I see the Minister is in the House, and good on her for being here\u2014that officials will be taking an interest in this debate as well and will be scratching their heads and thinking, \u201COh, maybe we should have thought about that.\u201D, because we know\u2014and the Minister, who is the Minister for Courts, has been working hard on relieving the burden on the courts, including the High Court.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA judicial review on the back of a complaint which doesn\u2019t have merit\u2014you\u2019ve got to remember, if you\u2019re going to judicially review this, you don\u2019t have to prove that your complaint was right; you only have to prove that it wasn\u2019t without some merit; that the decision made internally to extinguish the complaint was not appropriate; that it should have been given a hearing at the next stage. In fact, the grounds upon which they can do it are set out quite clearly: trivial, frivolous, vexatious, \u201CThe complainant does not have a sufficient personal interest.\u201D\u2014that\u2019s often an opposing person. A disgruntled husband complaining against the wife\u2019s lawyer is a common one you\u2019d see\u2014those sorts of things. The grounds are there, and you\u2019ve got grounds to go, \u201CWell, they\u2019re wrong about that. I do have an interest which is sufficient, and I want to argue my case about that.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s actually a lot to be thought about there, and these complaints processes are tricky, but they do have to comply with natural justice. What we have here is, essentially, an administrative decision maker making a quasi-judicial decision without any right of appeal or recourse. When you frame it in those terms, we\u2019ve got something of a problem. We\u2019ll be exploring that a bit later on. Thank you for your time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022297bc572c27f45308dffb067ca3e7915\u0022 data-id=\u00229a0f83515f6b3d67d59fa69e7f6df99b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022297bc572c27f45308dffb067ca3e7915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229a0f83515f6b3d67d59fa69e7f6df99b\u0022\u003EDr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National\u2014Ilam) (16:21)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s a great pleasure to rise and speak on the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill. These bills are part of a package of three bills in the regulatory systems justice amendment bill package, each focused on improving a different part of the justice system: the courts\u2019 occupational regulation and tribunals. They improve access to justice by removing unnecessary barriers and making tribunal processes fairer and more accessible. Therefore, I commend the bills to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221287a846e4582cd921c645c1ea0b6d49\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: This is a split call\u2014Georgie Dansey.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f988bc72b5e47b8856ba70e41dfbbaf\u0022 data-id=\u0022b6d39efebdd2f896bc2b1d448b969a33\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f988bc72b5e47b8856ba70e41dfbbaf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b6d39efebdd2f896bc2b1d448b969a33\u0022\u003EGEORGIE DANSEY (Labour) (16:22)\u003C/span\u003E: T\u0113n\u0101 koe e te M\u0101ngai o te Whare. I\u2019m standing to speak on the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill. These bills are a package of four regulatory systems amendment bills administered by the Ministry of Justice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019d like to start my contribution by challenging the previous speaker Steve Abel on his comments about these bills being boring. I think he just hasn\u2019t read them in depth enough, because I\u2019m sure my colleague the  Hon Duncan Webb thinks these are the most interesting things he\u2019s ever seen in his life.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225479855ba1218b55ac342077c4639ae2\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Come on, I think you should give the House a proper reference if you\u2019re going to make them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f988bc72b5e47b8856ba70e41dfbbaf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002240c390d57bd90d580472d94b7805b52a\u0022\u003EGEORGIE DANSEY\u003C/span\u003E: Ha, ha! I\u2019ve actually had the pleasure of speaking on a number of regulatory systems amendments bills, and you always learn new things about different areas of our society. I\u2019ve spoken on boxing and contact sports in the past, and I\u2019m pleased to speak on these too, because I think they do have some very valuable content in them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think that getting our justice system processes right, which we\u2019re very far from at this point, having an accessible and fair justice system, should be an absolute priority for any Government, of any stripe, who sits in this House. Anything we can do to make the justice system more accessible and more fair for people accessing the system is paramount. I hear stories constantly, as I\u2019m sure other members do, around the barriers to accessing justice for people in New Zealand, whether that be financial or otherwise. In these two bills, there is some content that I see as improving that access to justice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll talk about both, but I wanted to speak firstly about the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill and the technical changes. This bill will improve the operations and efficiency of tribunals. I thought it was pronounced \u201Cquas-ee\u201D, but the Hon Duncan Webb just said \u201Cquas-aye\u201D\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e5640378d5cd1f2b6a79372e10dfebe4\u0022\u003EHon Dr Duncan Webb\u003C/span\u003E: \u201CPo-tay-toes\u201D, \u201Cpo-tah-toes.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f988bc72b5e47b8856ba70e41dfbbaf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022755fe51c391046994df7aaa5ccbe5ba7\u0022\u003EGEORGIE DANSEY\u003C/span\u003E: OK, \u201Cpo-tay-toes\u201D, \u201Cpo-tah-toes.\u201D OK, because I didn\u2019t want to put my foot in it and say the wrong word in front of the Hon Duncan Webb!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221f4152d75ddfbfc8a6c54e21755f6d66\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: What about the Rt Hon Gerry Brownlee?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f988bc72b5e47b8856ba70e41dfbbaf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228800351ce5c442cb9ecd7f6f12254906\u0022\u003EGEORGIE DANSEY\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m so sorry\u2014I\u2019m so sorry. Rt Hon Gerry Brownlee, Mr\u00A0Speaker, I want to say the right words in front of you. And this is my third speech in front of you now. Back to the bill\u2014in two minutes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill will improve the operations and efficiency of tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies by removing barriers to accessing justice, and it will clarify and resolve inconsistencies and gaps in the legislation. Of the quasi-judicial bodies, I think it\u2019s interesting to see which ones are having changes to them: the Disputes Tribunal, the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal, the Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority, the Complaints, Investigation and Prosecution Unit. I think it\u2019s important that these bodies remain independent and can make independent decisions, because they affect the rights, responsibilities, and interests of all people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the pieces of legislation that caught my eye and that I thought was interesting was the change that will give the Disputes Tribunal referees the ability to order a respondent to pay the filing fee back to a wholly or partly successful applicant. If a party is successful, they will now be able to claim back that filing fee. As is in the notes, this will make a specific difference for people who don\u2019t have a monetary outcome to their claim, because that filing fee is something and it could cause a grievance to a successful applicant in that space. This is one way that access to justice and fairness in the justice system is being changed through the changes in this bill. In some cases, the filing fee could be a significant portion of what the applicant receives, and so I think it\u2019s an important change. I commend these bills to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022 data-id=\u002273893585b5ed44d5f7a195e2e2829dce\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002273893585b5ed44d5f7a195e2e2829dce\u0022\u003ESUZE REDMAYNE (National\u2014Rangit\u012Bkei) (16:27)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Look, the benefits of these non-controversial bills have been well traversed, so I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my friend and colleague Tom Rutherford, who was elected the chair of the Justice Committee on Monday. We wish you all the best. Go well. I commend the bills to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022 data-id=\u0022bf824c3711e1b033368eefe8934c59e2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bf824c3711e1b033368eefe8934c59e2\u0022\u003EDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (16:27)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I\u2019d to rise and take a call on the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill and just echo my colleague\u2019s sentiment around how exciting these bills are. The Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s contribution was exceptionally exciting. For those members of the public that have just tuned in to watch these bills progress, I will attempt to cover off some of the key points with this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThese bills focus on improving systems that people interact with every day. They make changes to tribunal processes, occupational regulation, complaints procedures, and licensing arrangements, so that those systems operate more effectively and efficiently. Both bills have now completed the select committee process. The Justice Committee considered submissions on the tribunals bill and heard oral evidence from submitters. The Education and Workforce Committee received a larger number of submissions on the occupational regulation bill and heard evidence from a range of interested parties as well. The committees received advice from officials, support from the Office of the Clerk, and assistance from the Parliamentary Counsel Office as they worked through the details of both pieces of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELabour supports the changes that have emerged from that process, and these bills are part of a wider programme of regulatory systems legislation administrated by the Ministry of Justice. The purpose of that work is not to revisit major policy decisions that Parliament has already made. The purpose is to identify parts of the legislation that can be improved through experience and feedback from regulators and professional bodies, and people like tribunal users and those responsible for administrating these systems on a daily basis, and it\u2019s an important part of Parliament\u2019s role. No regulatory framework stays perfect for ever. Over time, gaps emerge, inconsistencies develop, language becomes dated, and administrative processes no longer reflect how a sector actually operates. So, periodically, Parliament needs to revisit these settings and make improvements, and this bill does just that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe committee process demonstrated that point. Submitters raised practical issues, officials provided advice, and members tested the provisions that are before us, and the result is legislation that is stronger than what it was when it was first introduced. One of the themes running through both bills is public confidence. Whether somebody is dealing with a lawyer, engaging with a real estate professional, lodging a complaint with a regulator, or appearing before a tribunal, they need confidence that the rules are clear and that institutions involved have the ability to carry out their responsibilities properly. Confidence is built in different ways. Sometimes it comes through strong professional standards, sometimes it comes from effective complaint systems, sometimes it comes through regulators having access to information that they need to investigate concerns, and sometimes it comes through accessible dispute resolution processes that ordinary New Zealanders can use without excessive cost or complexity. Across these two bills, we see examples of all those things.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill focuses on three key areas: lawyers and conveyancers, the real estate sector, and provisions within the Prostitution Reform Act. Its purpose is to strengthen consumer protection, improve efficiency, remove inconsistencies, and reduce those unnecessary compliance costs across all of those systems.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of those significant changes concerns the Lawyers Complaints Service. Under this bill, complaints can be made subject to an initial assessment process before being referred to the lawyers standards committee. The legislation identifies circumstances where no further action may be appropriate, including where complaints are trivial, frivolous, or, as the Hon Dr Duncan Webb mentioned in his contribution, vexatious, made in bad faith, or excessively delayed, or where another remedy might very well exist. That intention is pretty straightforward. Complaints systems work best when resources are focused on matters that require investigation and resolution. Every profession depends on public confidence, and maintaining that confidence requires complaints processes that are both robust and efficient.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill also contains significant reforms relating to the Real Estate Authority. The real estate sector plays a major role in the lives of New Zealanders; everyone knows that. For many families, purchasing a home is the largest financial commitment they will ever make, and there\u2019s an expectation that professional standards will be maintained and that regulators will have the ability to investigate concerns where those standards may not have been met. The legislation strengthens the authority\u2019s ability to obtain documents relevant to investigations. During select committee considerations, amendments were recommended to ensure that the authority must have reasonable grounds before exercising those powers and to clarify the circumstances in which relevant documents may be sought from those parties holding information relevant to an investigation. The bill also updates a number of licensing provisions. It allows licences to be renewed up to 12 months, I think it was, after expiring. It provides mechanisms that recognise the experience and knowledge of practitioners returning to the profession. These are practical changes that simplify administration while maintaining the expectations around competence and professional standards.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere are also a number of amendments, as mentioned earlier, to the Prostitution Reform Act. Those changes update the references to criminal offences so that legislation continues to reflect the developments elsewhere in criminal law while preserving the existing policy intent around disqualification from holding a certificate, essentially.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETaken together, the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill strengthens consumer protections. It improves the operation of complaints systems and provides regulators with clear tools to fulfil those responsibilities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, turning to the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill, the purpose of that bill is to improve the operation and efficiency of tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies, remove barriers to accessing justice, and address legislative inconsistencies to better support statutory authorities in carrying out their functions. One amendment relates to the Disputes Tribunal. As has already been traversed in the House today, the bill allows the tribunal to order reimbursement of filing fees where an applicant succeeds wholly or partly in their claim. For many New Zealanders, the Disputes Tribunal is the most accessible way to resolve disagreements without entering the formal court. The system was designed to provide a relatively low-cost and straightforward avenue for dispute resolution. The ability to reimburse filing fees recognises that, where somebody has pursued a legitimate claim successfully, there may be circumstances where reimbursement is appropriate. The legislation also preserves incentives for parties to reach settlement, recognising the value of resolving disputes before they require a formal determination.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill also includes amendments relating to the appointment of referees. Those provisions formalise the assessment process used for appointments and reappointments, providing a more consistent mechanism for selecting people to carry out those very important roles. The quality of decision making within the tribunal depends heavily on the quality of those making those decisions, so transparent and credible appointment processes are very important. For that reason, I commend the bill to the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226aa6725740ef48a8bd0e0d084ac074fc\u0022 data-id=\u00229181fdc273a60669536012cb72f85f3b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226aa6725740ef48a8bd0e0d084ac074fc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229181fdc273a60669536012cb72f85f3b\u0022\u003EMILES ANDERSON (National\u2014Waitaki) (16:38)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Mr Speaker. This bill is about fixing the basics and building the future. I commend it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022 data-id=\u002233368d8a87469bdcfc0448ed75bf253c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225459b3c0726d42c1b6d3cc94ec303baa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002233368d8a87469bdcfc0448ed75bf253c\u0022\u003EHon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (16:38)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Now, I won\u2019t take a long call, but I just want to note my own congratulations for the new chair of the Justice Committee, Tom Rutherford. They seem to keep getting better and better and better as the term goes on. With that, I think the leadership shown by the Justice Committee is in good hands, and I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBills read a second time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228e3e9b334dc21873aac9c7e737c61402\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002279b6dd02bedcb5fdb7a89bf6f0e0fdd6\u0022\u003ERegulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a52f4789d24e20ac564bc9517c79810d\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c483541d4bda8f5ec8a6f1450e0b464f\u0022\u003EPart 1 Amendments to Disputes Tribunal Act 1988\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222d38b584d4590f76995e1aa716c95ed9\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the House is in committee on the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWe come first to the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill, and we begin with the debate on Part 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u0022717da22c5722ba300084d1d85924ebdc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022717da22c5722ba300084d1d85924ebdc\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (16:39)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to open the committee stage of the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill. I\u2019m pleased to say that there was broad support across the House for this bill at its second reading, and I look forward to hearing the views of the other parties as we debate this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill amends five Acts to improve the effectiveness and the efficiency of tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies by reducing barriers to accessing justice and better enabling statutory authorities to investigate and regulate the industry. The amendments will, among other things, give disputes tribunal referees the ability to order a respondent to pay the filing fee to a successful applicant, to simplify the appointment process for disputes tribunal referees and Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal adjudicators, and provide a new information-gathering power to the unit responsible for private security investigations and prosecutions. These improvements will support the maintenance and continuous improvement of tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies, and this will help to ensure that the tribunal system is accessible and fit for purpose. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also wish to draw my Amendment Paper 353 to the attention of the House for consideration during this committee stage. This Amendment Paper is straightforward. It only makes some minor technical changes to ensure the provisions read as intended. I\u2019m happy to take questions on the bill as we go through the committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002239e1f5a917e88e083c604a645b5d9883\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aa6fda27cc7c28a9767aa58a9eab231c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes\u2014just before I call Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, I was just going to say that I omitted to say, before the Minister made her introduction, that Part 1 of the debate is on clauses 3 to 8A, \u201CAmendments to Disputes Tribunal Act 1988\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=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022879e6c0d230d5264eabae1114758bd86\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022879e6c0d230d5264eabae1114758bd86\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:41)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think I want to start by, in some ways, slightly disagreeing with my colleague Steve Abel. I think the regulatory systems bills are some of the most interesting bills in terms of the committee stages, and I always found my engagement with the Minister, in particular, to be really enlightening, and it\u2019s just, in general, a really good way to learn about the different kinds of legislations that we do have in the broader context of our legislative package here in Aotearoa New Zealand. They are quite exciting, in my opinion, but that\u2019s just me.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI want to start by looking at clause 4 for the Disputes Tribunal Act, \u201CSection 8 amended (Selection of candidates for appointment or reappointment as Referees)\u201D. I\u2019ve got two questions for the Minister to begin with, and this also touches on the Minister\u2019s Amendment Paper 353. I\u2019m noting that, in both cases, what we have seen\u2014sorry, this clause 4, subclause (2)\u2014is a shift between using \u201Cshall\u201D to \u201Cmust\u201D. Now, from a legislative drafting perspective, my understanding is that both fulfil the same requirement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222c6463d70604436695b4f49ebe8951ef\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e0df5f16bf0ee74d60b05901bdf26163\u0022\u003EHon Rachel Brooking\u003C/span\u003E: No: \u201Cshall\u201D is out of date.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222cce5456ffa996c9f9eb1c144b2eb159\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Well, that was my question, the Hon Rachel Brooking. Can I just check with the Minister: are the changes here simply an update from using \u201Cshall\u201D to \u201Cmust\u201D in general? And, if that is the case, are these the only instances in this bill where we\u2019re seeing the change from \u201Cshall\u201D to \u201Cmust\u201D? If not, then why weren\u2019t there\u2014as far as I can see\u2014a complete package of changes from that? Maybe I am old-school, but personally I\u2019m a fan of \u201Cshall\u201D. That\u2019s my first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EMy second question to the Minister: one of the things we heard as part of the select committee stage, and I have to refresh my memory a little bit with the departmental report, is around independence when we\u2019re looking at the appointment of referees\u2014noting that the chief executive, in this case, appoints them, and what we\u2019re seeing with this particular section is that it removes the notice period for people to be able to submit names to the appointment or reappointment as referees. But what I\u2019m curious to know is, my understanding of the process is that the chief executive appoints the assessment panel; does the assessment panel then appoint the referee or the assessment panel recommends the appointment of the referee to the chief executive, who then reappoints or appoints the referee? Those are my two questions. Thank you, Minister. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u00227678e80d0fb53345efbce5fc092ea392\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227678e80d0fb53345efbce5fc092ea392\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (16:45)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. To speak to the member\u2019s first part, about the \u201Cshall\u201D, the \u201Cmust\u201D, and the little\u2014what\u2019s going on over there, I do actually agree with the member, Rachel Brooking. It is quite important when you use \u201Cshall\u201D and when you use \u201Cmust\u201D, and we are making these minor amendments, really, to just have consistency and clarity when the wording is used, and, of course, that\u2019s why we\u2019re making that small amendment. The member asked why it wasn\u2019t changed originally: these are small little words that often get picked up as officials start going through amendments that came about from select committee and realise, \u201COh, actually, a \u2018shall\u2019 must be a \u2018must.\u2019\u201D That\u2019s why that change is there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn regard to the suitability of appointed\u2014the referees side of it, as well: what I am told is that the disputes tribunal candidates currently require a nomination by a community member in order to be appointed. The amendment will remove that requirement from the disputes tribunal referee appointment process. The disputes tribunal has a strong appointments process to ensure that the referees are well suited to being appointed, so this change is only simplifying that process. The candidates are still required to name three people who will, indeed, referee as to their character and their capability to be a referee with the assessment panel. That\u2019s all that is changing there; the process itself, after that, is continuing to stay the same.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u002224b3e0e72e2968dabde60622504a9338\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002224b3e0e72e2968dabde60622504a9338\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (16:46)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the Minister for her engagement. It\u2019s good to have some analysis of that Amendment Paper, which does cover clause 4, so it\u2019s even in the right place in this debate, and I do agree with\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002218e71741ecb40b2061fe21b67da8f4ca\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s always helpful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022361fe6e6cac7d015ef3ea1beab4055a4\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s right. I do agree with Lawrence Xu-Nan that, actually, for a committee stage, these omnibus regulatory system bills are designed in a way that does make it easier to scrutinise and, also, we get to look at different things.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESticking with the disputes tribunal amendments in Part 1\u2014and my colleague has spoken to clause 4\u2014I want to look at clauses 5 and 6. I\u2019ve got three questions. The first question is on clause 5. Clause 5 inserts new section 43(5). This is in relation to the filing fee, which is probably one of the major changes in the disputes tribunal; that the respondent may get the applicant\u2019s filing fee paid in whole or part. I wanted to know if this is specifically drafted in a broad way so that it can be up to the discretion of the referee as to whether it\u2019s paid based, basically, on merit, because it might be that the claim is majority unsuccessful but one tiny part of it is successful and, I suppose, in that instance, a filing fee could be ordered. So, any guidance the Minister had\u2014I mean, that\u2019s a possible issue of future statutory interpretation, possibly; Duncan Webb may have some further thoughts on that. Anyway, that was my first question. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second question I had was following on from that in (6)\u2014so that would be new section 43(6) that is inserted by clause 5. In this, it states that the agreement to pay the filing fee cannot be made\u2014I think\u2014if there\u2019s a settlement agreed. Now, I wanted to just clarify for the Minister that that this isn\u2019t intended to be a prohibition if there\u2019s a settlement made, but, if there was a settlement made, it would be assumed that the settlement would cover the filing fee. That would be my usual understanding.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002260ba03d72c61fe3c03d8736836036ade\u0022\u003EHon Dr Duncan Webb\u003C/span\u003E: Yep, $450.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002215e6e15818c39a45db0826d2521c6a37\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. Is that how much it is?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221801ee6c0cb4c3396c426dabd83a92f2\u0022\u003EHon Dr Duncan Webb\u003C/span\u003E: It can be\u2014up to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002206ced8f67ca9b1380a975d53f620d71a\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH\u003C/span\u003E: Up to $450. I think that\u2019s also an important clarification for statutory interpretation, so that it would be allowed to be part of the settlement, not prohibited from that. It would be great, actually, to have some statement or advice from the Minister on there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EMy third question\u2014I will move on; others may have further questions on clause 5, but I don\u2019t. On clause 6, I looked back to the original Disputes Tribunal Act, which this deletes section 59 from. That section is about the entitlement of referees to be considered an employee for the purposes of accident compensation. That just seems to be a wholesale deletion of that. I\u2019m not sure if it\u2019s covered somewhere else or what the thinking was behind that, but obviously that would probably be of a concern to referees if they weren\u2019t entitled to ACC\u2014they currently are entitled to ACC as an employee. There may be some context that I\u2019m missing there\u2014maybe it\u2019s inserted somewhere else\u2014but I\u2019d be grateful for some clarification on those three questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u00222734ce5201ce73556d0e001adac24c9a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222734ce5201ce73556d0e001adac24c9a\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (16:50)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member also for her questions. In regard to the changes in clause 5, we are not inserting a new section 43; we\u2019re just amending section 43. This is in regard to the respondent paying the applicant the cost of any filing fee, wholly or partly successful. The member asked about when a settlement agreement is made and whether or not the referee can then determine whether or not to make a payment. This is actually allowing the referee to be given discretion in order to make such orders. The member was quite right when she indicated there could be a settlement where there is a monetary involvement, but there could also be a settlement where there isn\u2019t. It could be just the handover of a property or something like that. That would then allow, even when there is a settlement, the referee to be able to have that discretion on whether or not to give full or even partial remittance of that filing fee, so just giving them that ability to do that. I hope that answers both the questions on Part 5\u2014please come back if I haven\u2019t.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EOn clause 6, the deletion in regard to the ACC, we\u2019re repealing that employee provision because the referees around all the other tribunals are contractors and as contractors they pay their own ACC claims. In this particular tribunal, half of them are not contractors. We\u2019re just looking for consistency with all the other tribunal adjudicators where they are all contractors and they all pay their own ACC. At the moment in this one, we\u2019ve have got half paying ACC and half not\u2014half being employees. We just want to ensure that they are all on the same wave length there and they\u2019re all doing exactly the same thing, which is contracting and paying their own ACC levies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u00227ef430fbe14b7fb75284e0cf4452d79b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227ef430fbe14b7fb75284e0cf4452d79b\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (16:52)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks to the Minister for Courts for the engagement there. I want to talk about clause 8, and in particular I want to talk about clause 8(2), which is always a tricky one because it says \u201CRevoke rule 36(1).\u201D so you have to go to the rules to find out what it actually does. Rule 36 is about the recruitment process, if you like, for disputes tribunal referees. In fact, 36(1) is the first step. It provides two things: that there should be advertisements in the area that you\u2019re looking for them\u2014interestingly, it doesn\u2019t say \u201Cnewspaper advertisement\u201D; it just says \u201Cadvertisement\u201D so it could be anywhere, could be an electronic advertisement\u2014and also to be publicised by such other means as the secretary considers necessary, kind of a general discretion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFirstly, it would seem odd to remove the clause which says \u201CGo out and publicise that you are looking for dispute tribunal referees.\u201D I accept that there\u2019s always going to be a discretion. There\u2019s no prohibition on doing that. But I would have thought that in what is essentially the Public Service\u2014quasi-judicial officers\u2014that you actually want to go out publicly. Because the other process\u2014and this is what the legal profession has done for centuries\u2014is to look towards people you know. That is to say people like you, who are your mates, and ask them. That\u2019s not always good.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut the other thing is section\u2014or clause, rule, whatever you like\u201436(1), which actually sets the scene for getting candidates, because it says: \u201CFor the purpose of encouraging the nomination, as candidates for appointment as Referees, of men and women from diverse backgrounds and diverse ethnic and age groups, the chief executive shall\u201D\u2014and then it goes on to say advertise. I\u2019m wondering if that\u2019s the reason that was removed, because the Government doesn\u2019t want to emphasise the need for a\u2014and, in fact, disputes tribunal referees, although there are mainly lawyers, they are generally a diverse bunch of people. To be honest, I can\u2019t see why you\u2019d remove that clause. It\u2019s innocuous, it does some useful work, and it gives a theme. If it was the diversity bit that you didn\u2019t like, you could just get rid of that and say, \u201CFor the purpose of encouraging the nomination of competent people.\u201D But you still want to have a requirement that it be a public process rather than a closed one\u2014a shoulder-tapping exercise. I\u2019d actually really appreciate the Minister responding as to why rule 36(1) is being revoked.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u0022ecd84f775f536cba78ff9ea43378c5ee\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ecd84f775f536cba78ff9ea43378c5ee\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (16:56)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. In response to the member on clause 8, the clause 8 change in there is a consequential amendment because of the changes that we\u2019re making in clause 4. I\u2019m just advised there is still a publicly advertised advertisement that goes out for this, but it relates to the changes that are made by clause 4. It\u2019s consequential. It removes the requirement for the disputes tribunal candidates to be nominated a community member and to be appointed. All it is, really, is a consequential amendment to the change that we\u2019re making in clause 4 to amend that section 36, and there is still some form of advertisement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00229f23a699516fb19be379e4373077ab27\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229f23a699516fb19be379e4373077ab27\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:57)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just following up from what the Minister for Courts is saying, I think there is another important aspect of the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s question around the requirement for the diversity component of that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut the question that I have there is around, like we said before, when we\u2019re looking at the expanded role of referees\u2014or we talked about community magistrates before and a number of other ones. They don\u2019t go through some of the similar processes we see with the appointment of judges. Whether you\u2019re self-representing or have a lawyer present is another matter, but I think one of the things I\u2019m thinking of, particularly as we\u2019re seeing an increase in, for example, Asian populations here in Aotearoa New Zealand who have also started seeing an increasing number of cases going through all stages of our courts. I just wanted to check in terms of, for the candidates or for the appointment of referees\u2014because we do hear from Asian lawyers a number of these sort of nuances within our court system not being understood or accessible to the Asian population, particularly if English is a second language and you are requiring a translator, etc. I just want to check: from an appointment perspective, what are the considerations the Minister has, either in the existing rules or some of the changes we\u2019re seeing here that would take into consideration the nuances of the cultural diversity that we see, not necessarily in the appointment body or the referees themselves, but the broader society in general? That being my first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second question is I want to check with the Minister going back to what the Minister said regarding clause 6, which is consistent between the disputes tribunal referees compared to some of the other tribunal referees who are self-employed and disputes tribunal referees are being employees as opposed to being self-employed. I want to check with the Minister: if they are self-employed, what then would be the financial implication for them when they are paying for ACC as a self-employed person? Because, for example, when we\u2019re looking at some of the questions we asked as a part of the select committee process, we do see that if you are self-employed\u2014for example, if section 59 is repealed\u2014at different earning levels you will be seeing the referees having quite a bit higher levy than you have to pay for ACC.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to check with the Minister if this is something that has already been consulted on with existing referees\u2014some of the feedback you\u2019ve heard in terms of now that they are self-employed, there will be additional costs to them in terms of paying for their ACC levy. To give an example, when we\u2019re looking at one of the bands\u2014let\u2019s say if you\u2019re earning $25,000, the existing is $362.50. But then if section 59 is repealed, you need to add in the ACC Work levy, the Working Safer levy, and those additional levies which make it up to $410, which is $471.50 including GST, which is quite a bit higher than $362.50. I just want to check with the Minister on what the feedback is that she has received regarding the increase in ACC cost.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u00229244e513d0b3c5415ea9f5edf2665d15\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229244e513d0b3c5415ea9f5edf2665d15\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (17:00)\u003C/span\u003E: I was talking a little bit through the member\u2019s questions, so if I have not addressed or do not address all of his questions, I invite him to stand and ask again. Before I start, I\u2019d just like to make a correction to something I said about clause 5, which is the ability for the adjudicator to be able to award the filing fee after a settlement. I made mention, apparently incorrectly, that if there is a settlement, the adjudicator could determine whether or not to pay the filing fee back, and I\u2019ve got that wrong. If there is a settlement, it is the settlement in itself, and a filing fee will not be paid in that instance. That will be up to the adjudicator, just to make sure that there is fairness. This is why the adjudicator is given some leeway there to be able to make the decisions. The referee cannot award a filing fee on top of an agreed settlement. The settlement would cover all matters. If the referee thought that was unfair, they could choose not to endorse it and make the filing fee go to that person instead.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWith the referees, again, at clause 6\u2014this is about the ACC. As I mentioned, this is about consistency. It\u2019s to ensure that all tribunal referees\u2014not just tribunal referees in this area; that tribunal referees across the entire tribunal sector are all contractors, and they all pay their own ACC levies. I do have some figures that are there, but it\u2019s creating a fairness so that they are all paying the same amount; you\u2019re not having some pay one amount and others pay another amount. You want all of them across all the tribunals in the court system to be able to be paying that same amount. That\u2019s why we\u2019re looking for that consistency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo the member\u2019s first question, the policy intent at the time was to ensure that a referee was a person who had standing in the community and that they were nominated by the community. That was, in a way, to try and create the diversity of referees, but the requirement is not being used as intended. There\u2019s not been an independently nominated referee under this system in many, many years. I understand that in practice, there\u2019s a public call for expressions of interest, and this is what I meant by continuing to advertise. As part of that, each candidate has to find a nominee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis proposal would remove a provision that was introduced to increase diversity among the pool of referees; however, we do note that there is now a greater mix of gender and age groups amongst the referees that we have. Additionally, the Disputes Tribunal has other mechanisms to encourage ethnic diversity, such as the establishment of the M\u0101ori referees committee and the establishment of the Pasifika referees committee. I did ask my officials: do we have Asian referees committee? Not yet. Maybe that is something that future Governments can look to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u0022f811471011dd2b2e6ee10fd4ad870bbb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f811471011dd2b2e6ee10fd4ad870bbb\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (17:04)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks to the Minister. It\u2019s been said before, but we really do appreciate the constructive engagement on some of these issues.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think the Minister has answered my questions in relation to the earlier questions I had in relation to clauses 5 and 6. The only kind of quick follow-ups that I would want to add are\u2014I understand about the settlement having to cover everything. I think it\u2019s really good to have that direction, because if a settlement didn\u2019t cover a filing fee\u2014for example, it often happens in settlements that perhaps you forget around that filing fee. It could be someone who\u2019s entirely successful\u2014or the application fee or whatever it\u2019s called; yeah, filing fee. I mean, my view would be that the most equitable way would be\u2014obviously, the situation we want to avoid is that we wouldn\u2019t want it to be paid twice. We wouldn\u2019t want a settlement amount to cover the filing fee and then for it to be paid separately again, because that wouldn\u2019t, obviously, be fair. But if a settlement covers the filing fee, then, of course, there shouldn\u2019t be an order. Probably, in an ideal world, the ability to make a filing fee order if the settlement didn\u2019t cover that would be, probably, better.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut I think having clarity for those people in the Disputes Tribunal is important, and that\u2019s why I\u2019m glad that we\u2019ve had these questions. They\u2019ll be on the record if anyone is interested to look at that in the future. They\u2019ll have clarity that, as I understand it, if there is a settlement, that needs to be fulsome, and it needs to include any application for the reimbursement of a filing fee. If that\u2019s wrong, please let me know, but otherwise I think it\u2019s good to have that on the record.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of ending the employment, I do take the point around consistency, but I do wonder, for the group of referees who are currently considered employees, have there been discussions with them around the changes in terms of them doing their own ACC? They wouldn\u2019t be entitled to KiwiSaver. Obviously, employment has a totally different rights profile from contracting. The fact that we\u2019re doing this by statute is significant, and I just wanted to know if there had been any thought and put into that and also if there\u2019s any consequential raise in the amount of remuneration that they would receive. Obviously, it\u2019s not, maybe, a huge amount, probably, for what they\u2019re receiving, for them to pay their own ACC, but that will be a cost that they\u2019re facing that they don\u2019t currently have to face.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think in relation to that part, which is still Part 1, that\u2019s probably all the questions that I have, so up to the Minister. If anything I\u2019ve said is wrong, it would be good to have clarification. Otherwise, that\u2019s all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u00225158f28def38cb5f9caa1b08608d5830\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225158f28def38cb5f9caa1b08608d5830\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (17:07)\u003C/span\u003E: I think the member has its spot on in regard to the settlement side of it. My apologies for saying the incorrect thing in the first place, but I think that we\u2019ve got to a place where we\u2019ve both been able to make it quite clear for anybody that will be listening.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAgain, when we come back to the ACC, we\u2019ve really got to make it so that it\u2019s fair on every tribunal referee. When you have some paying one rate and a few paying another, it\u2019s not fair on the others that are paying less or more than anyone else. As I\u2019ve mentioned before to the Green member, this is really about having consistency across all tribunal referees and adjudicators throughout the country so that they are all paying the same amount dependent on whatever their wages are. Some work part time, some work full time, and those amounts themselves will change depending on what their income is and who they work for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI will point out as well: some tribunal referees and adjudicators are on multiple different tribunals. Some are paid, I guess, as a contractor, and some are being paid another way. It\u2019s actually going to make it easier for those people that are multiple referees or adjudicators to be able to contract back to the ministry instead of having two different versions of how they go about paying ACC. I come back again to the consistency in ensuring that all adjudicators are paying ACC levies as contractors to the Crown.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221171effb00e69a149097c8556e85f982\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aa46e06a04d132a8a4ca6251c14d66c9\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2014just recognising it\u2019s a smallish part, so we\u2019re just into final points of clarification on this part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022cd7b68ac8b3e59c1c0577dc8c3d7e73e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cd7b68ac8b3e59c1c0577dc8c3d7e73e\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:09)\u003C/span\u003E: Yep. One final question from me\u2014a short question, and maybe a short response from the Minister. Are the Disputes Tribunal referees the only ones, then, who are currently still employees\u2014everyone else is a contractor now?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u0022aa812b98e9b0fb934e301f88e4234c1e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022aa812b98e9b0fb934e301f88e4234c1e\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (17:09)\u003C/span\u003E: To be fair, I\u2019m actually not aware of whether or not they are. I\u2019m looking at just what\u2019s in front of me, and this is the tribunal that we\u2019re dealing with. I suspect that if we have others like this, we would pull it into a future regulatory standards bill. But this one is talking about tribunals. No one else has come in, so I suspect this may be the only one, but I\u2019m not 100 percent sure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022116fcb958a46193fb738b91fa68d6685\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 353 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 1 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002280d6bfb874a0fbe0834e4c0054846770\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b67d5b5292423b3a41a832a9a973aaef\u0022\u003EPart 2 Amendments to Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b728f18ef223d558b93e612b36dddca6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to Part 2, the debate on clauses 9 and 10, \u201CAmendments to Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003\u201D. The question is that Part 2 stand part. Dan Rosewarne.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022 data-id=\u00227091d5f772fd506783b7e1c5fcfcd76d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227091d5f772fd506783b7e1c5fcfcd76d\u0022\u003EDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (17:10)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cf2a534d5be04e2d8e26a5b969660bf7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I know your interest in Holdens will be driving something here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226b2956b6b5f5092d124519c120edcd8e\u0022\u003EDAN ROSEWARNE\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you for your contributions so far, Minister. My question is in relation to clause 10, which amends section 82 of the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal, and replacing section 82(3)(a) with subparagraph (a) there. The questions we need to ask here are probably pretty much what the people of New Zealand would want to know. A lot of us buy vehicles, some are second-hand vehicles, we drive them off the lot, and there might be a catastrophic failure\u2014an engine might blow\u2014we might enter into that Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal process. I suppose a lot of Kiwis at home would want to know: how would this amendment here improve the motor vehicle dispute process for consumers?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u0022c163da19e04397054d77f9315c3b1282\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c163da19e04397054d77f9315c3b1282\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (17:11)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. It\u2019s a good question; I thank the member for it. This is actually going to help speed up the process. At the moment, the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal adjudicators all need to have a current practising certificate. That makes it quite difficult to get people with a current practising certificate to put their hand up to even be adjudicators. This change will mean that they won\u2019t need to have a current practising certificate but they do still need to be legally qualified. You might have, for example, a retired lawyer who doesn\u2019t have an active practising certificate but is still legally qualified. They need to have at least five years\u2019 experience in law\u2014a minimum of five years\u2019 experience\u2014to be considered for this role. This means it\u2019ll be less restrictive and it\u2019s going to help reduce delays in the appointment process. Of course, if we can reduce delays there, then we help reduce delays in the tribunal itself.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022ae5ab314efdd136f61614f0357837711\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ae5ab314efdd136f61614f0357837711\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to check with the Minister for Courts one question on clause 10. My understanding of clause 10 is currently the adjudicator has to have a practising certificate for at least five years, and that\u2019s kind of the baseline requirement. But this particular one allows it to be not retrospective, but it allows a barrister or barrister and solicitor to have a past practising certificate that has now lapsed but then they are able to continue to be adjudicators. So you\u2019re looking at maybe a greater pool of people who could be adjudicators maybe, and also now the five years no longer need to be consecutive. I guess my question number one is: does it allow there to be a greater pool of adjudicators as a result of this? Also, has there been any work done? Because it wasn\u2019t, I think, even something we considered as a part of the Justice Committee. Does it affect the quality of the adjudication that you might see if solicitors, for example, their certificate has lapsed and maybe they were a barrister or solicitor 30 years ago for five years and they technically now meet this requirement? Has there been any work done on the quality as well?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u00221c6f076df0c191f22ddf14c5ed2eb4f0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221c6f076df0c191f22ddf14c5ed2eb4f0\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (17:13)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. As mentioned earlier, it\u2019s more about trying to get these adjudicators in. They don\u2019t need to have had necessarily just completed five years with the practising certificate\u2014they need to have a minimum of five years\u2019 legal experience. This is where you can get those retired people that come in. They will be appointed based on their abilities. The panel that appoints those individuals will have to look at who those individuals are. It doesn\u2019t really matter whether or not they\u2019ve just retired recently or retired 10 years ago. They have that legal experience behind them. I would have thought that if they retired or left five years ago or 10 years ago, they would have had a lifetime of experience, no doubt. But they still need to fit the criteria for the panel that will appoint them and make sure that they are fit for that. I guess the question that I was asked is: does it increase the pool? It will hugely increase the pool, and it means that we can have more adjudicators in a timely fashion and get people through the system quicker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EPart 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a7c982d9ac424f4ec23abc56cdb1c2d8\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022633e3d8443cb48a5f027a562e3ed5705\u0022\u003EPart 3 Amendments to Parole Act 2002, and Schedule\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c0fea0a8d2e07e7936a72b492cca0509\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to Part 3, the debate on clauses 11 to 16\u2014\u201CAmendments to Parole Act 2002\u201D\u2014and the Schedule. The question is that Part 3 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u0022a5445792cd2504430c6c7977554042e3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a5445792cd2504430c6c7977554042e3\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (17:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. The Parole Act changes are interesting and I\u2019ve been looking through them to try and understand the purpose\u2014and I\u2019ve got the Parole Act here in front of me as well. I just wanted to ask the Minister for Courts: it appears to me that the main thrust of these changes\u2014and I\u2019m looking at clause 13 and also the new Schedule, which is inserted in clause 14. When I looked at the Parole Act as it currently stands, I think the salaries for members of the Parole Board were set by the Higher Salaries Commission. I\u2019m reliably informed by my colleague that that has been defunct for a while. I wanted to know if that\u2019s correct, and, if so, how have the salaries been determined of the Parole Board? Or is it just something that\u2019s been in a static waiting period until this bill comes into place? That\u2019s on clause 13. That was, I think, in 13(2) the replacement of section 122(1). It seems to refer to the deletion of the Higher Salaries Commission or the reference to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also discussed this with my colleague Dr Duncan Webb, who by the way\u2014and this is referring to the previous section\u2014would fulfil the criteria of someone who could be appointed to the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal board, as would I and many other former lawyers on this house. That shows you how wide the pool could be under that previous part, but I don\u2019t have a question about that\u2014it was just a comment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn this bill, clause 13(3), which replaces section 122(2), also reflects the fact that a judge could be on the Parole Board and not have it affect their terms and conditions. I understand from my learned colleague that that is quite a usual clause to be put in. I was going to ask a series of questions about, \u201CWhy is this? Is this relating to a particular individual?\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fcb82b174ab2978c030d1127b3ed4a82\u0022\u003EHon Dr Duncan Webb\u003C/span\u003E: Who is it? Who\u2019s the awkward judge?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223a544f2b75e54211ef1262400920939e\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH\u003C/span\u003E: Ha, ha! Yeah. If the Minister could confirm if Dr Duncan Webb is right: that it is simply a usual clause to have in this and not related to a single individual.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI suppose the last question I had around the Parole Act at the stage\u2014unless anything major arises\u2014is just in relation to the Schedule, which I think comes into this section?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e4294e2ea64beb2ba47df5fa1ea9a452\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, it does.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226b11ada46cfe8e84aa2731a54c20f8f1\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah. So that\u2019s the Schedule right at the back of the bill, and that appears to me to be a transitional provision. That may assist with my initial question around the Higher Salaries Commission, but just wanting to know basically a sequence of what\u2019s happened\u2014obviously the Higher Salaries Commission not being effective and then us not passing this bill, and then what will happen once this bill is passed in relation to that responsibility for remuneration in clause 13(1), then going back to the actual Parole Board itself.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI would be grateful if the Minister could kind of allay some concerns around the separation in terms of the Remuneration Authority being separate from the Parole Board and then making sure that that is separate. I may have answered my own question with that, but that does appear to be a sufficient separation in the determination of the people who receive the salaries and the people who actually set them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u002282baf59ed865be1a69a5013c9d42187f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002282baf59ed865be1a69a5013c9d42187f\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (17:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, and I will clarify for the member and speak to clauses 13, 14, and the Schedule there. Currently, we have four roles on the New Zealand Parole Board where their fees are being determined by the Cabinet Fees Framework. The others, who are members of the judiciary, have their remuneration determined by the Remuneration Authority. The amendment will ensure that the Remuneration Authority considers all of the remuneration for all members, because it\u2019s inappropriate for the Cabinet Fees Framework to be looking at the fees network for what could possibly be judges that come through. It must be independent, so that\u2019s why we\u2019re making that change.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe member is also quite right that the schedule is like a transitional part, because, while we make that change, we need to ensure that those four members of the Parole Board continue to be paid until we get this into force. Clause 14 is amending that schedule to make it transitional to ensure that they continue to be paid while that takes place. The Remuneration Authority is not empowered to make an official remuneration determination until the bill\u2019s commencement date, and that\u2019s why we need to have that transitional period through there. I hope that answers the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022fee208ae5d50b8f71ba303244a2d9b03\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fee208ae5d50b8f71ba303244a2d9b03\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:21)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for that, Minister. I think, just to follow up, I have never heard of the Cabinet Fees Framework before. One of the questions asked was about the fact that\u2014sorry, this is clause\u00A013(2). What has been replaced\u2014what was previously there\u2014is \u201CHigher Salaries Commission\u201D. Can I just clarify: is the Higher Salaries Commission part of the Cabinet Fees Framework? Does it sit under the Cabinet Fees Framework? I understand the other parts that the Minister for Courts said, in terms of consistency with the Remuneration Authority, but it\u2019s just the current clause and what the Minister said\u2014I don\u2019t know if they are the same thing. That\u2019s all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u0022adaeef93cab16f728c086cb77c33165c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022adaeef93cab16f728c086cb77c33165c\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (17:21)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019d not even heard of that until the member stood up and actually talked about that. All I\u2019m aware of is that they\u2019re currently paid under the Cabinet Fees Framework and this is why we need to change it, to make sure they come under the Remuneration Authority, to ensure that there is that distance, especially between the executive and the judiciary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022326de4f23b0ed26cc74a539da4bf5b66\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022326de4f23b0ed26cc74a539da4bf5b66\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:22)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, thank you. While the Minister for Courts gets some guidance, I would be quite interested because that\u2019s what it currently says in section 122(1) of the Parole Act. Can I just check: if it\u2019s the Cabinet Fees Framework\u2014we know that the Remuneration Authority is independent, and that\u2019s also good in terms of consistency. Is the Cabinet Fees Framework also, then, an independent thing, or does it get determined \u201Cdependently\u201D, I guess? I don\u2019t know how else to phrase that. Is the Cabinet Fees Framework determining their own remuneration, whereas the Remuneration Authority sits outside of all that? I don\u2019t know if that actually makes any sense!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u0022bd09fb22e6942988caae19f3a1632681\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bd09fb22e6942988caae19f3a1632681\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (17:23)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. No, I didn\u2019t quite get that, sorry. The question that the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan is asking me is going a little bit further than what\u2019s actually in the bill, and I\u2019m sure that the member could probably Google that question and get the answer to it. What I\u2019m looking to do is ensure that everybody is paid under the same network, which is the Remuneration Authority, rather than the Cabinet Fees Framework, especially in order that, if there are judges on the Parole Board, they do not come under the executive framework, that they come under an independent one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EPart 3 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b2c89c7d8717fb8462b02d6900038b94\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022fe5cac8a23a1e1c96c490296aceea396\u0022\u003EPart 4 Amendments to Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Act 2010\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226a0bd4577ae106325ca24b82871405a4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come to Part 4, the debate on clauses 17 to 39, \u201CAmendments to Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Act 2010\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=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u00227dc302ee737e5861364526a3098b9d54\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227dc302ee737e5861364526a3098b9d54\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (17:24)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. As we move through this Act, I think we\u2019ll probably be through it relatively soon. I want to skip a lot of the technical stuff in the first sections, which appears to be largely wording, and get to new section 73AAA, which is \u201CComplaint against unlicensed persons, etc\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI can certainly understand why there should be a power to make complaints about people who are behaving as if they are licensed security personnel or private investigators. I guess my question, really, relates to subsection (3) of that new section 73AAA, because, under subsection (2), it says that a constable can file a complaint with the authority or another person with the leave of the authority. I can kind of understand why that would be the case, although, in many ways, I\u2019m not even sure that is appropriate\u2014perhaps a justification of why leave is needed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen, in subsection (3), it says the Licensing Authority \u201Cmay\u201D grant leave\u2014I\u00A0emphasise that word on purpose\u2014only if the authority is satisfied the complainant has an interest greater than the general public and that it\u2019s not frivolous or vexatious. I can imagine, if you\u2019re at a pub and someone thinks you\u2019ve misbehaved and you get thrown out and it turns out that the person isn\u2019t a licensed security guard, and they should have been, and they acted inappropriately, you should then be able to complain on the basis that they were acting as a security guard when, in fact, they weren\u2019t a security guard. But, I guess, my real point is this\u2014and it may well be in law that the Licensing Authority is obliged to allow you to complain if you\u2019ve got a legitimate complaint. So, rather than saying that the Licensing Authority \u201Cmay\u201D grant leave, in fact, that shouldn\u2019t be discretionary. The Licencing Authority \u201Cmust\u201D grant leave where it is satisfied that they have a greater than ordinary interest and it\u2019s a legitimate good-faith complaint.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPrivate investigators are another thing: if someone\u2019s conducting themselves and presenting themselves as a private investigator, it gives some sort of authenticity to them. People who then deliver up information to them, thinking they\u2019ve got a legitimate and responsible investigation under way, have, essentially, a right to make that complaint rather than a mere discretionary possibility at the hands of the Licensing Authority. I guess, once again, it\u2019s the question about an administrative discretion going a little bit wide.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI guess my next thread, possibly third thread, is: if they don\u2019t get the right to make that complaint\u2014if they are wrongly refused that right\u2014what can they then do? They are my questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u0022948160a11485ce55c44bc29d3a22da8d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022948160a11485ce55c44bc29d3a22da8d\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (17:27)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. If you\u2019d bear with me, Madam Chair, I actually have an answer which might help the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan. It\u2019ll be very, very quick. I\u2019m told that the Higher Salaries Commission was replaced by the Remuneration Authority, so that might help us with an understanding there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn regard to the member Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s questions, currently, the Licensing Authority cannot explicitly accept complaints about security personnel who are or might be in breach of requirements to hold a licence or certificate of approval under the Act. However, in practice, it does accept those complaints, because this is important to ensure that we keep public confidence in the private security industry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis clause will explicitly confirm the Licensing Authority\u2019s ability to accept those complaints. It will remove any ambiguity and assist the Licencing Authority in carrying out what is its statutory functions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002276bfc1da484faa18283f46701d3b7dae\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005424\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ef1ccbaafe09ba9b56e4bbcc3c52ae3b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Part 4\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002241cb50e59b15dd15ac5dcff4801e053f\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cf6e87d5da9e6684fd28fda152734dc3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, no one called.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022af4a3f42a009dcf3eb783bd9f6473c56\u0022\u003EHon Dr Duncan Webb\u003C/span\u003E: He did.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005428\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022997435e16affaad25131ff24b593c93e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: No, I\u2019m sorry. We went through this yesterday.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c3fa2ffd15c26dd52d932211022416a8\u0022\u003EHon Dr Duncan Webb\u003C/span\u003E: You didn\u2019t look.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e3a977fcaa3dc6fbc206ba66f7640e06\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: No one called with their voice. The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Part 4 set out on Amendment Paper 353 be agreed\u00A0to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 4 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ba1ae55955dc8026a5e80466999e529e\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u002283413c946a333dab8b6a7d136a3fc0fb\u0022\u003EPart 5 Amendments to Unit Titles Act 2010\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005435\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002200daddfd6d9f7267ee19dcb1508d6d48\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we now come to Part 5. Part 5 is the debate on clauses 40 and 41, \u201CAmendments to Unit Titles Act 2010\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=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022f243d063bc9b61397c6a5113c4e5a675\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f243d063bc9b61397c6a5113c4e5a675\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:29)\u003C/span\u003E: With this particular part, I want to check with the Minister in terms of clause 41, section 176 amended. I want to check because, from what I can see in the original version No. 1 of this bill, as well as the departmental report, it is still not entirely clear what is trying to be achieved with this particular clause around unit title disputes. Particularly, I think, the part that says: \u201DWithout limiting subsection (1), rules made\u201D and \u201Dapply in respect of the hearing and determination of a unit title dispute by a Tenancy Tribunal.\u201D So I think, if the Minister wouldn\u2019t mind, just to sort of highlight on this particular part in relation to what we\u2019re seeing in the context of subsection (1), I\u2019m assuming section 176, subsection (1).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u0022e452d8b2e5318227224ccc9209ed6693\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e452d8b2e5318227224ccc9209ed6693\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (17:30)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. The existence of the Residential Tenancy (Unit Title Disputes) Rules 2011, they seem to be currently not very clear and there is some confusion about whether different documents service provisions in another Act should apply. So this proposal will make it clear that the rules exist and apply to how documents should be served for unit title disputes. So this is going to improve clarity and ease the use of the Act. It also makes absolutely no operational changes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u0022b62d1f7fbf7f1ac7f5d1dab820253d53\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b62d1f7fbf7f1ac7f5d1dab820253d53\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (17:31)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m just bringing these unit titles up as we speak, but\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f9ae6b1a9b72bf46bece375de3845086\u0022\u003EHon Phil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: Through a loud voice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005440\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220a415980296bb2fb9dd7a10364fdf1c9\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH\u003C/span\u003E: So I\u2019m using my loud voice; thank you, colleagues, for that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002211c944c17994bfec29ebb55d3202efd1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Can I just make it clear that usually when we start a committee stage, I look to both of\u2014or any Opposition parties that are here. But once we go on, if there\u2019s silence, I\u2019m assuming that no one\u2019s taking the call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022796d558ea416858436964ef707bf4515\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I just had a question around the Unit Titles Act. The unit titles are a part of our residential property system\u2014and obviously the Unit Titles Act is not one of the oldest Acts that we have. But I just wanted to know, in terms of the future of unit titles, you said that there wasn\u2019t anything that was actually changing the substantive policy intent on this, but was there any advice received on whether this would be something that would be more likely to continue as it is into the future, or is there kind of a view around the nature of how unit titles are looked at. The reason I raise this is in Auckland, for example, we had, for a period of time, a number of different legal ways that ownership was recorded within our kind of wider Torrens system that have now kind of fallen out of favour. So the cross-lease system obviously continues and is still something which is a valid form of legal ownership of land, but it has\u2014this is a generalisation\u2014fallen out of favour with the way that the councils have utilised their powers there. In terms of unit titles, I just wanted to know if that was something that had been thought of in terms of updating that piece of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u0022825489dd45cf790d30249686ecafd8a3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022825489dd45cf790d30249686ecafd8a3\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (17:33)\u003C/span\u003E: This particular amendment is purely about making sure that there are clear rules that exist\u2014rules that do apply to how documents are served. This is about, now, that service for the unit titles disputes at the moment is not clear. So all this section is doing is making sure that those that are serving documents under this particular section are very clear about how it is that they are meant to do that. That\u2019s all that I have been advised on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022dc1611ee0d8216b5dd37db15a89dfe10\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dc1611ee0d8216b5dd37db15a89dfe10\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:34)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have one final question on this section, and I thank the Minister for that response. Can I just check, in terms of what the Minister says and the clarity provides, because it makes references to the rules made under section 116 of the Residential Tenancies Act, are those existing rules now applicable here or does it in fact empower this section then to go and make additional rules under section 116 of the Residential Tendencies Act?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u0022a6f828c9d45549717a60490e5d6aa96f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a6f828c9d45549717a60490e5d6aa96f\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (17:34)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s purely saying that there are rules; that there\u2019s currently rules and they must apply.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 5 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005447\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00222eef53e98c7760d9fe1a51e1794ed6d8\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005449\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f9964d0690a00782aef5fe6ee0320def\u0022\u003EClauses 1 and 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005450\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c1a8ab8db8f12b62a84a350c6799902b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to our final debate, clauses 1 and 2, the debate on \u201CTitle\u201D and \u201CCommencement\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022f8c955a819858ab746d6e9ffe7f8b6de\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f8c955a819858ab746d6e9ffe7f8b6de\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:35)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I actually just have a very, very short question for the Minister. I think\u2014if it\u2019s okay with you, Madam Chair\u2014this will apply to this bill and also the next one that we are going to committee stage on, which is around the fact that there has been a delay. Although the commencement date is the day after Royal assent, there has been a delay since when this got reported back from the select committee. I believe, like I mentioned in my second reading, it\u2019s been about 12 months since being reported back from that. Can I just check with any of the changes in this bill particularly, is that something that those various agencies etc., that are responsible for this, are already working towards updating it? Have they updated it and are waiting for it to go live the minute this gets Royal assent, or will they only start to work on some of the additional processes that we\u2019ve mentioned here once it\u2019s gone live? That\u2019s my question on commencement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u00224deaeb1f1b055ec93208cdfc66f56be7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005452\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224deaeb1f1b055ec93208cdfc66f56be7\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (17:36)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, thank you. The commencements are for these five different areas of legislation that are being changed here. I do know that in the following bill that\u2019s going to come, there are different commencement dates. I\u2019ve not been told that there are different dates for these particular five; what I have been told is that the Act will come into force the day after Royal assent. So therefore I would presume that the ministry is all ready to go, and the moment that we get Royal assent we will be able to implement this. One thing I will say: yes, there has been a delay between when this came back from select committee, but I think that speaks very soundly to the large number of bills that this Government is putting through the Justice Committee. In fact, I\u2019m aware that the number of bills that\u2019s gone through the Justice Committee by Minister Goldsmith and myself actually outweighs every other bill that\u2019s gone through every other select committee. So the reason why we have a delay here, even though it\u2019s very important, is it\u2019s a priority.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005454\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005455\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill to be reported with amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00228324bf7de9e10b59c40c070b7da24869\u0022\u003ERegulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00223e0eabc4cdacfa579d28a8c544fecef8\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d3ef2311736afd3a6e6c88c45839972f\u0022\u003EPart 1 Amendments to Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225e10b3a6cc7b4d038586362046a6a46d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we now come to the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill. We begin with the debate on Part 1. Part 1 is the debates on clauses 3 to 11, Amendments to Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. The question is that Part 1 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u0022abbf9bd54c2356248d2e6294ae10abfb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022abbf9bd54c2356248d2e6294ae10abfb\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (17:38)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to open the committee stage of the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill. I\u2019m pleased to say that there was broad support across the House for this bill at second reading, and I look forward to hearing the views of the other parties as we debate the bill. This bill amends the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act, the Prostitution Reform Act, the Real Estate Agents Act, to increase protections for regulated professionals, such as real estate agents, and for consumers of those regulated services. The amendments will, among other things, enable the undertakings or professional commitments of conveyances to be enforced in the High Court in the same way that lawyers\u2019 undertakings are; to remove a disproportionately harsh punishment for real estate agents who failed to complete their continuing professional development or pay their fees on time; and to ensure that the Real Estate Authority has the investigative powers that are required to investigate allegations of unlicensed trading and ensure licensees are meeting their obligations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThese improvements will support the maintenance and continuous improvement of the occupational regulation regimes to ensure that regulated services are performed with reasonable care and skill, and promote and protect the interests of consumers. I also wish to draw to attention my Amendment Paper 636 to the House for consideration during this committee stage. This Amendment Paper makes minor and technical changes to the current drafting in the bill, including an amendment to ensure the policy intent of one of the changes is achieved. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also note that there are two Amendment Papers to this Amendment Paper in regard to clause 25. These are technical amendments. I am hopeful that the parties across the House got a copy of this beforehand\u2014I did ask my office to get it to you. These are minor amendments that were picked up at the very last minute by the Real Estate Authority. They are just technical amendments\u2014wording changes. They thought that they would take the opportunity to get to this while they could, and I can speak more to that once we get to clause 25. In the meantime, I\u2019m happy to take your questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u002297963db5d8949b8bd824c1a8af8707fb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005463\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002297963db5d8949b8bd824c1a8af8707fb\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (17:40)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I know the Minister for Courts was in the House at the second reading, so she knows, essentially, what I\u2019m going to say. I will just ask one question at a time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy first question is about undertakings by conveyancing practitioners. This is clearly a very good reform, because if you are going to do conveyancing on an even par with lawyers, you need to have enforceable undertakings. The question is whether we\u2019ve now got a second-rate undertaking regime because of subsection (1) of new section 38A, inserted by clause 5, which says, \u201CAn affected person may make an application for summary judgment in relation to an undertaking\u201D. It just strikes me that it should simply say, \u201CAn affected person may make an application to the High Court in relation to an undertaking given by a conveyancing practitioner\u201D, because summary judgments are a kind of particular form of proceeding where there is no oral evidence. In fact, if you are seeking to enforce a solicitor\u2019s undertaking, you\u2019re actually relying on the inherent jurisdiction of the court to discipline solicitors, who are in fact officers of the court. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I accept that conveyancing practitioners simply don\u2019t neatly fit into that, but I would have thought that by saying \u201Cundertakings by conveyancers are enforceable\u201D and \u201Cthe application to enforce them may be made to the High Court\u201D, that would have been all you\u2019ll need. Now you\u2019ve got to have this unusual procedure, and I guess the challenge is\u2014because summary judgment application is in fact an application which says, \u201CLook, it\u2019s obvious we don\u2019t need to go to full trial; we can do a quick-fire procedure\u201D. If you lose that, it then usually turns into an ordinary proceeding in which you then go and have a full trial. It\u2019s actually unclear, and it\u2019s just unclear to me why summary judgment was thought as appropriate. Here are two questions: why isn\u2019t it just \u201Capply to the High Court\u201D, and what happens if you do this and you lose your summary judgment application?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u00221fdbd5bff9b27c6c5d5a3766ab99b390\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221fdbd5bff9b27c6c5d5a3766ab99b390\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (17:43)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I understand that the member was not on this particular Education and Workforce Committee, so I appreciate the question. I hope I can answer it well enough.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe amendment will enable conveyancers\u2019 undertakings to be summarily enforceable in the High Court, similar to how lawyers\u2019 undertakings are currently. I understand that registered conveyancers transact around 280 purchases annually. For each one of these transactions, conveyancers pay up to $500 in additional solicitor costs as a direct result of banks refusing to instruct conveyancers, and these costs are passed on to the consumers. The change in this clause will improve the confidence of banks, lawyers, and consumers to work with conveyancers and bring down the costs for consumers. I also note that this amendment was strongly supported by submitters at the select committee stage. This will help give effect to the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act, which had the aim of increasing competition for conveyancing services and driving conveyancing costs down. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u0022d04bc03276a15e37ac5875a0898a2553\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d04bc03276a15e37ac5875a0898a2553\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (17:44)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, look, I got all that. I basically said that at the beginning when I outlined what an undertaking was, and those are great notes written by officials, but the question is this: why does it say that they must take a summary judgment application and not an ordinary application, and if it has to be a summary application, what happens if they lose that summary judgment application?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022 data-id=\u002208518f916066bb8a92dfe7019a766571\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002208518f916066bb8a92dfe7019a766571\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B) (17:45)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m very keen to hear an answer to the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s question about why the provisions in this bill, essentially, provide a sort of second-rate or lightweight option for people who want to enforce the undertakings given by a conveyancer. That hasn\u2019t been answered, and as someone who was on the Education and Workforce Committee\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005470\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226c199aeedfe5fbbbde75ef91818df180\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I think Dr Webb\u2019s also waiting for the answer to a question, and the Minister is taking advice, so does the member have a further\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fd982a52293375438b1927c4f3b2bc5f\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: Yes\u2014as someone who was on the committee, I would say that this matter was never raised by the officials, by submitters, or by any of the committee members, so I\u2019m glad that Duncan Webb has raised it at this time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI wanted to ask some questions. Assuming that this matter can be resolved\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cc05b06f1344bcc20e5103d0dd3548b3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, we\u2019ll just wait for an answer on this matter. Move on, and then we can come back.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229ddf4035b348297a0873c1cd5cc8aedc\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: You want to wait for the answer? OK, sure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a3603b421098cbf2395a104afd31d419\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: No, I\u2019m happy for you to keep going.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022161f719a73e10204f29cacbd146be5db\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: OK. Assuming that that matter can be adequately answered, I\u2019m interested in what thought the Minister for Courts has given to monitoring whether banks will alter their practice following the commencement of this provision, given that we\u2019re trying to improve confidence in conveyancers\u2019 undertakings; whether there\u2019s been any estimate made of the reduction in settlement delays or transaction costs that are likely as a result of this change; and whether or not there will be any operational guidance provided to practitioners or to lenders if this provision enters the law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u00224bc97d4102b1229f28f0d21be943e93c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224bc97d4102b1229f28f0d21be943e93c\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (17:47)\u003C/span\u003E: I do not know the answer to the members\u2019 questions, and the officials have advised me that they don\u2019t have an answer to that either, because this is a minor change that relates specifically to new section 38A, which is being inserted here by clause 5. The question that\u2019s being asked is talking about hypothetical situations that have not been considered when just trying to progress through what would be a standard, minor, technical-type change to this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe members are asking legal questions about what if or why would we not do it somewhere else. The reality is that we have been asked to\u2014the Government is looking to progress changes in this area in this way, and I have detailed the reasoning for that. I\u2019m not in a position to be able to answer extended questions, because they actually don\u2019t relate to what it is that we\u2019re trying to change right here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u0022858dd589adcd2457d0a535e0ffbb38e9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022858dd589adcd2457d0a535e0ffbb38e9\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (17:48)\u003C/span\u003E: I must say, I find it extraordinary that on a question about why a summary judgment procedure was adopted and not an ordinary procedure, which is the wording of the legislation, why officials can\u2019t answer that beggars belief. If they came here today thinking that this was a formality, well, they\u2019ve got the wrong end of the stick. It might be late in urgency, but we expect the Government to be able to answer questions and justify their position. The fact that it went through a select committee process is neither here nor there; this is the committee stage of the House of Representatives, so I hope I\u2019ll get a better response when I talk about new section 135A, inserted by clause 7. Again, I raised these questions at second reading on purpose. I thought, \u201CIf I raise it here, at least officials will get an hour or so\u2019s notice so that they will know it will be raised at committee stage, and they won\u2019t be caught by surprise and be ferreting around.\u201D My question is about section 135A, which allows complaints about lawyers to be summarily dismissed by a Law Society administrator where they are trivial, vexatious, or stale, or on a number of other grounds. My question, fundamentally, is this: if we\u2019re going to have an administrative shutting-down of complaints against lawyers, what is the recourse for that person to have that decision reviewed?  Can they ask either the standards committee to have a look at it or the Legal Complaints Review Officer to have a look at it? Or will they be forced to clog up the high courts by taking it on judicial review?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, can I say I support this reform intent\u2014that is to say that complaints that are clearly meritless should be able to be turned away at the first point of contact, where otherwise they would clog up the select committee system, which is a body of six or seven or more people, including lawyers. But they make mistakes. These are not lawyers, necessarily\u2014they may be, but they don\u2019t have to be\u2014but they are, ultimately, part of the internal administrative machinery of the Law Society and they should be subject to some oversight. Look, in terms of the law, I know what the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act says: you can seek a review from the Legal Complaints Review Officer for a standards committee decision, not an internal Law Society administrative decision. So we\u2019ve got a problem. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI hope the Minister isn\u2019t going to say, \u201CWill there be another administrative review?\u201D because that is just giving two problems of the same kind. I do think that there\u2019s a lack here; this section should have said that: \u201Cthe complainant can seek a review by the standards committee of that decision.\u201D Now, it would still go to the standards committee, and I accept that, but it still acts as an effective filter for 80 or 90\u00A0percent of these meritless claims. It\u2019s also the case that some of these claims thought to be meritless, may not be. The administrator may make mistakes, and we need to have an ability for that review process. And, as I said in the second reading, telling someone who is a problematic or querulous complainant or a vexatious complainant that they have no merit, they\u2019re a waste of time, and their vexatious, and we\u2019re not even going to look at your complaint, we\u2019re not even going to send it to the committee of lawyers, is the first way to really upset them. I know from experience that these people will not give up and they will go to the highest level and clog up our higher courts if we don\u2019t give them a safety valve within in the process itself. So I hope we\u2019ve got some better advice on this question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u0022707f13b9081473b8855ef946883ef86a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022707f13b9081473b8855ef946883ef86a\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (17:52)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. One thing I\u2019m going to start off by saying is I do not, in any way, appreciate that member attacking the officials who work really hard to do the work that this Government asks them to do, especially the sheer volume of work that this Government has put through them. I would expect that member to stand up and apologise to the officials for what he has said about them, because if that member wants to say anything, you should be saying it to me and leave the officials out, because that, I think, is a very low blow.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWe are looking at these minor changes, and the member is asking for information that goes outside of that and the consequences that goes outside of that, from officials who do not have that information.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005484\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e81f49476ba42fd115a8884146223a20\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s not his fault you don\u2019t know. For goodness\u2019 sake!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002225b2badbbe7c739afe5d4a96515b5fd9\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE\u003C/span\u003E: And it\u2019s not their fault.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022 data-id=\u0022b446c1d5ff9e326cccea470bfd15f77d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b446c1d5ff9e326cccea470bfd15f77d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger) (17:53)\u003C/span\u003E: OK. I don\u2019t think we\u2019re going to go into a slanging match between everybody. What Dr Duncan Webb actually said was he was surprised, given the time that had passed, that he\u2019s unable to get the answer that he wanted in that time frame. Now, we\u2019re going to give the Minister an opportunity to say what she was going to say at this point in time. In the absence of an answer, we\u2019re not at the end of this committee stage and we still have some time in the dinner break, but bearing in mind that written questions are an option but can only be asked about policy intent and they can\u2019t go for legal opinion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ESo let\u2019s just work this through. I know that Dr Webb was looking for time before and we may be able to get some time here. We may or may not get an answer. I can\u2019t guarantee that the answer that the member\u2019s looking for will come, but this is where we are.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u0022a61ee814798770b980434fc7b5fef4ab\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a61ee814798770b980434fc7b5fef4ab\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (17:54)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m going to go through parts of clause 6 and clause 7 in an attempt to answer some of that member\u2019s questions. With clause 6, which is amending section 135(1), this is introducing the discretion for the Law Society\u2019s complaint service to refer those complaints to the standards committee in clause 6, and it will enable the triage process, that has been introduced by clause 7 of this bill. The assessment grounds for the triaging would be the same grounds by the standards committee when they are considering complaints. The triaging decisions\u2014the change was supported by submitters, although some suggested that the triaging criteria for the standards committee should come with a right of review. The review and appeal rights are not provided in similar triaging decisions of comparable regulatory bodies such as the Teaching Council, for example. I don\u2019t think review in this case is necessary or appropriate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ECreating a right of review would shift current inefficiencies to an earlier part of the process. If a complainant was to seek a review of the triaging decision, they would need to apply for a judicial review\u2014I know the members spoke about that just before. That is, however, thought to be an appropriate pathway. The Government is confident that the Law Society will have appropriate guidance and policy in place to make well-judged positions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226b6dd871ece59f4ea9ec07b049bf2e67\u0022\u003EHon Phil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002254281971224b7e27896b2f9e46c75b09\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: If there\u2019s a clarification on this, I\u2019ll take it before the dinner break. If it\u2019s a new question\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d3d4af47dee9a5e446bcabc6943acb46\u0022\u003EHon Phil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s not a new\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db06b09eafa939164359edfef6502811\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014it\u2019s not a new question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022 data-id=\u0022e639181a058571dd6b8c160880ab21ad\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e639181a058571dd6b8c160880ab21ad\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B) (17:56)\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister think that judicial review is appropriately affordable and accessible for ordinary citizens who might find themselves in a dispute with the Law Society over the handling of a complaint?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u0022c3de33a7a16992fd37e89a668b9c6253\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c3de33a7a16992fd37e89a668b9c6253\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (17:57)\u003C/span\u003E: Whether it\u2019s affordable or accessible will come down to the individual and their case. What it is, for that member, is a pathway.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005496\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fcf1eba89565b8dee6a2f4981106f41b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the time has come to break for dinner. The committee will resume at 7 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005497\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterItalicsCentred\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005498\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220f47a6667dc0fa984a1d15b5f99071ac\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The House is resumed. Members, before the dinner break, the committee was debating Part 1 of the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 11, \u201CAmendments to Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006\u201D. The question, again, is that Part 1 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u0022c484652ba3569c93aef41006cf3364d1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c484652ba3569c93aef41006cf3364d1\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (19:00)\u003C/span\u003E: In answer to the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s thoughts earlier, over the dinner break I have had this from my officials: currently the affected person must enforce an undertaking through a separate proceeding in tort, contract, or estoppel, or, alternatively, a deed of undertaking that would need to be relied on, providing the process for enforcing breaches summarily will be simpler and more efficient for the affected person, and use less court and judicial resources. This will extend the range of pathways available to pursue breaches. The change will also improve the confidence of banks to rely on undertakings from conveyancers. If an unaffected person is unsuccessful with their application for summary judgment, the usual court processes apply. If the Hon Dr Duncan Webb is happy with that answer, I implore him to come back down to the Chamber and apologise to the officials that he abused before he left.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022 data-id=\u0022c9dedab167b804c38fb17f68eb14fca7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005500\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c9dedab167b804c38fb17f68eb14fca7\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B) (19:01)\u003C/span\u003E: On clauses 6 and 7, the administrative triaging that we were talking about before the break, I wanted to know from the Minister what consideration she\u2019s given to the trade-off of efficiency against public confidence, in light of the exchange we had earlier in the select committee and now in the Chamber. We support administrative triaging, but I think these are real questions that arise from some of the evidence that we had at the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005501\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe Law Society and the Law Association are obviously strongly in favour of this, but they would be because they have a direct benefit, a direct gain, from the efficiency that this will deliver. But not everyone agreed. One submitter argued that complaints should never be dismissed administratively, that there should be some form of independent review, and that concepts such as \u201Cfrivolous\u201D and \u201Cvexatious\u201D required greater definition. Now, ultimately the officials and the committee rejected those recommendations, but I would like to know from the Minister whether or not she has considered the possible lack of public confidence in a process that is, effectively, as was characterised earlier, an administrative employee having the ability to, basically, knock these complaints out with no real accessible right of review other than a judicial review.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u0022668edb0c39a20d5103b51371f16a0fb4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005502\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022668edb0c39a20d5103b51371f16a0fb4\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (19:03)\u003C/span\u003E: Do I have confidence that this is the right way forward? Yes, because the advice that I\u2019ve been given says that. As I mentioned before we went to the dinner break, the Government is confident that the Law Society will have appropriate guidance and policy in place to make well-judged decisions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also mentioned the assessment grounds for triaging would be the same grounds used by the Lawyers Standards Committee when considering complaints, and they are also set out in section 138 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act, \u201CDecision to take no action on complaint\u201D. I\u2019m just going to go through those grounds very quickly. These grounds are from subsections (1)(a) to (f), paragraph (a) being \u201Cthe length of time that has elapsed between the date [and] subject matter of complaint \u2026 or (b) the subject matter of the complaint [being] trivial; or (c) the complaint [being] frivolous or vexatious or is not made in good faith; or (d) the person alleged to be aggrieved does not desire the action be taken or, as the case may be, continued; or (e) the complainant does not have sufficient personal interest in the subject matter of the complaint; or (f) there is \u2026 another adequate remedy or right of appeal\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, with these grounds that have been met, I think it very clearly sets out what those boundaries are before you get to that point of judicial review. So, yes, I do have confidence that I believe that we are on the right pathway here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022 data-id=\u0022a7b7472495e62010ac096b879392430e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005505\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a7b7472495e62010ac096b879392430e\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B) (19:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Minister. Further to that, does she expect that the Law Society will be transparent about the handling of complaints under this new mechanism? For example, is there any expectation that they will publish annual statistics showing the number of complaints received, the number triaged, the grounds relied upon, and the complaints referred to the standards committees? Is there any expectation that there will be an ongoing audit to ensure that the triage decisions are being made consistently?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u0022bc2aa3c7c38d19a376a4004c775b7db9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bc2aa3c7c38d19a376a4004c775b7db9\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (19:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Because this is a regulatory standards bill, which is looking to make just small and minor amendments, we have not gone into every single clause with what is expected of organisations such as the Law Society, but one would hope that we need to get into a position where there is transparency across agencies, whether they be Government agencies or not, in order for the public to have confidence. So one would encourage transparency from all organisations that need to implement the law in some way or another. How they go about doing that, though, is up to them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022a50b31679672e0fc3ef6dc11adafca92\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005507\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a50b31679672e0fc3ef6dc11adafca92\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (19:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for that response, Minister, and I do appreciate the Minister for going over some of the questions, for a more detailed response, over dinner. That\u2019s very much appreciated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005508\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBefore dinner, Minister, you mentioned something around the changes we\u2019re seeing both in terms of clause 8 but also in terms of clauses 5 and 7 around the guidelines that are going to be developed. Some of the guidelines have been developed alongside this, and this is also something we\u2019ve seen from the submitters as well that is very much welcomed, but then there needs to be further guidelines on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005509\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to check with the Minister whether this is something, again, as we\u2019re seeing with this particular bill, with some of these new additions like undertaking to be enforceable\u2014whether either the Ministry of Justice or the appropriate, I guess, collective agency committee have already started working on some of those guidelines that the Minister referred to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u00225f4fdd19211a1a668c3e6a5568d01e0f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005510\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225f4fdd19211a1a668c3e6a5568d01e0f\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (19:07)\u003C/span\u003E: My purpose here is to do some small technical amendments. Guidelines is not something that is under my purview, but if you\u2019re going to have any implementation work correctly or work well, you would expect an agency or organisation to be able to get that information out to the users in order for them to be able to work efficiently. But the creation of guidelines is not under my purview.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022 data-id=\u0022bc00117367d62df1ebf0d9bc7952f2d5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005511\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bc00117367d62df1ebf0d9bc7952f2d5\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North) (19:08)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Can I just ask a question of the Minister that relates to clause 7; this is in relation to new section 135A. The Minister has identified that in terms of the ability to either take no action\u2014it seems to me that there are only two options, either for a referral of the complaint for further consideration or indeed no action. Now, the Minister has identified those particular specific criteria that relate to no action. One of them is in relation, it seems, to time; the period of time that\u2019s elapsed. In a circumstance where there is an active referral that\u2019s being considered, obviously one wants to, potentially, in the interests of natural justice, reach a conclusion at a time that is sufficient and not sort of drawn out so much.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005512\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWhen the Minister identifies the length of time that has elapsed between the date on which the matter of the complaint arose and the date that the actual complaint was made, where in the scheme of things is the quantum of time set in terms of action being taken around what the next step is? So it\u2019s not about the amount of time from actually receiving the complaint, but the period of time from when the complaint is received and when the next step to either refer it or otherwise is taken.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u0022acf60d1a2fbcbc0fd044ff002c07589d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005513\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022acf60d1a2fbcbc0fd044ff002c07589d\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (19:09)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I am advised that the length of time that has elapsed between the date of when the subject matter of the complaint arose and the date of when the complaint was made is such that an investigation of the complaint is no longer practicable or desirable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022443f23de4cbd464f91833e6c466c98c0\u0022 data-id=\u00229da16e65800eb5a16f45a258deae0be6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005514\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022443f23de4cbd464f91833e6c466c98c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229da16e65800eb5a16f45a258deae0be6\u0022\u003ETODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (19:09)\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=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022 data-id=\u0022bfd586251310ab84d9e3825e801ed11f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005515\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bfd586251310ab84d9e3825e801ed11f\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North) (19:10)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the Minister for her answer. In terms of being practicable, what sorts of factors would lend themselves to that consideration? It is quite a significant thing as to whether a complaint is heading down that path of referral or not. When she says practicability, practicableness, what sort of things is she envisaging? I know that, in terms of providing some guidance around what that might mean, it would be important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u002257057873f7da585fefdce91bfde84660\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005516\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002257057873f7da585fefdce91bfde84660\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (19:10)\u003C/span\u003E: As I mentioned before, it is not for me to issue what that guidance is. What is practicable or desirable will come down to those that need to make those decisions, based on the cases that are before them. My role here is to make minor and technical amendments to law in order for them to operate well. The question that I am now being asked is almost a type of operational question which I have no control over.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022 data-id=\u0022dc074984a588c955893d3f42a5faac5f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005517\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dc074984a588c955893d3f42a5faac5f\u0022\u003ETOM RUTHERFORD (National\u2014Bay of Plenty) (19:11)\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005518\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005519\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005520\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005521\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 46\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005522\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005523\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005524\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005525\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b2d149e0d91968a9ee0a0e353aa9e11d\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022bdbed7172d6074f2b690378eec0c7854\u0022\u003EPart 2 Amendments to Prostitution Reform Act 2003\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005527\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cd628703337f396b1909e05e8910955e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 12 and 13, \u201CAmendments to Prostitution Reform Act 2003\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=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u002224a2940955701a8b8ab731be68298037\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005528\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002224a2940955701a8b8ab731be68298037\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (19:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I just have a short question for the Minister for Part 2, clause 13, \u201CSection 36 amended\u201D, noting that the current section 36 of this particular Act, \u201CDisqualification from holding certificate\u201D, already has burglary, robbery, extortion/blackmail, and money-laundering within that. Can I just check this is simply because the section numbers have changed around, and this is just to update the section numbers?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u002252c8c92244c2a5a79d806544036c8661\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005529\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002252c8c92244c2a5a79d806544036c8661\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (19:13)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for his question. Section 36 of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 lists quite a wide range of offences, and many of them are out of date. They haven\u2019t been updated since 2003. The amendment updates to the Prostitution Reform Act also correct out-of-date sections that are in the Crimes Act 1961 and also the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. We\u2019re basically just updating, adding to those, and updating those references to those particular two bills.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022 data-id=\u0022bbabae7faca7b39a347ed7fe64febe43\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005530\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bbabae7faca7b39a347ed7fe64febe43\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North) (19:13)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Thanks to the Minister for that. In light of that response, these regulatory bills don\u2019t come around that often, but when they do, they span quite widely. Is she confident that this process has captured all of the relevant updates in relation to the Prostitution Reform Act? It is a piece of legislation that\u2019s been around for more than 20 years. Is she comfortable that there are no further other options that might need to be addressed?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u00228d5eadcec45ef42ef43706192a93cba4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005531\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228d5eadcec45ef42ef43706192a93cba4\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (19:14)\u003C/span\u003E: At this stage, the answer to that is yes. This change is about ensuring that the Act is not only up to date but it still sticks with its original policy intent as well. Correctly referencing the relevant offence provisions that are in the Crimes Act 1961 and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 will ensure that the correct disqualifying factors are applied in that licensing process. At this stage, I do believe that we have caught up, so to speak.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EPart 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022afd6b5069019a0d406a979b8e5d4e98b\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u00220fdf9ab80175bf4652965cc8855bbeb8\u0022\u003EPart 3 Amendments to Real Estate Agents Act 2008\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005535\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224278c5d0e6c7f1dfe8db8a126ec1bdb6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we now come to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 14 to 36, \u201CAmendments to Real Estate Agents Act 2008\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=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00223fe26c59f12dcfcc97a9593a6b0c4954\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005536\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223fe26c59f12dcfcc97a9593a6b0c4954\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (19:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Part 3 is, as far as this bill goes, the most substantial part of this bill. It is also the part with the Minister\u2019s amendment, which I\u2019ll come to shortly, because I do have a few questions on the Minister\u2019s amendment, but I\u2019m not quite at clause 25 just yet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005537\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy first two questions are for clause 18. The first one is clause 18(2), replacing section 13(4)(b). This is the new criteria that\u2019s been added in terms of the membership of the authority. I\u2019m guessing it\u2019s just simply moving what is in subclause (1) to a different area, I guess\u2014is that what is being done there?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005538\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second question I have is\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005539\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aa4bf931779018e49dbbb2baa3b41625\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Could you repeat the clause again, sorry?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221fd5f1283193618c6e1334724fb0e229\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: OK. I will restart, very briefly. Clause 18(1), which is deleting \u201Cand that member must be a lawyer of not less than 7 years\u2019 legal experience\u201D\u2014is that just simply moving that into a different section, which is now 13(4)(b), being my first question, and are there any implications with that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe second one is the repeal of section 13(5)\u2014again, I don\u2019t think this is something we looked at specifically, and it\u2019s not in version one of this bill\u2014which is consultation with the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand (REINZ). Can I just check with the Minister: why do REINZ no longer need to be consulted? That\u2019s the part that\u2019s being repealed in clause 18(3). Does REINZ even still exist?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u0022d10b65bca4ddbf4b0b3c07811c3e3915\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005542\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d10b65bca4ddbf4b0b3c07811c3e3915\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (19:17)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. At the moment, the chairperson of the board needs to be a lawyer with not less than seven years\u2019 experience. What we\u2019re doing is replacing section 13(4) with a new provision that requires at least one of the members of the board to be a lawyer with at least seven years\u2019 experience. Effectively, what we\u2019re saying is it doesn\u2019t have to be the chair that has that, but somebody on the board has to have that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe reasoning for that is it\u2019s actually really hard to find a lawyer with seven years\u2019 experience who wants to put their hand up to be here. In fact, I would like to do a bit of a shout-out to the current member, because the chair with seven years\u2019 experience at the moment actually wants to resign and hasn\u2019t been able to do so because we can\u2019t replace that person with another lawyer. We\u2019re, effectively, saying someone on the board, please have seven years\u2019 experience\u2014well, you\u2019re going to need to have seven years\u2019 experience, but you don\u2019t need to be the chair. The chair just needs to have a year\u2019s legal experience.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022b1b7a1f8abd50fd824b54d8000554561\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b1b7a1f8abd50fd824b54d8000554561\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (19:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you for that, Minister. I will move on to clause 19. Clause 19 is also the part where the select committee has actually made some changes around the power to require specified documents. I just want to check in this section, when we are looking at that\u2014and I believe I\u2019m looking at clause 19, new section 24A(2). In that\u2014yes, it is (2). Can I just check that still allows for the contravention, for example, which is not listed in (1), around things like privacy, etc.? Just checking that the authority, when requesting \u201Cany person to supply the Authority with any specified document\u201D, is also exempted from certain other principles, like the information privacy principles, for example.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u00221405c4649514263060661529c31cd196\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005545\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221405c4649514263060661529c31cd196\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (19:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Clause 19 actually makes a few new subsections. The member mentioned 24A(2), but there\u2019s also 24A(3) and 24A(4). What I think I might do is just talk to the changes that we\u2019re making all together. The Real Estate Authority has limited ability at the moment to gather information to support any investigations into breaches of the Act, regulations, or practice rules, and into unlicensed trading. This clause, clause 19, which is inserting the whole of new section 24A, establishes a new power to require documents from licensees and other individuals to facilitate those investigations that they wish to undertake. This change will enable the regulator to better fulfil its functions and better support the consumer protection purpose that is within this Act. The provision is complemented by the introduction of an offence for failure to comply with such a request. We do that in clause 28, with the maximum penalties of $50,000 for a company and $10,000 for an individual. I will just point out, too, that those penalties are consistent with other similar offences in the Real Estate Agents Act. I\u2019ll just throw that in there while I can.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005546\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe select committee did make some recommendations, including amending clause 19 to clarify that the Real Estate Authority must have reasonable grounds to believe to initiate the power. It also recommended amending the test for exercising the power to make it consistent with the exercise of other existing powers by the authority under the Act. These changes also make it clear that the reasonable grounds to believe applies to situations involving a licensee\u2019s conduct, not only a person who may be engaging in unlicensed trading. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005547\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe select committee, at this clause, also recommended amending the scope of the authority\u2019s ability to require documentation so it could be applied to any person. This ensures that the relevant documentation could be obtained from any parties that may not be involved in illegal activity but who may have relevant information about others. Then, new section 24A(4) has been inserted to clarify that people or organisations can only be required to supply a specified document that is or has been in their possession or in their control. So, for the member, clause 19 and new section 24A and its insertion really is about providing the authority with that ability to be able to get that information in the best way that they can in order to make their judgments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022 data-id=\u002245bc1520180970af3b9882ccf988afc9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005548\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002245bc1520180970af3b9882ccf988afc9\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B) (19:22)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Further on clause 19, I thought it might be worth noting for the committee that the Law Association supported the objective of this section\u2014of strengthening investigations\u2014but it did raise a number of concerns, including the breadth of the power, the threshold for issuing notices, and privacy implications. The Privacy Commissioner came along to the committee and also accepted that there was a sound policy basis for the investigative power to require documents but stressed that it should be accompanied by appropriate limits, particularly in relation to the later use and disclosure of personal information obtained under this new power.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005549\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAs the Minister pointed out, the committee did strengthen the threshold for reasonable belief, but I don\u2019t think you could say that the committee actually accepted the other proposals that were made by the Privacy Commissioner\u2014for example, around what operational guidance would be provided, the privacy concerns, and reporting and transparency. I want to ask the Minister: why did the Government conclude that the existing safeguards in the bill are sufficient, given that critique by the Privacy Commissioner? The Privacy Commissioner supported the proposal only on the basis that there would be appropriate limits on subsequent use and disclosure of personal information. Where are the safeguards? What limits are there? It\u2019s not clear to me, so I\u2019d be interested to know from her where those safeguards are, if they do exist. Finally, in this contribution: does she expect that the authority will publish operational guidance governing the use of these powers that they\u2019re been given?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u0022b3aba0d896cf1efd74ac0cecfe8a1654\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005550\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b3aba0d896cf1efd74ac0cecfe8a1654\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (19:24)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. What I have been advised is that this particular provision of this clause will come into effect eight months after the Royal assent of the bill, giving sufficient time for the agency to be able to prepare what I would expect to be guidance to those, because there is a bit of a change here. The delay of that eight months after Royal assent for implementation of this, I believe, would be in order for them to be able to get the House in order and ensure that everybody understands what their obligations will be; perhaps guidelines, as well. As I\u2019ve mentioned earlier, I\u2019m a big fan of transparency and I would explicitly hope that those that have to abide by this will understand exactly what it is that they need to abide by. It\u2019s not a place to put those details into this form of legislation, but one would expect that if people are going to abide by the laws, they need to understand what those parameters are.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022337135396618cc58a121d117a31fe97c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022337135396618cc58a121d117a31fe97c\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (19:25)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for that response, Minister. I think my colleague Phil Twyford may have additional questions for clause 19, but I want to ask a question around clause 20, just noting to you, as well, Minister, that I may have a follow-up question on this once we get to the commencement part, which I don\u2019t think I want to discuss at this stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe only question I have for this section\u2014this is the part that, from our perspective, we had the greatest issues around, but then we have, like I said, had some of these being teased out during the select committee stage. Looking at it again, one of the things I want to check is about clause 20, \u201CSection 36 amended\u201D, subclause (2), inserting new paragraph (f), in the case of an individual whose licence was cancelled and is applying for a licence within 12 months\u2014they\u2019ve completed that. But, let\u2019s say, should a person complete any required continued education within 12 months but they didn\u2019t apply for a licence or re-licence within that 12-month period, are they again no longer eligible, as well? Is the criteria that you have to apply for it within 12 months, not the continued education part?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u0022d9bced85c4f6d2f4ab7556871c362724\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005553\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d9bced85c4f6d2f4ab7556871c362724\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (19:27)\u003C/span\u003E: My  understanding is that we have a series of real estate agents that have a qualification, and we have a series of older real estate agents who actually aren\u2019t qualified, but they have a whole lifetime of experience. The requirements when people reapply is that they need to have a qualification, and we\u2019re ensuring that those that don\u2019t have the qualification but have adequate experience don\u2019t miss out on continuing their job.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005554\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ENow, that 12-month delay that is allowed actually came about as a result of Cyclone Gabrielle. It was a time when people had other things going on, and they couldn\u2019t put in their application. When we think about natural disasters, of which we\u2019re having a few in New Zealand, we need to be mindful that people just actually might not be able to get in and do their application at the time when they need to. There\u2019s two things going on there: one is allowing those without qualifications but with experience to carry on; and the other is, with that 12-month extension, allowing those in predicaments to actually have that bit of extended time to apply.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00221f95c04fc8825306eff648bd752bea70\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005555\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221f95c04fc8825306eff648bd752bea70\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (19:29)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you for that, Mr Chair. Thank you for that, Minister. That actually does answer my question, because I did wonder where the 12 months came about, and force majeure happens, events happen, and I think that\u2019s reasonable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m actually, if it\u2019s OK, going to move on to\u2014and other members may have questions in between\u2014the Minister\u2019s Amendment Paper 636 but also the two tabled amendments that are on that amendment. The question I have for the Amendment Paper is: when you look at new clause 25, \u201CSection 54 amended\u201D, the \u201CCancellation of licence\u201D, in terms of the specific phrasing, it states, \u201Cis convicted \u2026 of a crime \u2026 involving dishonesty\u201D, etc., and what we see in new section 54 (i)(i) and in new section 54 (i)(iii) and (iv)\u2014 I\u2019ve actually seen that in some of the other legislation as well. Is that just simply updating this part that\u2019s sort of recently been captured in this bill and updating it to be consistent with some of the things I see already in other legislation, being my first question. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005557\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy second question is around the Minister\u2019s two tabled amendments. On the first, I thank the Minister for actually communicating with us ahead of time with these ones and with a little bit of explanation for both. I think the amendment itself looks fine, but I was more interested in a process question, which I believe, in the correspondence, it talked about this coming from the Real Estate Authority quite late and they only just picked up on it. I want to check, in terms of the process for such tabled amendments, is it that the authority would contact the Minister and the Minister saying, \u201CThese are some amendments.\u201D, then the Minister contacts either the Parliamentary Counsel Office or the officials and going like, \u201CDoes this look OK?\u201D, and then it goes into a tabled amendment? I just want to check, do officials need to being involved in any other process? Because I assume that the authority is not the officials.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u0022cd2041fafa7e1804e1a663d63357bde8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cd2041fafa7e1804e1a663d63357bde8\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (19:31)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019ll start off with just talking about the first Amendment Paper in the way that it relates to clause 21. With the main Amendment Paper\u2014Amendment Paper 636\u2014it adjusts this clause to align with new section 54(i)(ii), which was added by the Amendment Paper, and then the member\u2019s not actually asking me about the two Amendment Papers to the Amendment Paper, but rather the process of it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005559\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe way that it has operated is that my understanding is the Real Estate Authority, last minute, just went through and started having a look at the bill and the Amendment Paper and then realised very quickly, and at the last minute, that a clause had dropped off. I think that was section 54, which we are putting in there now\u2014section 54(k), going by memory. That had accidentally been deleted, and nobody had picked that up. The officials were contacted by the Real Estate Authority, not my ministerial office. The Real Estate Authority went straight to the officials. The officials would in turn have gone to the Parliamentary Counsel Office to check, is that a drafting error, which it was confirmed, and then it was put back in as section 54(k). \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOf course, they then found the other one\u2014section 54(i)(v)\u2014as well, which is just a small amendment that they also picked up at the time that they were going through. I do appreciate that it is late notice, but I also appreciate the fact that the Real Estate Authority did find this and it\u2019s not something we will then have to add into another regulatory standards bill in the future or next term. We were just taking the opportunity to fix that, and again, my appreciation to the Real Estate Authority for picking it up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002288978fb9592a4911a8e47eae04d164f3\u0022 data-id=\u0022199e7a1dbf65f4db2a7e17f42ba037be\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002288978fb9592a4911a8e47eae04d164f3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022199e7a1dbf65f4db2a7e17f42ba037be\u0022\u003EDr VANESSA WEENINK (National\u2014Banks Peninsula) (19:33)\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=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022 data-id=\u002299d69d842f1d999dcf647af442b198f9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002299d69d842f1d999dcf647af442b198f9\u0022\u003EHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour\u2014Mana) (19:33)\u003C/span\u003E: Thak you, Mr Chair. Just wanting to take a question in relation to the Minister for Courts\u2019 Amendments Paper 636, specifically clause 25, which amends the provisions around the cancellation of licence. I\u2019m not quite sure whether the changes in the cancellation of licence actually would fit within the scope of a regulatory systems bill given, actually, it\u2019s bringing in other clauses to cancel a licence. For example, obviously, with regulatory systems bills, they\u2019re usually just technical changes. However, the new clause brings in a whole series of different ways that the cancellation of a licence can be undertaken.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005563\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EUnder section 54 of the Real Estate Agents Act right now, a registrar can cancel the person\u2019s licence if they die, which makes sense obviously; if the person gives written notice to the registrar, which, obviously, if they\u2019ve given up doing real estate; if the person has failed to maintain the prescribed qualification\u2014that\u2019s good, they\u2019ve got to keep their qualifications to maintain their licence; if the person has failed to complete any continuing education\u2014obviously, there\u2019s professional development requirements as part of that; a couple of other sections\u2014section 99 and section 110\u2014in accordance of those; if the licence was granted on the basis of any false or fraudulent representation or declaration made orally or in writing; or if the person has failed to pay any prescribed fees or levies. Other than section 54(g), I can kind of understand where the insertions under the Minister\u2019s Amendment Papers, which is around false or fraudulent representation, kind of still fits within that scheme. Hence why I think, perhaps, this is why it\u2019s been allowed under the regulatory systems amendment bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005564\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut specifically, my questions for the Minister are in section 54(i)(ii)\u2014\u201Cif, during the term of the licence, the person is convicted of an offence under \u2026 the Fair Trading Act\u201D and it sets out a whole lot of sections in the Fair Trading Act. For example, section 12A is around unsubstantiated representation; section 14 of the Fair Trading Act is in relation to false representation and misleading conduct in relation to land\u2014that makes absolute sense; section 17 is offering gifts and prizes and not providing them\u2014again, that\u2019s sort of a misleading offence; section 19 is in relation to bait advertising\u2014again, that makes sense, if want to keep your real estate licence, you shouldn\u2019t be doing bait advertising; section 20 of the Fair Trading Act is referral selling; section 21 is demanding or accepting payment without intending to supply a product; section 21C is prohibition on assisting right to payment with respect to unsolicited goods or unsolicited services; section 22 is in relation to misleading representations about certain business elements; and section 24 is around pyramid selling schemes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI can understand why all those particular sections allow the regulator to cancel the person\u2019s licence, but my question is actually in relation to the sections of the Fair Trading Act which are missing. That\u2019s my question to the Minister, because if you look at that grouping between sections 12A to 24 of the Fair Trading Act, and if you work through the ones that are not included, they also have a similar theme to both the current section 54(g) of the Real Estate Agents Act, as well as the fair trading list. For example, section 23 of the Fair Trading Act, basically, is around harassment and coercion. If you\u2019re a real estate agent, I would hope you\u2019re not harassing and coercing a vendor to potentially buy the house. My question is around why section 12 of the Fair Trading Act is not included. That\u2019s in relation to cancelling their licence if they have misleading conduct in relation to employment. Misleading conduct in relation to employment is quite important. Obviously, for some real estate agents, they are actually employees. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy other question is, why not section 13? Section 13 of the Fair Trading Act is about false or misleading representations in respect to the supply of possible goods. There is some weight to those three particular sections of the Fair Trading Act that have been missed out as a potential reasoning for the cancellation of licence. I just want to ask the Minister whether her or officials had considered those three particular provisions of the Fair Trading Act and as to why they were not included as a reason to cancel a licence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u0022b380bd4ecb0be0d908c366c55d8b9c6d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005567\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b380bd4ecb0be0d908c366c55d8b9c6d\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (19:38)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. The member went quite extensively into clause 54(i)(ii) and laid them all out, but we\u2019re not making any changes there. The Amendment Paper would replace clause 25 to adjust the amendments to section 54. The original wording of clause 25 would not achieve the policy intent to clearly allow the registrar to cancel a person\u2019s licence if they meet the grounds that would prohibit them from holding a licence. The replacement to clause 25 makes more explicit the grounds for cancelling a person\u2019s licence during the term of a licence, which mirrored the disqualifications from holding a licence in the Act now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005568\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe Amendment Papers that we\u2019re making include section 54(k), which I had just spoken to with the other member from the Green Party. The second amendment, to section 54(i)(v), makes a technical amendment to just adjust that section to refer to an agent\u2019s licence. This better aligns the grounds for cancellation of a licence in this section with the current prohibition in section 37(2) for holding an agent\u2019s licence. This amendment will mean that section 54(i)(v) applies to the cancellation of an agent\u2019s licence. The member\u2019s gone into an area that I don\u2019t think actually correlates with what we\u2019re doing here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005569\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221784481dcd194eafb455e4cbc2dd3a02\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Dr\u2014the Hon Barbara Edmonds.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022 data-id=\u00229381a2996345ecbb8f2ec657745da0c0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229381a2996345ecbb8f2ec657745da0c0\u0022\u003EHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour\u2014Mana) (19:39)\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019d be nice, without the PhD\u2014but anyway, thank you, Mr Chair. When the Minister responded that it\u2019s in relation to the original, did you mean when the bill was introduced\u2014the original bill\u2014or the one post - select committee?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u002288b4ef1d904227e7b35f2fdf3221588a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005571\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002288b4ef1d904227e7b35f2fdf3221588a\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (19:40)\u003C/span\u003E: I will say that it relates to probably what was in that original bill. My officials can come and correct me if I am incorrect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022 data-id=\u00220407da8a45385add1fe537f25ac92838\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005572\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220407da8a45385add1fe537f25ac92838\u0022\u003EHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour\u2014Mana) (19:40)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Minister, for getting your officials to check that, because, if I understand that it is the bill as introduced, this is a new section under the Real Estate Agents Act 2008. That whole section 54(i), inserted by clause 25, is new because the Real Estate Agents Act currently only those to section 54(h). So it is an insertion\u2014obviously an insertion that would have been put in the bill as introduced, but the question still remains: it provides a list of particular offences under the Fair Trading Act. Why have those other three offences, which is also under the Fair Trading Act, been omitted? What is the policy reason for them being omitted, even if it was the original bill, because currently it is a new amendment to the Real Estate Agents Act 2008?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u0022c7015acfb8e2f838ecda4fac5d1c6f3d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005573\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c7015acfb8e2f838ecda4fac5d1c6f3d\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (19:41)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for her question and seeking further clarity. I hope that I can give some of it here, now. Now they\u2019ve not come up to me to say that I was incorrect, and they might do soon, so if they do, I will stand up again. My understanding\u2014you\u2019re quite right. Section 54(i) is a new section requiring the register to cancel the licence \u201Cof a licensee company, 10 working days after the licensee\u2019s sole agent licence is cancelled\u2026unless a temporary licence holder or a new [sole] agent licence holder has been appointed for the licensee company.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005574\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ESo, I think, rather than having the huge list of it, it\u2019s just allowing them that ability to be able to do that. The amendment paper would replace clause 25 to adjust the amendments in section 54, which makes me think that it that\u2019s it is\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005575\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222fd1f945d6ca62b7c8faa8767bde1afb\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: In addition to it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225f5525b87b5ecdd66d48a68652e5857c\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022b9f95258a5f786f8ebf61d087d859f3c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005577\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b9f95258a5f786f8ebf61d087d859f3c\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (19:42)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for that, Minister. I\u2019ve got two additional questions, and that\u2019s on clause 27 and clause 28. Again, others may have other clauses in regard to the Minister\u2019s amendment. For clause 27, can I just get clarification from the Minister that the intent over here is that what we\u2019re now seeing in this replacement section 72(b), paragraphs (i) to (iii), will now be relevant for just the licensees conduct in general, not specifically to do with the real estate agency work. Which means that if the licensee, for example, carries on with their day-to-day work, going to the supermarket, etc., and something happens and their conduct falls short of the standards that a reasonable member of the public is entitled to expect, that then would now fall under this particular clause. Would that be a reasonable example\u2014checking with the Minister? That\u2019s my first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005578\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy second question is on clause 28. Now, this new section 146A inserts not only an offence but also a fine. The fine is quite high. My understanding in terms of that is it may possibly be outdated\u2014do not quote me on this\u2014or that it offers a general understanding that fines should be no more than $1,000, because the thing with the fine is, there\u2019s no way for anyone to respond. It\u2019s not like, you know, upon conviction, you get fined; it\u2019s just you get a fine. So $10,000 and $50,000 is what I would have thought is quite high and above some of the advice I have seen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ECan I just check that with\u2014I have not gone through the entirety of the Real Estate Act, but does this come out from some other parts of the Real Estate Act that matches this particular one, which is why you are able to mirror it for that consistency? Because, otherwise, I would also assume that this is quite new.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u0022f9d8cd60c14581a9a6de3daa37f5de6b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f9d8cd60c14581a9a6de3daa37f5de6b\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (19:44)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. To the member, the change that we\u2019re making in replacement section 72, inserted by clause 27, to expand the definition of \u201Cunsatisfactory conduct\u201D is to make sure that real estate agents will be accountable for a broader range of conduct, not just the conduct while carrying out real estate agency work. To give you an example of that, it will include, say, aggressive or abusive behaviour during cold-calling people, or a licensee acting inappropriately towards a client maybe, after a transaction has concluded. At the moment, it\u2019s about the business that they\u2019re doing, but we\u2019re saying, well, actually, you need to behave well, broadly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe member talked about a fine\u2014well, it\u2019s actually an offence, so it\u2019s not like it\u2019s an infringement fee; it\u2019s an offence. The reason why it\u2019s so much\u2014$50,000\u2014for a company and $10,000 for an individual\u2014is because those penalties and those amounts are consistent with other similar offences, as the member mentioned, within the Real Estate Agents Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022 data-id=\u002299b867935fdae17eea9d77ef423adced\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002299b867935fdae17eea9d77ef423adced\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B) (19:45)\u003C/span\u003E: So on clause 27, I remember the Law Association, at the committee, supported this, but they questioned whether or not the drafting provided sufficient certainty. They accepted the arguments about consumer protection, about the need for professional discipline, but they submitted that there was insufficient legal certainty. So, further to the Minister\u2019s response to Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s question, I\u2019m interested in whether or not her interpretation of the draft would be that real estate agents could be held accountable for behaviour completely outside their work as a real estate agent\u2014so, not cold-calling potential customers or whatever, but committing a crime when you\u2019re out shopping or watching your kid\u2019s football game, or bringing yourself into disrepute in some way that doesn\u2019t relate at all to your work as a real estate agent. I\u2019m interested in if she could answer that question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005583\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ESecondly, how does she expect licensees to know where the boundary lies for unsatisfactory conduct? Because just a plain reading of the provisions doesn\u2019t provide that. Perhaps the Minister could give us some examples of behaviour that would count under this provision as unsatisfactory conduct. Further to that, does she expect that the authority will publish guidance for real estate agents so that they can have some understanding and some clarity?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u00228d2ba60bd19452a3f104157af4372257\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005584\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228d2ba60bd19452a3f104157af4372257\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (19:47)\u003C/span\u003E: I gave some examples just before to the member from the Green Party, so I\u2019ll say that I\u2019ve already delivered that, and I will carry on because I\u2019ve answered your last question first. I\u2019ll now move back to your first question then. My understanding is that the select committee actually raised those concerns as well, because submitters had raised concerns about what actually makes up that unsatisfactory conduct. In response to that, I understand that there are tests of unsatisfactory conduct in the clause that have been clarified. A clearer link has been drawn between unacceptable conduct by a licensee and their profession to emphasise that this test is about upholding consumer confidence in the real estate profession. So as there is a test, I would expect that that test would be made known to the real estate agents in order for them to understand and have knowledge about how to comply.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022 data-id=\u0022324b844cfc33c04ee3ac1bb18ad5e64c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022324b844cfc33c04ee3ac1bb18ad5e64c\u0022\u003ETOM RUTHERFORD (National\u2014Bay of Plenty) (19:48)\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=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022 data-id=\u0022da5f5d4e1a6d0699ea9834c0641a3e58\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005586\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022da5f5d4e1a6d0699ea9834c0641a3e58\u0022\u003ETANGI UTIKERE (Labour\u2014Palmerston North) (19:49)\u003C/span\u003E: I just have two areas that I\u2019d like to ask the Minister questions about. The first one is a brief one. It\u2019s a response to her to Dr Xu-Nan\u2019s question about having a lawyer as a chair, basically. I accept the Minister has said that history has proven that it\u2019s apparently quite difficult to attract someone into that role. If that is the reason, Minister, was there any thought than to, perhaps, not completely removing that requirement for the chair\u2019s role, but maybe allowing the Minister to make the appointment of the chair with preference given to someone who has that particular qualification in terms of a minimum number of years as a practising lawyer? That\u2019s the first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005587\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second one in relation to clauses 20 and 21 in Part 3. This is about the entitlement to a licence and the prohibition on someone from being licensed. In clause 20, which seeks to amend section 36, it identifies the various things that need to be considered for someone who has had a track record of having a licence being cancelled, and it seems to me that in new section 36(1)(f) in clause 20(2), it talks about someone who has had their licence cancelled within the previous 12 months and who has, basically, undertaken a process of professional development. Further down, in new section 36(2)(d) in clause\u00A020(4), it\u2019s around the registrar being satisfied that, actually, the applicant can demonstrate a sufficient level of knowledge and experience of agency work. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn clause 21, it talks about the prohibition on someone who, in the previous five-year period, has had a licence cancelled, and so my question to the Minister is this. Clause 20 is all about those sorts of qualitative considerations around what someone\u2019s record might look like. New section 37(1)(d)(i) in clause 21 is very definitive in that it\u2019s a five-year threshold. Minister, are you satisfied that five years is appropriate, and, if so\u2014or if not, I guess\u2014were there any other considerations as to what that particular time frame would be? How did five years get landed upon? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u0022f6d272a4c33b751be28ba9004e4a69a6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005589\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f6d272a4c33b751be28ba9004e4a69a6\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (19:51)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019d note that perhaps the member wasn\u2019t in here when I answered these questions before, and so I\u2019m happy to go through them again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a15248a4580bd292dbefa77fafd09946\u0022\u003ETangi Utikere\u003C/span\u003E: This part? I\u2019ve been here for this part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002253f6993f07400572e54425a75bd8ae94\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah. Both the questions that you\u2019ve just asked me, I\u2019ve actually answered, but I\u2019m happy to answer them again for you. With regard to the requirement about the chairperson having seven years\u2019 legal experience, we had mentioned how it\u2019s hard to find a person. We\u2019re not actually removing that from the board, at all. We still want a person with seven years\u2019 experience, if we can find it, to sit on the board\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005592\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002278dbc68368d60b9be1db0f60b2eee4fb\u0022\u003ETangi Utikere\u003C/span\u003E: Just not as chair?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005593\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229067ba030d7787f6e717efb5d756e5a1\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014but just not as chair. Effectively, I had spoken about how the current chair with seven years\u2019 experience has been wanting to resign, but we have nobody who is able to replace the dear lady. Her name is Denese Bates, and she does a wonderful job for the real estate agents, but she does want to retire. There is nobody there to replace her, and so we\u2019d like to be able to replace her with someone that has the legal experience, but not so defined as it currently is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, if someone else comes along and they happen to have seven years\u2019 legal experience, we can in the first instance at least get them on to the board, and maybe they could eventually end up in that chair role. It\u2019s just trying to make sure that we have a spin of people that can continue, and the Real Estate Agents Authority can continue in that respect. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn regard to clause 21, the five-year prohibition following grounds for cancelling a licence is really, really extensive, and there is no other organisation or agency that has that sort of penalty. We\u2019re looking to remove that five-year stand-down period as an automatic consequence for not completing compulsory personal development or for failing to pay the annual suspension fee, and, again, this can also come down to people just having a time where they can\u2019t even get in and do their reapplications, etc., for other things like, say, Cyclone Gabrielle, as I had mentioned before. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAgain, I will just point out that this will come in eight months after Royal assent in order to ensure that we have it all set up and ready to go in the Act, and so that we are not taking away what could often be a lifetime of work. Real estate agents are often in that job for decades before failing to do something as simple as not doing a particular course or not paying a particular fee at any one time, and, as I\u2019ve mentioned, it\u2019s a punitive and disproportionate consequence when you compare it to so many other professions which don\u2019t have anything anywhere near a five-year suspension. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022739b3bbed7fe4186aa30494700144b3a\u0022 data-id=\u00229f9b685198e39e5f16b514f9df1b0b7c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005597\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022739b3bbed7fe4186aa30494700144b3a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229f9b685198e39e5f16b514f9df1b0b7c\u0022\u003EPAULO GARCIA (National\u2014New Lynn) (19:54)\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the debate on this question be now closed\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005599\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005600\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005601\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 46\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224ad77f8bf02cd5cd4226ffcdea97749a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 636 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005605\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAmendments to the amendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022900c467b91cad64d70e36e0f6696451f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Part 3 set out on Amendment Paper 636 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005607\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005608\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 3 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022cdd84cd09251ff1fdc1045fe2937a12a\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u00220acfbee5ab4c47147a84372439343d2e\u0022\u003EClauses 1 and 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002280a48ade56cdc55da48d86fed1fc786e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we now come to our final debate: clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2, \u201CTitle\u201D and \u201CCommencement\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00223fece98cc4aca78bc98675f853cef0a3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005612\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223fece98cc4aca78bc98675f853cef0a3\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (19:56)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019m signalling that I have just two short questions on this, and they\u2019re all to do with clause 2(1), which is on the commencement date for Part 3.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005613\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOf my two short questions, No. 1 is this. Minister, you mentioned that the poor person who has been the chair of the authority now wants to step down. Does that mean that they have to wait eight months before they can step down because this part doesn\u2019t come into effect for eight months? That\u2019s my first question. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005614\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy second question is to do with how this interacts with clause 20. We did talk about the fact that if a person\u2019s licence is cancelled, they can reapply within 12 months, and yet the commencement is in eight months\u2019 time. If the commencement is in eight months\u2019 time, does that mean that a person who is within that eight months\u2014because there\u2019s no retrospectivity, as far as I know. So if a person whose licence was cancelled within that eight months, the old rules still apply, and it\u2019s not like in eight months\u2019 time, they have four more months of leeway to go to make that up within 12 months\u2014if that makes sense. Those are my two questions for this. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u0022dfa1949ed2c8611540e2f4357b87720f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005615\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dfa1949ed2c8611540e2f4357b87720f\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (19:57)\u003C/span\u003E: My officials and I had the same thought on this, but they\u2019re just going away to double-check and will come back. But there is a delay just in Part 3\u2014which is the real estate agents area\u2014for eight months, and if Denese Bates KC is listening to this, we are of the opinion\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002261d10c94b589ecd3ec70c770e2f08ba2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Shout-out to Denese.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005617\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b7b3370314baaeec76d00142776e1388\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE\u003C/span\u003E: Shout-out to Denese. She\u2019s going to be there for another eight months unless we do find somebody with that seven years\u2019 experience. But the delay of the commencement is because there is some updating of IT systems, forms\u2014which we were talking about earlier\u2014and training programmes that need to be implemented, and the information on their website also needs to be updated. Unfortunately, the chair side of it is in there too, and so, hopefully, Denese Bates KC will stay on for eight months, and unless we\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005618\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e115795ee71fc238ec4c4fc9baa344e8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: You might have some answers now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005619\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e027282f8f439ee016fd592977501dbe\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE\u003C/span\u003E: Clause 18 in Part 3, which amends the membership of the Real Estate Agents Authority, will, however, come into force on the day after Royal assent, as an additional time for the implementation of that particular clause is not required. Denese Bates KC, if you\u2019re listening to this, you can heave a sigh of relief\u2014and I most certainly am\u2014and I hope that that answers the member\u2019s question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u002235e31f0fda6fdec6c2b3c68cfe627c3c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005620\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002235e31f0fda6fdec6c2b3c68cfe627c3c\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (19:58)\u003C/span\u003E: Just checking with the Minister: I had a second part of that question around the reapplication of the licence within that eight months. I understand that the Minister might be seeking some advice, and, Mr Chair, I just wanted to get clarity. That\u2019s my only question. If the Minister is able to get that advice and wants to tie it in to her third reading speech, so to speak, I\u2019m fine with that. I just would like an answer to that\u2014that\u2019s all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u00221e1ff23b378bf55f0a5aeca52adbc665\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005621\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221e1ff23b378bf55f0a5aeca52adbc665\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (19:59)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. No, that notification that I had there was saying that it\u2019s only that clause that will be implemented straight away. Everything else will be eight months away, and so\u2014yes\u2014it will take eight months for everything else.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022 data-id=\u002299f528b0f594d5e8ddcdc3ade04f35da\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005622\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002299f528b0f594d5e8ddcdc3ade04f35da\u0022\u003EHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour\u2014Mana) (19:59)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. It is quite an important question, so if I just practically work through it, because this does become important, particularly in the transition period. So, for example, section 54(d), as amended by clause 25, won\u2019t come into effect until March next year. So therefore, \u201Cif the person, at any time, ceases to be able to hold a licence on 1 or more of the grounds [that are now] set out under section 37;\u201D\u2014for example, if tomorrow they cannot meet any of those motions, doesn\u2019t matter; it gets to March\u2014this won\u2019t come until effect until March next year, so that notice period of over month is well superseded\u2014therefore, if it means that with the 12-month period, which Dr Xu-Nan referenced, does that mean\u2014April, May, June, July\u2014by July next year, which is 2027, that\u2019s when that cancellation comes into effect, or is it not for another 12 months from March 2027? So it\u2019s just that clarity around when that is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005623\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIf the Minister, as you said correctly, that\u2019s when section 54(d) comes into effect, March next year, technically, based on the question by Dr Xu-Nan, it won\u2019t be until March 2028 that that person\u2019s licence can be cancelled.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u0022d8bc540304f31d6870851f61f6eb55ea\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005624\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d8bc540304f31d6870851f61f6eb55ea\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (20:01)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022032606814c56d6762c05410708a2e837\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: Not 23 July.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a3675f4c16d6663a32dc127626d7d4ff\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah. I understand the member\u2019s question, and it probably goes a little bit further than what I\u2019m able to answer. When I looked at the notes that I have, the reason why we have that eight months requirement is to update the IT systems, forms, training programmes, and information on their website. I suspect that information on the website, training forms, information that goes out to the real estate agents, will detail exactly how they will roll that out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005627\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne thing that we have made clear to the real estate authority is to try and ensure that any changes that they make are for the benefit of the real estate agents, hence why we\u2019re removing that five-year suspension as well, because we really just needed to update this. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005628\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think, in the bigger scheme of things, my expectation is the real estate authority would work with an individual depending on what that circumstance is. To give you an example, if that member did something that was really out of order, one would expect them to be suspended and not have to go through the\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005629\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d2742e1d5da4db8985354d2641589c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b0c29ef4505ac6b03cc7f5c98d3cd5f6\u0022\u003EHon Barbara Edmonds\u003C/span\u003E: Not wait until those provisions come in.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f06957efeab90a6996d2388001a4e65e\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014yes, not wait until those provisions\u2014but if it\u2019s something that, perhaps, could be addressed when those provisions come in, there could be the ability, perhaps, for the real estate authority to suspend their decision until that comes in. But it\u2019s very hard to ascertain exactly when or what, because there will be so many variations to what they have to deal with.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005631\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005632\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005633\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill to be reported with amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005634\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHouse resumed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005635\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b6e30dbe1e67d50b9b19ac1712defae3\u0022\u003ERegulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005636\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b6e30dbe1e67d50b9b19ac1712defae3\u0022\u003ERegulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005637\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d0d237c2f543231b7495c636d6ace4e8\u0022\u003EReport of Committee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022 data-id=\u0022fd51b8d1437f015626908769dde54fe8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005638\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fd51b8d1437f015626908769dde54fe8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono) (20:03)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill and reports that also with amendment. I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the report be adopted\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005639\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005640\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EReport adopted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005641\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cc60fbdf74e89cab8f82ca55554af1f5\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill are set down for third reading immediately.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005642\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002210da842ba898a8dd62e734eb6b34cb47\u0022\u003ERegulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005643\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002210da842ba898a8dd62e734eb6b34cb47\u0022\u003ERegulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005644\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022293e4e0886ac7b023742345b35538eb0\u0022\u003ELegislative Statement\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u00221167d5d8ecce7d8c97ed3872c8071779\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005645\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221167d5d8ecce7d8c97ed3872c8071779\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (20:04)\u003C/span\u003E: I present the legislative statements on the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005646\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228d0e5e6277ec66b0d32cd28b09dccb2e\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Those legislative statements are\u2014what are the words?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225c0e10a517f433c4a561b7b4ebfae25b\u0022\u003ETom Rutherford\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005648\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002294946cc336849299de704eed71092438\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014there we go. Those legislative statements are published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005649\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c96c0ff3df8eee2af2c8ef14e6371ee2\u0022\u003EThird Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022 data-id=\u002217a6434346c83da2dfef37111ec79e48\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005650\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002217a6434346c83da2dfef37111ec79e48\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (20:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill be now read a third time\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005651\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m pleased to take this final call on two practical bills that improve the way parts of our justice and regulatory systems operate. These bills are not about creating unnecessary new layers of regulation, they\u2019re about maintaining the laws we already have, fixing known problems, removing disproportionate penalties, and making sure our regulatory systems work better for the people who use them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005652\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill improves access to justice and supports the effective operation of tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies. It allows successful applicants in the disputes tribunal to recover their filing fee from the respondent where it is appropriate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f205b96e0f77deaf47b15357e88493b2\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: You can get another Minister to read it out for you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005654\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002216829a90e47644e3809ecc77bed3916d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a44de824f2c70ebcaf9dca5f94790ac4\u0022\u003EHon NICOLE McKEE\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, if you wouldn\u2019t mind.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005655\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e86433c35f4c13cb587f4b6f67ed18b8\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: That is a sensible change. People who have had to enforce their legal rights should not be left bearing unnecessary costs when they have been successful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005656\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill also strengthens oversight of the private security industry by improving information gathering powers. This will help detect and deter people operating outside the rules. It also makes practical changes to appointments and employment arrangements for tribunal members so these bodies can operate more consistently and efficiently. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005657\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill improves the occupational regulation system for both professionals and consumers. It allows conveyancers\u2019 professional undertakings to be enforced in the High Court, as lawyers\u2019 undertakings already are. That will support competition in the conveyancing market and give consumers more confidence in the services they use.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005658\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt also removes an overly harsh penalty that disqualified real estate agents from practising for five years for failing to complete continuing professional development or pay fees on time. That kind of penalty is out of proportion to the breach. This bill replaces it with a more sensible and balanced approach. At the same time, the bill strengthens the real estate authority\u2019s ability to investigate unlicensed trading and ensure licensees are meeting their obligations. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005659\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI thank officials in the Parliamentary Council Office, for their work on these bills. I commend these bills to the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005660\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022844b9500af2a4bea42a382e770b26eee\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Just for the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E record: that was the Hon Louise Upston. The question is that the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f988bc72b5e47b8856ba70e41dfbbaf\u0022 data-id=\u0022bf3095e92822fbe6a49a4d6c065067a1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005661\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f988bc72b5e47b8856ba70e41dfbbaf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bf3095e92822fbe6a49a4d6c065067a1\u0022\u003EGEORGIE DANSEY (Labour) (20:07)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, it was just an hour, maybe two hours ago that I was here speaking on the second reading of these two great bills: the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn the intervening time we\u2019ve had a committee stage and I\u2019ve had dinner\u2014fish and chips; fish and chip Friday\u2014but the point I\u2019m making, is the fact that it\u2019s been such a short time, and here I am speaking now, on the third reading, is the way that this legislation is moving through Parliament at such a rapid pace under urgency. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005663\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe need for us to have a process that is robust ensures that the legislation receives the public attention that the public may want to give the legislation\u2014it treats proper scrutiny as an inconvenience\u2014allowing robust debate around this legislation. So it is disappointing to be back here two hours later, in the third reading, to discuss these two important bills, which I would have liked to have more time to consider, as would my colleagues, and I\u2019m sure the public would have appreciated some more time to consider these bills. Nevertheless, I will continue. These bills are a package of four regulatory systems amendment bills administered by the Ministry of Justice. Look, we acknowledge the challenges in our justice system\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005664\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c0730165dc294e349f005d8018df7c25\u0022\u003ESimon Court\u003C/span\u003E: Read it better, Georgie.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005665\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f988bc72b5e47b8856ba70e41dfbbaf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ae4998b80a440474516d4df1754a8640\u0022\u003EGEORGIE DANSEY\u003C/span\u003E: What do you mean \u201CRead it better\u201D? Read what better?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005666\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002281928434cb9ca9774e2842d7392efab4\u0022\u003ESimon Court\u003C/span\u003E: Your speech.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005667\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f988bc72b5e47b8856ba70e41dfbbaf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002250d7fb80d4b727ad1e8c09e17a435bc7\u0022\u003EGEORGIE DANSEY\u003C/span\u003E: I was thinking that, maybe, members on the Government side would take an actual call on this. I challenge\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005668\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220cd06dd558296ef4439a6dc1806498a5\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I would actually challenge the member to speak to the piece of legislation, please, because we\u2019ve just had quite an extensive two hours on the committee stage, so there\u2019s plenty to talk about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005669\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f988bc72b5e47b8856ba70e41dfbbaf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022696dc75d04b32ec943e26e6137ccfabe\u0022\u003EGEORGIE DANSEY\u003C/span\u003E: There is plenty. Thank you, Madam Speaker. First of all, I\u2019ll talk about the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill. Within here, there are some technical changes. There are technical changes that will amend the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, the Prostitution Reform Act 2003, and the Real Estate Agents Act 2008. The aim is to strengthen the ability of occupational regulators to protect consumers, increase efficiency, and remove inconsistent or redundant provisions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005670\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat I wanted to start talking about was the amendments within the Law Society which give the complaints service discretion rather than requirement in referring complaints against lawyers. This has been hashed out a little bit across the board, and the pros and cons of this part of the legislation have been discussed. It is still not completely resolved, and I think there are still questions around who\u2019s making the decision as to whether a complaint progresses through and how that decision was made and then around what the repercussions are if, say, the complainant\u2019s complaint is dismissed but they don\u2019t think their complaint should be dismissed\u2014what process they would go through? Those are still questions we have, and if we had had more time, those could have been addressed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005671\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the benefits of this legislation\u2014and I see the intention of it is to increase how quickly complaints can be resolved. As we all know, all facets of society will get complaints about the way things are done, and some of them have basis, and some of them don\u2019t. Not having to go through a full investigation process for every single complaint is surely going to benefit the Law Society. When we\u2019re talking about justice, we have to talk about a fair process and fair access to justice. If we can make things more efficient within the system, which in turn frees up resources and people to concentrate on the important things when it comes to administering justice, then that has got to be a good thing\u2014as long as we are doing so in a way that doesn\u2019t limit access at all and is a robust process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005672\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe next part of the occupational regulation amendment bill that I found quite interesting was around the Real Estate Authority changes. There was some discussion around the changes to the chairperson having to have been a practising lawyer for seven years and that move to that person having to be on the board. I support that change, but, still, I think that having a practising lawyer on the board who has experience of seven years and keeping them there is absolutely vital. I\u2019m really pleased that that\u2019s been put in the mix. As we know, the work that real estate agencies do is very legislation-heavy. They\u2019ve got to get all their ducks in a row; they\u2019ve got to dot their Is and cross their Ts because they are preparing quite serious legal documents, and the importance of that oversight from the board can\u2019t be understated when it comes to the work that they do. The decisions that boards make is vital in that space.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005673\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other aspect of that I want to touch on is just the tidying-up of the ability for the Real Estate Authority to renew a licence for up to 12 months after it expires, rather than requiring a full application, and that flexibility for unforeseen circumstances after what happened with recent flooding that restricted people from accessing the renewal of their licences. That\u2019s good.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005674\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI actually had a situation where I was talking to someone in my electorate about their experiences with a real estate agent when they were trying to purchase a house and they were interested in the house and they had an unconditional offer to put on the house, and the agent said, \u201CI\u2019ve already got a conditional offer on this house, but I think it\u2019s going to fall through. If you sign this paperwork for your unconditional offer, and you should get the house.\u201D The person signed the paperwork because they saw the professional in front of them and trusted that they had the correct information at hand. I think it\u2019s fair that citizens, when they are meeting with a real estate agent, think, \u201CI think this person must know their stuff and they must understand this legally binding document I\u2019m signing.\u201D\u2014well, actually, the person probably should have checked with their lawyer, but they didn\u2019t in this case. They then checked with their lawyer after they\u2019d signed the documentation, and the lawyer said, \u201CWell, you\u2019ve actually signed something illegal because there\u2019s already a conditional offer in place, but that\u2019s the legally binding offer on the house. If that one goes through, then the agency would have to reimburse you the cost of the house because they\u2019ve sold the house twice.\u201D Anyway, the conditional offer didn\u2019t go through, so there was no payout required, but the point is that that level of detail required from real estate agencies can have a huge financial burden if they make a mistake. Getting these processes right and making sure the legislation sits well together is a really important part of this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005675\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo finish up, I was going to talk about the other bill, but I don\u2019t seem to have time. I had discussed it a little in my previous speech, which felt like just a minute ago but was two hours ago. The main point is that access to justice needs to be fair for all people. This bill does some technical tidy-up, which moves us in the right direction. There is so much work to do in this space to ensure everyone has good access to justice. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225e5fb19060ee702a55694b9ab9629d04\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member\u2019s time has expired.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00225dd77eaf75a030a7732e08fecf0259f7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005677\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225dd77eaf75a030a7732e08fecf0259f7\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Speaker, thank you so much. I am glad to speak on behalf of the Green Party on the third reading of both the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m going to start with the first bill that we did our committee stage on, in terms of the tribunals amendment bill, and I\u2019m going to probably start with the most controversial discussion that we had during the committee stage, which is around whether we should use \u201Cmust\u201D or \u201Cshall\u201D. I think this is something the House is very divided on\u2014I\u2019m surprised that we came to a consensus in the end, but I think, unfortunately for me, who prefers \u201Cshall\u201D, I lost out on that. Both of these two bills are technical tidy-ups, and, again, the committee stage when we were looking at both bills was an excellent opportunity to engage with the Minister on some of the detail\u2014and, again, the kind of detail that really could affect New Zealanders in quite a significant way. At the same time, these are the sorts of bills that, as we see, have the House\u2019s support and that are housekeeping tidy-up bills, but, like I said, it\u2019s important for us to understand some of the details and some of the nuances.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005679\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI already mentioned in terms of the Disputes Tribunal Act\u2014that\u2019s the first one that we are looked at as part of the tribunals amendment bill\u2014that I think the big part of that is around some of the changes around the chief executive appointing a panel to assess people as referees. I am actually really glad to hear from the Minister around the requirements for diversity and inclusion, that reflect, I think, our communities and our society in Aotearoa New Zealand on the whole. It\u2019s good to hear that, for example, there is a M\u0101ori referee collective, there is a Pasifika referee collective. The Minister mentioned that there currently isn\u2019t an Asian referees collective, but I\u2019m looking forward to something like that happening with, now, our Asian populations being 17 percent of New Zealand\u2019s population.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005680\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut I think the most significant part of this bill is this consistency of basically moving referees as employees and then making them contractors to be more consistent with other forms of referees and adjudicators in our justice system who are also contracted. Now, of course the major impact this will have is on ACC, because obviously now if you\u2019re self-employed there is a higher ACC levy to factor in some additional elements. But again, I the way that the Minister has mentioned it is it does allow for that consistency, particularly when you have someone who is a referee/adjudicator for multiple areas and where they are employees for some and self-employed for others. So I think that is something that\u2019s needed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe amendments to the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003, in terms of adjudicators who have held a practising certificate, this is\u2014although one clause is actually quite significant, because as we discussed through the committee stage, that what you would do is expand the eligibility criteria to more people who could apply to become adjudicators. There are still criteria and requirements, as the Minister communicated to the House, but opening that pool would potentially mean more adjudicators being appointed, which means that more of some of these disputes may be able to take place faster.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005682\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFor the third part of this particular bill, the Parole Act 2002\u2014I think, for me, what kind of really stood out in this one is the fact that there was an outdated term for the Remuneration Authority that I think none of us had really heard about until we got that clarification, this \u201CHigher Salaries Commission\u201D. I think, again, this just shows that sometimes with these legislations, we do need to have that administrative update for the ability for it to be in line with the most recent terminology that\u2019s being used. So, again, I\u2019m personally always quite excited to learn something new, and the Higher Salaries Commission this time around very much was one of the things.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005683\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe fourth part, around the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Act was something that we managed to touch on but didn\u2019t get a chance to fully explore. But, you know, it is what it is. So I\u2019m going to move on to Part 5 of the first bill that we looked at, which is under unit titles. I think that what\u2019s particularly important for this part is the clarification from the Minister that existing rules under the Residential Tenancies Act already exist. So this technical update doesn\u2019t necessarily imply that new rules will be created that will fall under whatever remit or secondary legislation or regulatory-making powers that the Residential Tenancies Act itself will have, but it just creates a consistency, particularly around provisions that we see here in the new Unit Titles Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005684\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, moving on to the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill, it\u2019s also one of the things\u2014as I mentioned in my second reading speech\u2014that the last time we had these two associated bills with their back-to-back committee stage, it was two bills that were very similar. So it\u2019s also quite nice that this time round we didn\u2019t accidentally jump between the two, because these two bills are fundamentally quite different. But in terms of the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill, the first part with lawyers and conveyors, that is something that was really interesting in terms of some of the updates around the undertaking. I think that was something that we did explore quite a bit within the committee stage, around whether this is actually going to create new aspects to such undertaking or what that would mean. I think we had a lot of conversations around why, then, the High Court is the best place for it, around some of the undertaking. Because again, we have just seen, in a previous bill, of increasing the High Court judges numbers from 55 to 60. But at the same time, we also now, through this service system, don\u2019t really want to find different ways of accidentally or incidentally clogging up the High Court system. So I think this is something that was covered quite well during the committee stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005685\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOn to Part 2 and Part 3. So Part 2 of the occupational regulation is quite a small part, and, again, just shows one of the things why it is really important for us to do this administrative update for the legislation. This is to do with the Prostitution Reform Act 2003. Specifically, it is simply an update to be in line with the existing phrasing and terminology that is being used, I believe, within the Crimes Act. This is to do with disqualification from holding a certificate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005686\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, for Part 3, real estate agency probably was the most significant aspect of this bill. Again, a shout-out: I did not, unfortunately\u2014and I do apologise for this, Madam Speaker; I cannot remember her name, but I want to, as many other people\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005687\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022919e7b43d201ce409a82943c024efda3\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich\u003C/span\u003E: Denese Bates.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005688\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ddc2f6889cadc10c452a354d08dc1c7d\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Denese Bates\u2014shout-out to Denese Bates KC for being a trouper and continuing to be the chair of the Real Estate Authority despite wanting to step down. We\u2019re hoping that this bill allows you the opportunity to step down, and hopefully you will be finding other ways to enjoy your time not being the chair of the Real Estate Authority. So that particular clause, clause 18, of that bill is quite significant.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005689\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think the main thing that was the concern for us, and again we managed to get additional clarifications from the Minister\u2014it\u2019s amazing how quickly 10 minutes can go when you are having fun. But in terms of clause 20, I think the main thing here is the fact that it doesn\u2019t exempt people from having to undertake that sort of outstanding continuing education, but, as the Minister put it, it does allow people more time to reapply, should they get a chance to continue that outstanding education requirement. I think that is significant, particularly in terms of the rationale that the Minister gave.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005690\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think, finally, when we are looking at some of the other things\u2014unsatisfactory conduct, clause 17, is something that we did manage to clarify, and I think the examples the Minister had were sound. We were hoping there would be more examples around that, which would\u2019ve been helpful to better understand the essence of that clause, but overall, we really do support\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005691\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002241bf3e19d8c3d252c26f3fc374030439\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, the member\u2019s having so much fun that his time has expired.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022 data-id=\u0022ef9ca0736421d8c82003b6853bed302b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005692\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ef9ca0736421d8c82003b6853bed302b\u0022\u003ETOM RUTHERFORD (National\u2014Bay of Plenty) (20:28)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I commend the bills to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225f6c5b1a97f24773a8aaeb3a8e3b0e7b\u0022 data-id=\u0022b9fdbb3f6493723ffcc0d7d65280e60c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005693\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f6c5b1a97f24773a8aaeb3a8e3b0e7b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b9fdbb3f6493723ffcc0d7d65280e60c\u0022\u003EJAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) (20:28)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill and Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill in their third readings. As we\u2019ve heard through a number of readings, these are minor or technical changes\u2014so, maintenance of the legislation. The issues have been well canvassed to the committee of the whole House and I commend the bills to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005694\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228e8769e4b333d7acde5bcc4dc881c180\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The next call is a split call. I call Scott Willis.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022 data-id=\u0022f318b2e88a0b8b8fc9853cb732aa2210\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005695\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f318b2e88a0b8b8fc9853cb732aa2210\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS (Green) (20:28)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take my first call on the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill for their third readings. We do support these bills, and I\u2019ve worked my way through them this evening, in detail, to check that I knew what we were talking about because they do deal with a lot of minor detail and very technical detail. I think, Madam Speaker, you\u2019ve just seen how perfectly suited this has been to my colleague Lawrence Xu-Nan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005696\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002298dd6e6104b4792fdf10b239fda7a6a5\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Oh yes, we have, and you\u2019re channelling him now, so it should be good.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005697\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221275d346e17cf815d148cb58b900b3b8\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Until earlier, I was not aware that these bills had been full of controversy, but I have heard since that, you know, the debate\u2014it must have been a high-octane debate, between the words \u201Cmust\u201D and \u201Cshall\u201D. It\u2019s unfortunate that I missed that part of the debate, so I\u2019m going to have to go back and watch. I am going to have to go back and dig into this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005698\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWe do support this bill, and it is very good to make small or minor changes to keep our regulatory systems fit for purpose. We\u2019re doing this through urgency, and I think this is notable. It\u2019s notable because we\u2019ve heard some concern during this debate that we might be rushing this bill and that when we\u2019re pushing it through all stages, we might be missing things. Now, personally\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005699\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022164a9f22544704c4d854840d1fbd2574\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: We haven\u2019t pushed it through all stages.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005700\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227582334085815f745416b20be10b2a8a\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: No, that\u2019s right, Madam Speaker\u2014just a few stages. Thank you for that correction\u2014just a few stages. Nevertheless, we are doing it through urgency, and as I have applied myself to these bills earlier to make sure I wasn\u2019t missing anything, personally, I don\u2019t think we are going to miss anything in this bill in supporting it. But what I do think is that we have clearly experienced some risk, through the abuse of urgency by this Government, in other bits of legislation. This is really, really clear: we have had some really poor-quality legislation that has passed through the House under urgency, and we have had to come back and redo it or put in amendments to make changes. It is something we should be mindful of\u2014that when we\u2019re using urgency to such an extent to draft legislation, we should really take care that it\u2019s doing it for an important reason rather than a trivial one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005701\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fc4415f2f1c75d028ae8119f20b7aa75\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I take the member\u2019s point. Now we\u2019ll go back to the bill, please.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005702\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223daeac918030d680bf06cb656fe4d756\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This this bill, the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill, are bills that we support. I\u2019d like to make that very clear, if I haven\u2019t already. I am also mindful that we are, on a Friday night, debating this bill. Tomorrow, the All Blacks will be playing in Christchurch\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005703\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d2b71d5706b9ac42c2f9d93d55f1a0ec\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s only Tuesday. It\u2019s not tomorrow\u2014not till we get out of here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005704\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225d0e4969efd520e6a33d45ebe9bbe1b6\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s true, Madam Speaker. But I\u2019m assuming we will all be watching it while we\u2019re working through tomorrow. Those of us who are not speaking on the bills tomorrow afternoon will be able to capture the All Blacks if we can\u2019t get to Christchurch. But I hope that we are able to move through this bill a little bit faster.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005705\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226067e968076417ab9a7aa51e28ace157\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member could help.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005706\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002297452da8e5e220d8060aed709bd5b3b8\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m trying my best, Madam Speaker. I\u2019m trying not to be distracted by the people around me, because they\u2019re offering lots of commentary. My point is that we fully endorse this bill. I\u2019m finding it very distracting, but we are in full support of this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005707\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224736373012e3527788a12b6f54ed1e02\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Three, two, one\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fdfa6ce8ab6faeb00138238592e41596\u0022\u003ESCOTT WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: We will make sure it passes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022739b3bbed7fe4186aa30494700144b3a\u0022 data-id=\u00229e0b09d2ec683e08c599dd5f4c6d03e2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005709\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022739b3bbed7fe4186aa30494700144b3a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229e0b09d2ec683e08c599dd5f4c6d03e2\u0022\u003EPAULO GARCIA (National\u2014New Lynn) (20:33)\u003C/span\u003E: I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u002290b3f4ee313da6a38186a5e4344ec18a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005710\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002290b3f4ee313da6a38186a5e4344ec18a\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (20:33)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, Madam Speaker, thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity to take this call. I have a few thoughts that I haven\u2019t yet been able to express on the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill and also, if I have time, the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill. You could almost use your entire call reading out the titles of these pieces of legislation, they\u2019re so long.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005711\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt was good to be able to speak in the second reading of this earlier today on the tribunals\u2014actually, on both of these bills\u2014and good to be able to participate in the committee stage on the tribunals bill. As you would be aware, I was not able to traverse all of my thoughts in relation to the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Act, so I thought I would use this opportunity to set out my thoughts in relation to that particular part of the bill. The other areas I feel I\u2019ve covered more substantively, so we\u2019ll see where we get to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005712\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI did have some questions which I didn\u2019t get to put to the Minister on these private security personnel. One of the things I was interested in was that in this bill, there is a deletion of misconduct or gross negligence as a reason for a complaint to be against a licensee. I thought that was particularly interesting, because it wasn\u2019t clear to me whether this was a weakening or a strengthening of the provisions around misconduct for these private security guards. Obviously, if it was misconduct or gross negligence, you would expect that to be a disciplinary matter, but then, of course\u2014yeah, I was just not really sure of the reason for deleting that and would have been keen to find out from the Minister why that was.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005713\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other thing that I just wanted to flag was that there is a new section that\u2019s been put in after section 104 by this Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill, and that is a specific new right that allows information to be provided on complaints to a chief investigator, so that\u2019s kind of a new right. There isn\u2019t that much\u2014as the Minister said and as has been traversed in this House, many of these changes are administrative. Some of them, I think, go beyond administrative and actually do put in new rights. I think sometimes that\u2019s appropriate\u2014it\u2019s not something that we disagree with\u2014but that is relatively significant, so that is just something I wasn\u2019t able to mention in that bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005714\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other aspects of this tribunals bill, first, that I think warrant mentioning are\u2014I do think that there are some more questions that I haven\u2019t been satisfied on in relation to the treatment of judicial officers. This is really interesting, actually, because while we were debating in here today, in the Grand Hall just through those two sets of double doors, many of our greatest judges and lawyers and practitioners in family law were having a conference on the anniversary of the Property (Relationships) Act. Of course, that\u2019s a different area of law, but it does cover, obviously, judicial officers. It was really interesting to reflect on the discussions that we\u2019re having in here today and the kind of complexity of the issues that they were dealing with in there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005715\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the things that they are interested in is new Family Court associate judges and their comparative conditions compared to Family Court judges. That is something that is a live issue for them at the moment\u2014making sure that there is that consistency. I think what the Minister said in her reflections today was that she was interested in having consistency around judicial officers as well. I\u2019m a big proponent of employment as a mode of engagement when that truly is the true nature of the relationship. I personally think that there\u2019s a very solid common law test that can be put in place to ascertain whether you\u2019re employed or not. But I do agree and don\u2019t object to people like judicial officers or quasi-judicial\u2014or \u201Cquas-eye\u201D; we\u2019ve had a debate about how you pronounce that today\u2014officers having those consistent rights as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005716\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI wish that we had been able to\u2014and I wasn\u2019t, as I said in my previous contribution, on either select committee at exactly the right time to hear the submissions, but it would be heartening and it would be comforting to know that the people who currently are treated as employees in the Disputes Tribunal were satisfied that these changes were fair in terms of the consistency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005717\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do see the point of what the Minister is trying to achieve; however, there is an uncomfortable aspect of having a piece of legislation which, effectively, cancels someone\u2019s employment, through the deletion of this clause, and that will be the effect at the end of today. I\u2019m just flagging that as something that may or may not be an issue, but I think it\u2019s important to put the House on notice for that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005718\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe rest of the issues I feel were sufficiently\u2014well, I feel that I covered the issues in the committee stage in respect of tribunals, and so I won\u2019t go over that any further. But I just also recognise, as the rest of the House has done, that it\u2019s important to make these small changes to ensure that our regulatory systems are working effectively, so although they might not be the most interesting bills to us, they have an effect on making the system work better. Thanks to the officials for doing the work on this, and I hope that some of those concerns turn out to be unwarranted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005719\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other bill that we have been discussing is, of course, the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill. I didn\u2019t participate in that committee stage, but I do think that there are some interesting points here, so I just wanted to, if I have time, mention maybe one point on each of the areas.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005720\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe changes to the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act\u2014this is a particularly interesting Act to me. I qualified as a lawyer in 2007, and so this was the regime that was in place when I qualified. I remember discussions around including conveyancers in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act, and I remember the discussions around the provision of legal advice, because that was particularly relevant to employed solicitors, and I think there was an amendment in that. It\u2019s quite interesting now to see that the provision of regulated services has come up again in this bill, and the provision of regulated services, in this instance, it appears to me\u2014and I wasn\u2019t here for the committee stage, so apologies if this was clarified further\u2014has been taken out of the description of what the people on the Lawyers Standards Committee actually do. That\u2019s particularly interesting, so I just wanted to mention that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnother thing, kind of reflecting on prostitution law reform, is that I remember when that passed in the House in 2003, and I think it was really unknown as to whether that would pass at all until the numbers were called. I want to acknowledge Labour MP Georgina Beyer, and I think she gave a very amazing speech on that. I remember I was working in a students association at the time, and we had been supporting this change. Essentially, what we have had is a decriminalisation and a regulation of prostitution, which was so controversial. It was quite a few years ago now, over 20 years ago, but to see a minor change made to this in a regulatory systems bill, I suppose, shows how far the debate has come.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005722\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s not a controversial thing that we have a regulated, legalised system in New Zealand in relation to prostitution. I think this is a good change, too, because we don\u2019t want people legally running brothels who have convictions in burglary, robbery, blackmail, or money laundering, because these are convictions that do reflect on the character of the person, and we want the people who choose to do that work, if they\u2019re legally allowed to, to be of good character. I think that is an interesting reflection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI don\u2019t know if I\u2019ll have time to cover real estate agents. I think, hopefully, that has been\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005724\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e7a099bb9f5b4f62f48d836794d55026\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: You\u2019ve got 47 seconds.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005725\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225b40cc3814b586f716c70323f2abb5bd\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve got 47 seconds\u2014what could I say? I think it is a good thing, and most New Zealanders would agree\u2014and, hopefully, this House does too\u2014that the real estate agent profession is regulated and is held to high standards. I do think that the changes in this help to maintain the confidence that New Zealanders should have in what is a profession that maybe we don\u2019t all engage with every day but that is a significant part of one of the most important and significant financial decisions that most people make in their life. The fact that they do so with integrity and they do so in a way which is regulated to a high standard is something that we should support. I commend both these bills to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022a71e66955d22e7a9e1d470f3538042e6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005726\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a71e66955d22e7a9e1d470f3538042e6\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (20:44)\u003C/span\u003E: With the mental health bill coming next, I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022 data-id=\u0022266fd46af1ad28e6151d377a91f1697a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005727\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022266fd46af1ad28e6151d377a91f1697a\u0022\u003EDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (20:44)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Labour Party in support on the third reading of the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill. This is the final stage of Parliament\u2019s consideration of these bills. Over the course of that process, they have been examined by select committees; tested through public submissions; amended, where appropriate; and debated in detail during the committee of the whole House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005728\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELabour supports these bills because they improve the way a number of important regulatory and dispute resolution schemes actually operate. The changes are spread across a range of legislation. They touch on the Disputes Tribunal, the New Zealand Parole Board, private security and investigation services, lawyers and conveyancers, real estate professionals, and several other regulatory regimes. It\u2019s a broad package, but there is a common theme running through it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005729\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe objective is to ensure that the rules, powers, and procedures governing these systems remain workable and relevant as circumstances change over time. One thing that became clear during the process is that many of these amendments have arisen through practical experience. Officials, regulators, tribunal members, and professional bodies have identified areas where legislation is unclear and where powers are incomplete or where administrative requirements no longer match the realities of how these systems operate. What we have before us is largely a response to those issues. It is legislation informed by people who have spent years working within these systems and who have identified areas that could operate better.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005730\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill contains several examples of that approach. With changes to the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act, an initial assessment process has been introduced for complaints, and anyone who has worked within the complaints regime knows that there is a difference between receiving a complaint and requiring a full investigation. The bill recognises that distinction and provides a clearer process for determining which matters should proceed and which are better dealt with another way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005731\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMuch of that focus is also in the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill. It takes a similar approach, in particular with Part 2, \u201CAmendments to Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003\u201D, and that was traversed during the committee of the whole House, in particular clause 10, which amends section 82 of the principal Act\u2014replacing section 82(3)(a) with \u201C(a) an adjudicator who has held a practising certificate as a barrister or barrister and solicitor for at least 5 years (which need not be consecutive), whether or not the person currently holds such a certificate;\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005732\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat amendment broadens the scope of who can actually be within that tribunal, and so it provides greater access for those wanting to access those services. The Minister provided a good description on that. It\u2019s very important: if you purchase a used car, for example, you might drive it off the lot and then, a couple of kilometres down the road, you might break down and you might have to enter that disputes tribunal process. It\u2019s quite indicative of this Government, really\u2014you pop the bonnet on this Government and it\u2019s an absolute mess on the inside: you know, the gearbox hasn\u2019t actually been in gear for the last two years, the tank is running on empty, and you know what? It\u2019ll be going to the scrap heap on 7 November. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E] They\u2019re trying very hard\u2014they\u2019ve been parroting a slogan all night. I\u2019ve got a new one here: \u201CFixing the brakes and blowing the future\u201D\u2014just like a blown engine in a new car that\u2019s going to get traded in on 7 November. Thank you, Madam Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ab32b09663ea48b199aa59e4d88f77e4\u0022 data-id=\u002299b3b9cb29f0f83abc6eefc2b88745d2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005733\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ab32b09663ea48b199aa59e4d88f77e4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002299b3b9cb29f0f83abc6eefc2b88745d2\u0022\u003ETIM COSTLEY (National\u2014\u014Ctaki) (20:49)\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s the first glimpse of life we\u2019ve seen over there. I too, like the honourable member before me, am passionate to see work done for the mental wellbeing of people in K\u0101piti and around our country, and that\u2019s why I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u002217ac10200a451d0eb55377c682dc3ef4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005734\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002217ac10200a451d0eb55377c682dc3ef4\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (20:49)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I did enjoy Dan Rosewarne\u2019s contribution there. I note that, for the motor vehicle tribunal, that whilst I qualify to be an adjudicator, he would qualify as an assessor\u2014a far more important task. There are, of course, qualified mechanics on that particular tribunal, so perhaps, between the two of us, should we be looking for work in the future, we\u2019ll be able to help that particular tribunal out. Of course, the real estate agent authority has been seen as the last sort of refuge of MPs that have left this House as well, poor things.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005735\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut can I just say, I\u2019ve heard Government members say on a number of occasions that this is a technical bill\u2014minor and technical, technical and minor, minor and technical. Whilst regulatory systems bills are intended to do non-contentious work, I think we shouldn\u2019t be too dismissive of them. There was an exchange in the House earlier on in committee stage with the Minister for Courts where I was disappointed with some responses and she was dismissive of me because this was a mere minor and technical bill. I mean, she did come back to the House and gave a much better answer in respect of the undertakings point, so I thank her for that. But I do think that, for the people affected by these provisions\u2014whilst some change \u201Cshall\u201D to \u201Cmust\u201D, that\u2019s truly technical and minor\u2014if you\u2019re a conveyancing practitioner and you are now able to give enforceable undertakings, that\u2019s actually going to transform your practice. In terms of keeping lawyers honest\u2014if it\u2019s possible\u2014and in terms of a competitive sense having conveyancers being able to do business in that conveyancing sphere on pretty much the same footing, as the Minister pointed out, previously, conveyancers would have to go to a lawyer and say, can you give this undertaking because it has to be a solicitor\u2019s undertaking. Now that doesn\u2019t have to happen. It\u2019s an additional cost that they don\u2019t have to bear, and so their business can be conducted on a fair and even footing. That\u2019s good, and it\u2019s actually been a thorn in the side of conveyancing practitioners since 2008 when the conveyancing profession first came into being.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005736\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut I\u2019m not actually satisfied that the legislation is in the best form it could be\u2014notwithstanding it being knocked around this House\u2014and the fact that the person who\u2019s affected to go to court has to go via a particular kind of narrow procedure. I forget the exact words Phil Twyford used, but I think he called it a \u201Clitigation-lite\u201D or something of that ilk, which is kind of what it is. It\u2019s documents only and then just oral argument in court. The summary judgment procedure isn\u2019t necessarily the right procedure. Having said that, it\u2019s a step in the right direction, and I know the judiciary will pick it up. It\u2019s perfectly possible to simply transform that summary judgment procedure into an ordinary proceeding, which judges may do, but it\u2019s just an additional expense and step, which is kind of the opposite thing to what we want.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005737\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn respect of the other main point I raised in respect to the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill, that was around summary dismissal of complaints within the Law Society by the complaints service. Look, I want to be careful what I say because I\u2019ve worked with the complaints service\u2014helping them, not as a respondent\u2014and they do have a lot of good people in there, and a lot of the people who triage those complaints are, in fact, legally qualified. In fact, one of the provisions of this bill\u2014the new section 272A\u2014 deals with the fact that lawyers deal with these complaints, and in dealing with complaints, they\u2019re not considered to be providing legal services. The point being you can\u2019t complain about the lawyer who triaged your complaint.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005738\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut in terms of this summary dismissal, I do think that a safety valve is needed, because much of the time of complaints services are dealt with in dealing with repeat\u2014or frequent flyers, as they\u2019re sometimes called\u2014complainants who have the same thing to say time and again. They\u2019ll complain against one lawyer and then they\u2019ll complain against another lawyer, then they\u2019ll complain to another complaints institution, and so on and so forth. Now, they are hard to manage, but there are strategies to make their management as simple as possible, and telling them that there\u2019s nothing in their complaint and not giving them an ability to have that reviewed in a kind of natural justice manner is certainly one way to exacerbate the problem.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005739\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHaving said that, there is a pile of complaints that go to these standards committees, which are\u2014I\u2019m always cautious in using the term \u201Cvexatious\u201D, but they\u2019re just ill-founded. Sure, some complaints are made to harass, but some complaints are ill-founded simply because people have unrealistic expectations of the duties that other people, particularly lawyers, owe them. The common one is a complaint against the lawyer for the other side. I would frequently see complaints where the complaint was, if you boiled it down, \u201CThe opposition lawyer was mean to me.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005740\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002223bde77f982742fb7ae896e7c79aa574\u0022\u003EHon Members: \u003C/span\u003EHa ha!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005741\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022121284a85ae07af10684ab36ca779532\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB\u003C/span\u003E: You may giggle, but it\u2019s a genuine complaint. The fact of the matter is that it is sometimes the job of a lawyer to work as hard as they can against the interests of the other party, and that can come across as them being kind of wantonly mean. Those complaints can probably be dismissed in a pretty summary manner, but my concern nevertheless stands in respect of that clause.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005742\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn respect of the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill, there was one thing that I was quite gratified to see and that was the disputes tribunal and the ability to claim back the filing fees. When the Disputes Tribunal Bill went through this House some time ago, but this term, one of my real concerns was the cost, because the cost of filing, I think, was $450,000 for a claim up to $70,000, and that was more than to file in the District Court. I still have a problem with the size of that fee, and the fact that you can\u2019t get a fee waiver, but the fact that you can go to the disputes tribunal, and if you\u2019re successful, in some degree, you can get that fee as part of the decision, whereas, previously, that wasn\u2019t the case. Of course, the fact is that if you\u2019re arguing about $70,000, it\u2019s actually quite likely you\u2019ll also use a lawyer. Those fees won\u2019t be recoverable. It\u2019s important to just note that. If you go to a lawyer and say, \u201CPlease write my argument for me because I\u2019m not that articulate\u201D, and that costs you $1,000 or $1,500, that\u2019s going to be part of your costs of bringing your claim. That\u2019s not going to be recoverable as legal costs, but the $450 you paid to file that fee will be recoverable. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005743\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOf course, a few tidy-ups\u2014the Parole Act and their remuneration. Interesting\u2014Lawrence Xu-Nan has just arrived, which I\u2019m allowed to say, I think. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005744\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002299c151486989f21d8df1041ed64816ed\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: You\u2019re allowed to say he\u2019s in the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005745\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002234e452790322d15904223d7f7619a20c\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB\u003C/span\u003E: He\u2019s in the House. Xu-Nan is in the House. Of course, I was surprised to hear that he didn\u2019t know what the Higher Salaries Commission was, but there you go. Even the greatest minds amongst us have their flaws. But he learnt that it was replaced by the Remuneration Authority, and it\u2019s good to see that the Parole Board is being brought up to speed with that remuneration framework, and of course, the motor vehicles tribunal. There is a difficulty, and it may come as a shock, but things like the adjudicators on the motor vehicle tribunal and disputes tribunal referees, they\u2019re actually not paid vast sums of money, so it\u2019s not like people are banging down the door, particularly people who have the necessary skills. They\u2019re not just legal skills; they\u2019re also people skills, conflict resolution skills, and so expanding the pool of people who can be adjudicators in the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal, that also is a good thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005746\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EYes, there are some chunky kind of so-called technical and minor amendments, but they are, on the whole, going in the right direction. Of course, that\u2019s why we are supporting this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227ef423fda7b143b890e93f8018529ebe\u0022 data-id=\u00228d1e67cbf8561c4f19d76660aa5fcfd6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005747\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227ef423fda7b143b890e93f8018529ebe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228d1e67cbf8561c4f19d76660aa5fcfd6\u0022\u003EGREG FLEMING (National\u2014Maungakiekie) (20:59)\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EN\u0101 te nui taipitopito o ng\u0101 mema o mua, kua pau te ture.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005748\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EDue to the great detail previous members have gone into, the legislation has been exhausted.\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005749\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBecause of the detailed examination of the previous speakers, I thought my contribution would be best in a haiku. \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EI te reo M\u0101ori tuatahi\u003C/span\u003E \u2014first of all, in M\u0101ori\u2014and then in English. It\u2019ll be very brief, Madam Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005750\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EHinga ng\u0101 here, ka p\u016B\u0101wai te ture. Ora te iwi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005751\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThe bonds fall away, legislation flourishes. The people are well.\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005752\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ERed tape falls away; swift decisions, safer voices; justice serves us all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005753\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228981150d54a9059f96a068e6d4e85c93\u0022\u003ESuze Redmayne\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Speaker!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005754\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb80a9df83044b88a00c174ea7a61925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221650458878c4e94c77eefe7f6723eec0\u0022\u003ETangi Utikere\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Speaker! Madam Speaker!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005755\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222543a132a9205f9232a8cf4abb702095\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Suze Redmayne won that race.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022 data-id=\u0022b39c27651dbff625913d061c4a104a21\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005756\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b39c27651dbff625913d061c4a104a21\u0022\u003ESUZE REDMAYNE (National\u2014Rangit\u012Bkei) (21:00)\u003C/span\u003E: I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005757\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a8a25a8472ffa07b84aa84fdafa7c24b\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, you\u2019ve got to be quick. That just reminds me: before I take the vote, there were a couple of comments through that\u2014and I\u2019m quite pleased we\u2019ve come to the end of that reading, because some of it was a bit bizarre; it is the fourth night of urgency. Not so much for the Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori calls at the end of the readings but certainly during the committee of the whole House stage, it\u2019s worth noting that if you don\u2019t call, sometimes we won\u2019t see you. It\u2019s just a reminder, because we\u2019ve had a few run-ins this week with people not calling. When we think no one\u2019s calling, we close it down. On that basis, the question is that the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005758\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005759\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ERegulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005760\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ERegulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005761\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00228709446fa4a8eb50386f1eee449120d1\u0022\u003EMental Health Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005762\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022dfd60da40984022f4267fa86cd29dc9e\u0022\u003ELegislative Statement\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u002206ac6d65eed7c53360baf0463eb2196b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005763\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002206ac6d65eed7c53360baf0463eb2196b\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (21:01)\u003C/span\u003E: I present a legislative statement on the Mental Health Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005764\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b6d7f4004d3fcf1b3deeee37bc2708aa\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005765\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00227ea7fe8be44584e4d6288a5325fee408\u0022\u003ESecond Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022439486f21d9a872622ea8f1463ac3632\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005766\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022439486f21d9a872622ea8f1463ac3632\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (21:01)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, That the Mental Health Bill be now read a second time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005767\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s a privilege to be standing here today for the second reading of the Mental Health Bill. I\u2019d like firstly to start by thanking the Health Committee for all their hard work\u2014ably led by the chair, Sam Uffindell\u2014in examining this bill. Can I say, from the start, that I think it\u2019s vitally important for tangata whaiora that this bill comes back with full cross-party support. I\u2019d also like to thank the people who took the time to make a submission and engage with the select committee process\u2014particularly those who shared their personal experience. It is a deeply personal thing to share your own experience, so thank you for your bravery. I do want to acknowledge all those with lived experience.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005768\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe committee considered submissions from 358 individuals and groups. Those submitters brought a range of perspectives, including those who have experience of compulsory treatment, those with family with lived experience, clinicians, academics, and mental health organisations. I\u2019d also like to thank the 89 people who spoke directly to the Health Committee to share their views. I\u2019d also like to acknowledge those who bravely came forward to share their stories in the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions. It is important that we carry their voices, not only tonight but through any work looking into how the State cares for people when they need it the most. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005769\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to reiterate that this bill will demonstrate meaningful and significant progress by contributing towards at least 10 of the abuse in care recommendations, relating primarily to care safety and monitoring. All of you have helped shape a Mental Health Bill that goes beyond compulsory treatment, as we know it today, and that, instead, firmly places a person at the centre of their care and empowers people to make decisions about their own care.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005770\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhile most in New Zealand who access specialist mental health and addiction services are not subject to the Mental Health Act, over the course of a year, around 11,000 people receive compulsory care. In an ideal world, we would not need compulsory mental health care; however, we need a system in place for New Zealanders experiencing mental distress at a level that does require intervention to support their recovery. This bill strikes a balance of a future focus on safe and effective mental health care for people who require that State intervention, while having the right safeguards in place to ensure people\u2019s rights are upheld and protected. This bill will be a critical safety net for those experiencing severe mental distress who are unable to make decisions about their own mental health care. I do want to reiterate tonight that it is intended to be used as a last resort only.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005771\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe submissions received on this bill represented a variety of views. This is an important piece of legislation, and I expected there to be views across the board on key areas in the bill to assist the Health Committee\u2019s consideration. It has been heartening to see that, of the individuals and groups that commented on the general policy intent of the bill, the majority were supportive. People recognise that we need compulsory care in some form; however, there were divergent views on what people felt this should look like. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005772\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m also encouraged by the support from submitters for the introduction of compulsory care principles, the supported decision-making provisions, and establishment of new roles and processes to safeguard those under compulsory care. This includes independent support persons and advocates, nominated persons, and collaborative care teams. These are integral to the shifts I want to see under this new legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005773\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere were some key changes made through the select committee process. These include introducing a \u201Cdignity of risk\u201D principle. This aligns with the legislation\u2019s purpose of promoting decision-making capacity. I believe it\u2019s critical that the legislation recognises a person\u2019s right to take reasonable risks to achieve personal growth, self-esteem, and overall quality of life.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005774\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETerminology is really important to how people see themselves and how people are treated. I\u2019m pleased to see the Health Committee has made changes to the term \u201Cpatient\u201D to instead be \u201Cperson under compulsory care\u201D. This change responds to submitters who said the term \u201Cpatient\u201D is stigmatising and can reinforce power imbalances between someone seeking support and professionals. Submitters also said it reinforces a paternalistic approach to care, which we want to move away from.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005775\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOffences and penalties are important enforcement tools in the legislation. The royal commission of inquiry raised the need for appropriate and significant penalties for failures to comply with standards of care. I\u2019m very pleased to see that the select committee has made changes to modernise the offences and penalties in this legislation, with a more structured regime as well as more tools for the regulator to use to support greater compliance with the Act. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005776\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHowever, I also recognise that many people who submitted on the bill had concerns about specific areas\u2014in particular, the use of restrictive practices such as seclusion and the use of electroconvulsive therapy, or ECT. People also want strong safeguards for care of those under 18. As I spoke about in the first reading on this bill, these practices have a history of inappropriate use, abuse, and overuse. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005777\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to be very clear that I remain committed to seeing the reduction and elimination of seclusion. However, it is critical that this is done in a way that minimises the risk of unintended consequences. In particular, I would not want to see an increase in other inappropriate practices such as chemical or physical restraint. The bill strengthens requirements on the use of seclusion to drive the change needed to reduce and eliminate seclusion. The bill prohibits seclusion for children and young people. This is an incremental but significant step towards elimination that I am proud of, but I\u2019m aware that there\u2019s going to be a big shift for mental health workers, and it is important that we manage this change safely for both children and young people as well as staff.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005778\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do want to acknowledge that the Health Committee has made a number of improvements to further strengthen provisions relating to seclusion to ensure there are stronger protections and greater monitoring of progress. The committee received a wide range of views about ECT, from being an effective, life-saving treatment in modern clinical practice through to wanting it banned. The committee has also recommended a range of improvements to make sure there are greater safeguards on the use of ECT, including for people under 18. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005779\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFrom the submissions received, the Health Committee has recommended changes that will improve clarity and ensure greater safeguards for those subject to the Act. The word I want to emphasise here is \u201Cbalance\u201D; the bill aims to strike a balance between placing limits on people\u2019s rights when there is a need to intervene to provide care and ensuring that this intervention is only done when absolutely necessary and in a way that protects and upholds an individual\u2019s rights. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005780\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn closing, I acknowledge that there are diverse views on this piece of legislation, which were heard through the select committee process. Developing this bill has involved careful balancing of all of those views.  I believe the bill represents a meaningful step forward, and I\u2019m pleased to present it to you today. The bill will enable supported decision making, safer practice through stronger protections for people subject to legislation, and care that is provided in the least coercive way\u2014that is therapeutic and responsive to a person\u2019s needs. I hope to see continued cross-party support on this important bill. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005781\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022da6d2103683440edc674f7a0ca92820f\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u00221b67d66f5cf2ca308bfda16df28f6aba\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005782\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221b67d66f5cf2ca308bfda16df28f6aba\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (21:10)\u003C/span\u003E: Today, there was a press release that was issued, and anyone who saw TV ONE news would have heard of what has been happening at Wakari Hospital, where the Ombudsman said, \u201CI\u2019m deeply disturbed by what our inspectors found. What they observed at Ward 10A were some of the worst practices we have observed anywhere\u201D. People who are at Wakari Ward 10A or who were there have been kept under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 and the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, but, also, the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005783\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Wakari Hospital developments that have been occurring in Dunedin, very close to my electorate, are a stark example of why we need reform in this area. I welcome the fact that we have a new bill before us. I agree that it would be great to have cross-party support, and I guess it depends on how one measures that. If it\u2019s just on votes, then yes, this is cross-party support. But we really do feel, on this side of the House, that despite the small changes that we were able to make at select committee, it is a bit of a wasted opportunity to make a transformational change to a bill that probably won\u2019t be able to come before the House for another 10 or 15 years. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005784\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf I look at what the Ombudsman said had been happening at Wakari Hospital to our intellectually disabled mental health patients, in one instance, a person was tied down on a bariatric or evac-mat to move them across the ward. This was causing physical and mental harm to the person, who suffered carpet burns as a result. Inspectors also found that one person had been secluded in their bedroom for around 18 months with an almost complete lack of meaningful human contact and no access to the outdoors. There were restrictions on dental care and people being denied access to their own money. Staff were observed incentivising good behaviour by rewarding people with access to basic necessities, including dental treatment or the use of a toilet. There was unlawful administration of medication, and serious and significant failures.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005785\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI am heartened that, after my calls for an independent inquiry into this\u2014and after not being able to get an urgent debate in the House, unfortunately\u2014the Ministry of Health has accepted the Ombudsman\u2019s recommendation to undertake an independent investigation into the treatment and conditions of people at Ward 10A. That ward is now closing down for that particular purpose, and I would really like to acknowledge the Ombudsman for taking so seriously the work that they\u2019ve done, or that he\u2019s done. I\u2019d like to acknowledge the staff and the PSA union, who\u2019ve worked under incredibly difficult conditions given the structure and the environment that they\u2019ve been working in and the harm that some of them have endured. I\u2019d like to acknowledge Health New Zealand for acting very quickly on the Ombudsman\u2019s recommendation, which was the only thing, really, that they could have done, given the seriousness of that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005786\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut, also, patients and former staff who reached out to me and shared their story, even though they were shattered by their experiences, and some of them who were just too scared to go through official channels. On that note, I\u2019d really like to acknowledge Matthew Littlewood from the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EOtago Daily Times\u003C/span\u003E, who has done an excellent job in bringing this to light. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005787\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is the reason why we need reform in the mental health sphere and the Mental Health Bill\u2014and it\u2019s no small bill: it\u2019s 168 pages, 221 clauses, and two schedules. We\u2019ve had an amendment today, a five-page Government amendment, which tells me that we do have some scope in the committee stage to really forensically look at this. There were submissions that indicated that the process was quite rushed, and there are examples in the bill of typos and questions which would indicate that has happened, and so it would be useful for us to use this time to go through the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005788\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe main point I would like to make is that we are supporting it, because the 1992 Act\u2014that\u2019s a long time ago\u2014is absolutely not fit for purpose, but this modern framework does fall short of the transformational reform that was envisaged by the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHe Ara Oranga\u003C/span\u003E report. Where we see the opportunities are around implementation, workforce planning, and accountability that don\u2019t seem to have legislated safeguards. We also would have preferred to see stronger protections for M\u0101ori, disabled people, children, young people, and other vulnerable groups. We would have liked a greater emphasis on voluntary participatory care wherever possible, particularly given the evidence we heard at select committee about the way that participatory care contributes to recovery for people journeying through mental health, versus the absolute lack of evidence that compulsory care orders enable recovery\u2014and yet, they seem to be the norm currently. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005789\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe definitely would like to see the bill contain a strong commitment to ending seclusion. We are happy with where we landed on electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). It is a vexed issue, and we do see that there could be still some further strengthening, but we do acknowledge that there are some very limited examples where ECT is appropriate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005790\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe are very happy that there have been some small changes\u2014and I would say they\u2019re small, compared to the ones that we would have liked to see\u2014made with the presumption that birthing parents and newborn babies should remain together unless separation is necessary for safety purposes. But, today, we\u2019ve seen this Amendment Paper come into the House, which is really limiting that again, and so we\u2019d like to go through that quite closely to find out whether our change that we had advocated for in select committee actually has any meaning left to it for our birthing parents. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005791\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe also are happy that there\u2019s been an acknowledgement of and our recommendation adopted that Labour advocated for, which was children and young people being able to travel with a trusted adult between facilities in what can be a very traumatising journey. That has been adopted without change, so that\u2019s good. The dignity of care provision that the Minister referred to is fantastic but, actually, was a hygiene factor for us. That is something that should have been in the original drafting of the legislation. Nevertheless, it\u2019s good to see it in there. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005792\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do want to acknowledge the Minister, actually, for giving us the opportunity to be reacquainted with the bill just a couple of nights ago and, also, be able to suggest some of our amendments to him in case he would entertain them. I think that\u2019s a very useful final check to go through. Nevertheless, I have got about 40-odd amendments on the Table, and these are not single-word changes or frivolous. These are very thought-through amendments that we believe, on this side of the House, would panel-beat the bill into something that would actually be transformational. We do hope that the House gives them due regard. We would also like to see the giving-effect of Te Tiriti o Waitangi happen in a way that is in the totality of the bill, not just in the particular limited circumstances that have been mentioned, and we will be going through that in the committee stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005793\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe acknowledge that the bill does limit seclusion to a degree, but I\u2019d like to point out to any media who are watching this that we\u2019re in quite different places around seclusion on this side of the House. When I was being asked to do media reports a couple of weeks ago, I was surprised that media thought that there was a sunset clause on seclusion. That is not the case. There is simply a five-year legislative review. We would have liked that to have been a sunset clause and, at least\u2014at the very least\u2014two-yearly reviews for the House to be able to consider whether we\u2019d move to a place of resourcing where we could do that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005794\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Minister has mentioned that under-18-year-olds won\u2019t be subject to seclusion, and that\u2019s a good outcome that we support, but there\u2019s a contradiction, then, in the bill, because the Minister has said the reason for not sunsetting seclusion is because it will encourage other forms of restraint unless there\u2019s resourcing. What I\u2019m hearing from that is that, perhaps, our children and young people are in a more vulnerable position as a result, and we would like to interrogate that with the Minister. We did have evidence of places that had been able to eliminate seclusion and we are questioning why that can\u2019t happen if there\u2019s a commitment to resourcing\u2014and yet, the Minister and the Government members have shied away from any kind of legislative commitment to resourcing, which is really the fundamental problem with the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005795\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s a number of other things that we would like to see, but, in conclusion, we do support the bill, because we cannot remain under the 1992 Act. The story that I told you at the beginning of this is an evolving story. It is huge. It is terrible in the context of abuse in care, and it is terrible because it involves our most vulnerable, marginalised, and invisible people in society. We want to see a bill that has more participation, more human rights at the centre, and stronger implementation, accountability, and safeguards. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022ff0d2e99f62eaaa2cd6898d5a0f201d5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ff0d2e99f62eaaa2cd6898d5a0f201d5\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (21:20)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to also support the Mental Health Bill in its second reading. Now, I do want to acknowledge both the Minister and also the previous speaker, Ingrid Leary, on this particular bill. I will lay out some of the concerns on this side of the House, though we do support it. I think it\u2019s important to highlight some of the context around this and also some of the positions and also some of the areas we want to engage with the Minister on during the upcoming committee stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005797\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of this bill, as mentioned previously, this is a bill that replaces an incredibly outdated piece of legislation, the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. A lot of this came from the 2018 report \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHe Ara Oranga\u003C/span\u003E, which was delivered, I believe, to the Minister of Health at the time in December 2018. I think this is a really important starting point that this bill came from. The Minister has already laid out some of the conversations that have been heard during the select committee stage, even though I wasn\u2019t a part of that. I do want to thank all of the members on the Health Committee for taking part in that process, and, particularly, I want to thank all of the submitters who came along, as always, and shared their personal stories and experiences with this bill, particularly when we\u2019re looking at compulsory care.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005798\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s also important, I think, to contextualise a lot of this with the example that my colleague Ingrid Leary just gave before around the broader context that we saw just over the last year and up until very recently with the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in care and how we\u2019re still seeing some of those really quite severe and horrendous experiences that people are experiencing in compulsory care, which, I think, by any standard as a New Zealander and by any standard internationally, from a rights-based perspective, is unacceptable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005799\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also want to address the fact that one of the things that did come through the select committee as a part of this process\u2014and, particularly, it was raised by the Ombudsman, was the fact that for such a significant bill and such a significant change, there wasn\u2019t sufficient time given to hear from submitters in an appropriate way. I think that\u2019s really important, bearing in mind that the first reading of this bill was in 2024, and it was referred to the select committee, where it had, I think, by select committee standards, quite a long period that was open for submissions; I believe it was about two months. But, over this period, the report from select committee came back on 17 April 2025\u2014that is over 14 months ago\u2014and we\u2019re now just hearing this bill for the second time now. I think, in hindsight, potentially, with the blessing from the Minister, that select committee could have actually had a longer time to consider this bill and to hear from submitters in a way that is appropriate and that uses different forms to engage with submitters, as we have seen in various other bills that have happened in the House recently.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005800\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, on to the actual content of the bill, there are eight parts, and we\u2019re looking forward to engaging with the Minister on all of them, but I want to address a few areas that are of significant concern for the Greens. I think the previous speaker has already mentioned the fact that there is still a review period and not a sunset clause for seclusion, even though I think the Minister has laid out that, in certain areas, children and young people, I believe, will no longer be under seclusion, which is an important step. At the same time, seclusion, as we heard from the example before, is something that is deeply traumatic and is actually simply not good for anyone\u2019s wellbeing, mental or physical. Yet it is disappointing to see that there has been no sunset clause on a seclusion commitment in here, whereas I think the Greens would have liked to see a five-year sunset clause, which would have shown that there is some form of commitment around this particular practice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005801\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, the other thing that is really important from our perspective is this idea that if we are looking at some of the international standards and if we\u2019re looking at the disability convention and also the rights of tangata whaiora and disabled people and neurodivergent people, we would like to move towards something that is more rights-consistent and that considers the mental and physical wellbeing of these people, where we can start moving towards an area where we can maybe look into replacing compulsory care with a voluntary care order. Again, this is something that the Greens would like to see, as voluntary care orders should be the default, not an option. We are going in a way that best emphasises and also takes into consideration the ability for people to rehabilitate, to recover, and also, like I said before, that considers people\u2019s wellbeing as a starting point before we move into the need for compulsory care. That is something that, for example, the Greens would also like to see, with voluntary care as the default, as opposed to going to more extremes with compulsory care.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005802\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI already mentioned before that one of the areas that the Greens has the greatest concern around is, again, the implications that this will have for disabled people and for neurodivergent people and how this would interact and how this would be moving towards a system that will allow them to have more dignity and allow them to maintain their rights and freedom to a greater extent. Like we have said previously, this bill is a significant improvement from the 1992 bill, which is why we do support it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005803\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also think it\u2019s really heartening to hear from the Minister and also in the engagement from the Minister that we hope that we can move to a stage where we can do better and be able to provide more funding. This is something that I\u2019m hoping that the Minister will be able to consider as well, both in terms of the amendments by my colleague Ingrid Leary but also my colleague Kahurangi Carter, who is our mental health spokesperson, who is also engaging with the Minister as well on this bill. We have also a few amendments on this as well that we would like to engage with the Minister on as part of the committee stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005804\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere are, obviously, other parts in this bill that I think deserve mention as well. I think this is something that, again, to the best of the select committee\u2019s consideration, there have been amendments to this bill in a way that may have changed some of the aspects further. One of the areas that the Minister has already mentioned and that I think was one of the things that I, in one of the rare opportunities when I subbed in on the Health Committee, did actually hear from the experts, is around the electroconvulsive therapy, or ECT. I think that is something that, from our perspective, we\u2019re still cautious about. We know that is something that the ministry has considered can be an effective treatment for depression, mania, catatonia, and other serious neuropsychiatric conditions. But, again, it\u2019s one of those things where, from our perspective, we would like to see other mechanisms in place and only use this as an absolute last resort.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005805\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAgain, with those kind of things, particularly from an international convention perspective, what we want to avoid is any sort of therapy or any sort of care, compulsory or otherwise, that would amount to torture. This is something that I think everyone in this House but also something that, for example, OPCAT, which is our obligation under the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, will possibly be interested in as well. This is something that our NPMs, the national preventive mechanisms, such as the Ombudsman, Oranga Tamariki, and the Human Rights Commission, would have oversight or some checks and balances on as well. That is just one example that I want to give, on top of everything else I mentioned, that we would like to have more conversations with the Minister on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005806\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELike I said, the Green Party does support this bill. We do have a few amendments that we want to engage the Minister on, but we are looking forward to the upcoming committee stage. With that: yes from the Greens; we support the Mental Health Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022440a125e85954bae9f5d470b7551e4f3\u0022 data-id=\u00220f99496ce095417a67f5a0a9ff159efa\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005807\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022440a125e85954bae9f5d470b7551e4f3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220f99496ce095417a67f5a0a9ff159efa\u0022\u003ECAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (21:30)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, there\u2019s not much more I can add to what the Minister for Mental Health, Matt Doocey, has contributed. He\u2019s done a great synopsis of the work of the select committee. I can just say that the selection committee did spend a great deal of time talking about this bill, debating the merits and the issues. I think the Opposition members that have raised concerns, as much as those are legitimate concerns, they were dealt with in select committee where there was a robust debate. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d92a09db28c44070bbfdcc9f0e6f3cca\u0022 data-id=\u0022c04dcabaafb888b730ed850fc5c91ef5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005808\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d92a09db28c44070bbfdcc9f0e6f3cca\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c04dcabaafb888b730ed850fc5c91ef5\u0022\u003EJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) (21:31)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Mental Health Bill. I\u2019d like to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Matt Doocey, for bringing what he has termed an important bill to the House, and I concur with that sentiment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005809\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s important because it will modernise the legal framework for compulsory psychiatric assessment and treatment. I say this as someone who had a family member undergo electric shock treatment\u2014what we called it in the old days\u2014without family consent. And so the changes that this bill will bring about, establishing higher safeguards for electroconvulsive therapy, ECT it\u2019s known as, is a very good thing. I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022420f72e8bcc84c869a366ff712af8e49\u0022 data-id=\u0022904daa232cd8617675d86d941d6d86b4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005810\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022420f72e8bcc84c869a366ff712af8e49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022904daa232cd8617675d86d941d6d86b4\u0022\u003EHANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori\u2014Hauraki-Waikato) (21:31)\u003C/span\u003E:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005811\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003E[Authorised reo M\u0101ori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005812\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005813\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003Ethe Mental Health Bill. I want to acknowledge the Minister, Minister Matt Doocey, and the Health Committee who have gone through this process, and also the He Ara Oranga inquiry that was done in 2018. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m very pleased to support this bill. It\u2019s something that\u2019s strongly advocated for in the mental health space, specifically in youth and in rangatahi M\u0101ori. The Mental Health Bill\u2014can I also say that this bill includes a Te Tiriti or Treaty clause under the National - Act - New Zealand First Government, which is a big deal for us.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005815\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe He Ara Oranga inquiry stated that M\u0101ori are 50 percent more likely to experience mental health issues and 30 percent of M\u0101ori and other ethnic groups go undiagnosed. Looking at the inquiry and also the report that came out of the Te Hiringa Mahara, the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, outlining some of the kaupapa that they aligned with this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005816\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETe P\u0101ti M\u0101ori completely supports this bill. Something that I\u2019ve been passionate about\u2014a story around this is: in 2020, which was my last year of high school, and we were the first ever cohort to go through COVID with exams. I did an inquiry into maramataka M\u0101ori and how M\u0101ori knowledge can impact and help navigate mental health issues around rangatahi going through COVID. But also that was, I guess, like the beginning of how social media would impact us\u2014that wasn\u2019t even the beginning of artificial intelligence coming into our realm. We developed some resources, M\u0101ori and maramataka M\u0101ori resources, and books for rangatahi who experienced mental health crises during the COVID 2020 pandemic and how you navigated that through exams. And so, to see, six years later, coming in with legislation that I can support, is pretty cool. So thank you to the Minister and to the select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005817\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOutlining some of the recommendations. This is from the\u2014sorry, there\u2019s so many different ingoa I don\u2019t get wrong to get them wrong\u2014Te Hiringa Mahara: access to mental health services to online safety education. I also want to touch on the member\u2019s bill that was brought in by Laura McClure in terms of the deepfake that we supported, and how that closely aligns to having online safety, specifically for young w\u0101hine who experience the online dangers and how that can affect their mental health. So also bringing up that bill\u2014early intervention for kaupapa M\u0101ori Services or Pacific Service services; crises response teams; 24/7 access into making sure that there is an online service that can you ring; and also growing the workforce. So those were some of the recommendations in the Te Hiringa Mahara report. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005818\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnd I just want to say that from the submissions that I\u2019ve heard, from looking into the Mental Health Bill, that a lot of these recommendations were thoroughly thought out in how they could be implemented into this bill, because this bill replaces the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 to create a modern legislative framework for compulsory mental healthcare. I commend this bill to the House. \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003ET\u0113n\u0101 koe e te P\u012Bka.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022 data-id=\u00220a1e9365155e09b40374ce2321bba5fa\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005819\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dca7b20260b94cda81a3187e58a1d7c9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220a1e9365155e09b40374ce2321bba5fa\u0022\u003EMIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (21:36)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of the Green Party to speak in support of this bill, the Mental Health Bill, at second reading. I\u2019d like to acknowledge the Minister for his mahi in this space and the Health Committee as well, and Kahurangi Carter, the Greens portfolio holder for mental health.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005820\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis has been my first interaction with this bill. I\u2019m not on the committee, so trying to get myself up to speed with the bill and the progress of the bill, and, I guess, one of the things that I was first a little bit surprised with is how long it\u2019s been in the House\u2014introduced back in October 2024 and it, obviously, was then reported back in 20 April 2025, and is finally having its second reading now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005821\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen this bill first went to the select committee, we didn\u2019t support it to the sleep committee. It wasn\u2019t perfect at that time, but it was definitely a step in the right direction with repealing the previous Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act, as it was in line with a lot of the statements we were making as well. And through that select committee process, there has been quite a lot of amendments and changes, and most of them have strengthened the bill, but while we do support it, we still don\u2019t think it has gone far enough. We will be trying to see what more improvements we can get to this bill through the committee of the whole House stage, which is obviously coming up very shortly. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005822\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI would like to just, I guess, touch on a couple of the points that the Greens still have concerns about. Obviously in the commentary, there\u2019s a joint differing view with Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori, and a lot of the concerns we have, we also shared with the Labour Party as well. We\u2019re very committed, and I know the whole House is committed, in trying, with the importance of improving mental health and how that\u2019s handled. There\u2019s always going to be some differences, and we\u2019ll continue to try and strengthen that and improve the outcomes that we get. It\u2019s really important that when we make the decisions, we do it for all of us. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005823\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo, obviously, one of the major concerns we did have, which has been outlined a number of times, but I think it\u2019s really important to continue to outline, is around seclusion Obviously, there\u2019s a review of that in five years, but for the Greens, we would have liked to see that have a sunset clause. Seclusion, as we know, is a harmful and traumatic practice. We do know that there is an issue and you couldn\u2019t go straight to removing that straight away because of workforce issues, but we believe with having a sunset clause in there, and giving that time and ensuring that the staffing levels that were put in place would cater for what was required, we could actually move to it, and having that sunset clause in there would put a definite time limit in there to ensure the resources would be put in place to ensure that happened. I\u2019d just like to note that, obviously, while we as a political party believe that that sunset clause should be in place, that view has been shared by a lot of other people around the motu, and so we really do hope that we can move in that direction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005824\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnother area that we recorded in our differing view was to replace compulsory care with volunteer care orders. We also spoke around neurodivergent children as well, and some proposed changes around clause 6, that voluntary care should be the default, with compulsory care used only when absolutely necessary, and for the shortest duration.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005825\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI would like to note that part of the clause was to strengthen\u2014I guess, when you look at what happens with mental health, M\u0101ori are disproportionately affected by mental health, and it was really important and good to see that there was a Treaty clause in there which would actually, hopefully, help in that space.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005826\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOnce again, I would like to reiterate that the Greens support the Mental Health Bill. We still have concerns and we look forward to working on that further as we go through the committee of the whole House stage, which, as I said, is coming up very, very shortly. So on that note, I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022297bc572c27f45308dffb067ca3e7915\u0022 data-id=\u0022a44171b618e3d1cb276ced73bd762c5f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005827\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022297bc572c27f45308dffb067ca3e7915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a44171b618e3d1cb276ced73bd762c5f\u0022\u003EDr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National\u2014Ilam) (21:41)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s an honour to rise and speak on the second reading of the Mental Health Bill. I do just want to acknowledge New Zealand\u2019s first Minister for Mental Health, Matt Doocey, and for the work he has done to bring this bill to the House. This bill is replacing the 1992 Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act, which no longer aligns with modern mental healthcare. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022 data-id=\u0022a8fbdcbc320bdf9ae39fab2d138e4286\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005828\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a8fbdcbc320bdf9ae39fab2d138e4286\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (21:42)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It\u2019s a privilege to rise to take a call on this bill, which has been a long time coming following on from the He Ara Oranga review, and then work by successive Ministers in the Labour Government, and now the National Government. It\u2019s great to see it in the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005829\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do have to admit that the select committee hearings feel like quite some time ago now, and it is a shame that such a landmark piece of legislation is being debated under urgency, meaning that we\u2019re not hearing full calls from the other side. This is really important, and I can\u2019t think of much other legislation that has the same human rights impact in the health sector. It was with that lens that I went into the select committee hearings, from which I had my involvement when I was briefly the Minister\u2014well, my engagement with the bill as Minister was brief compared to the other Ministers who have shepherded this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005830\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe 1992 Act I would characterise as having the test of who could be placed under compulsory care in the Act, and then the main defence of the person\u2019s human rights under the existing Act is largely through processes of review that are structured throughout the course of the person\u2019s treatment and the time periods at which they must occur. This Act takes a very different approach to upholding the rights of people who are subject to the compulsory treatment clauses of the Act. So, for a start, compulsory treatment should only be used to improve the person\u2019s mental health. So it\u2019s not an opportunity to improve other elements of the person\u2019s health\u2014they still have to consent for that\u2014or their social circumstances. I think that\u2019s important to remember because sometimes some mental health conditions do mean that people\u2019s living circumstances can deteriorate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill requires that the least restrictive option be used. Voluntary care options should be always preferred to compulsory care, and compulsory care should only be used for as short a period as possible. There\u2019s also the reassessments of whether compulsory treatment can be used. Those are positive developments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005832\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn addition, there are some new and innovative concepts that clearly can be done, but it\u2019ll be interesting to see how these practices interact with the law and how, ultimately, people\u2019s care and human rights are affected. This includes the creation of mental health advance directives. That is something viewed favourably in many of the submissions that we received on the committee. But advance directives of all sorts have limitations, and I hope they are not too easily set aside by busy care teams who wonder if the circumstances in which the advance directives were set are no longer in place. There can be good reasons why they\u2019re not followed, and so I hope that we are able to live up to the aspiration in the bill in terms of how we implement those.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005833\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think the appointment of nominated persons to stand up for the rights of the person in compulsory care is as important, as well as the practice of wellbeing meetings. These are practices that may well be being used across the health system already, but they are not mandated. Overall, I think those would be good things.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005834\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think one of the things about the involvement of family and wh\u0101nau in someone\u2019s care is that, at times, and I guess under the current Act, treatment teams can confuse, and we all as a society can confuse\u2014well, excessive concern about respecting someone\u2019s privacy might lead to the non-inclusion of family members, in some situations. So I think the bill\u2019s presumption is that family member involvement is a good thing and will mean that people have greater access to the supports that they will depend on when they are no longer in compulsory care, and also during the time that they are in compulsory care. So I think that\u2019s positive.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005835\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe requirement for independent support people to advocate for the person under the Act and assist them with participating in decision making and exercising their rights is another really, really positive innovation in the Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005836\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere are some areas where rights have been strengthened as well. People have to be able to understand their rights, and there\u2019s also an entitlement to use aids like mobility and other communication aids, under the Act. I mean, it\u2019s kind of unbelievable that we don\u2019t say that, but, of course, if you\u2019re dependent on a device for your hearing, your communication, your mobility, and not having the ability to get that for yourself, it is important that those things are specified.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005837\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI was pleased my colleague Ingrid Leary and I were able to lead a discussion on the committee about the right for a birth parent under compulsory care orders to be able to stay with their baby unless there is a safety risk. I think the presumption that a mother and their baby should not be separated is an important one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005838\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other area where I paid a lot of attention as the Minister briefly responsible for this bill, and then in committee, was the use of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). In both of those capacities, I held serious questions about whether or not one day we\u2019ll look back on the use of electroconvulsive therapy and regret that we permitted it. It\u2019s not an area of medicine that I have any expertise in, so I was pleased that the select committee gave us the opportunity to gather evidence and to hear from experts on that; we heard from experts at length. We accept the conclusion of expert evidence that it is still a practice that is beneficial for some people and can be done in a humane way. I\u2019m pleased, however, that there are increased protections in this bill around the use of ECT, particularly on people under the age of 18.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005839\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo, all in all, there is a lot to be positive about in this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005840\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do want to mention our concern about the continued use of seclusion. Seclusion has been eliminated in some parts of our health system in New Zealand, and good on the teams who have worked really hard in their facilities and hospitals to make that the case. They should be really proud, and we should be really proud as a country if we were able to do away with that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005841\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EResourcing and workforce are always challenges in the health system, and there are always difficult choices about where we place resource and what we prioritise. We have an opportunity in this bill to say that seclusion is something that we would like to make a priority, and to make that staffing to ensure that seclusion is no longer used, a priority.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005842\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn my remaining time, I want to tell you why I\u2019m so convinced that that is important. Actually, a Labour Party member who I met through my work in the party in recent years came and talked to me about it two or three years ago. She had had an experience of compulsory care. She described the experience of seclusion and how traumatic it was. I suppose, as a former clinician, I always approach that question from the prism of \u201CBut was it justified because otherwise you would hurt yourself?\u201D. But, actually, in talking to her, I realised that it wasn\u2019t justified, because she no longer trusts those people who could provide care for her in the future because of the experience of such a traumatic thing at the hands of people who were meant to be caring for her. For that reason, that is my one reservation about this bill, but there are a lot of other positive developments in it, and I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022 data-id=\u0022a51b0b94a2503129a9f9e2ae4789b3b6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005843\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a51b0b94a2503129a9f9e2ae4789b3b6\u0022\u003EDr CARLOS CHEUNG (National\u2014Mt Roskill) (21:52)\u003C/span\u003E: This bill is a significant step forward in modernising compulsory mental health care. It puts patients at the centre of decisions about their own care, strengthens protection and safeguards, and improves access to efficient mental health and addiction support. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f988bc72b5e47b8856ba70e41dfbbaf\u0022 data-id=\u0022c225c3e033d6f89b5ca95af15f4c3d66\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005844\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f988bc72b5e47b8856ba70e41dfbbaf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c225c3e033d6f89b5ca95af15f4c3d66\u0022\u003EGEORGIE DANSEY (Labour) (21:52)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It\u2019s a hard, hard bill, the Mental Health Bill. It\u2019s a big topic. I\u2019ll start by thanking the Minister and the Health Committee for the work that you all did in this space, and as my colleague the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall has alluded to, the previous Government started the work in this space. This is a really significant improvement on the current Act. As other speakers have spoken to, Labour supports this bill. However, we\u2019d like to see this bill go further and make more transformational reform.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005845\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is a really personal one for me because 11 years ago I lost my brother-in-law who was under compulsory care. The coroner found that the care facility had not cared for him adequately and that resulted in his death. There were multiple downfalls at multiple stages of his care, and multiple times when the ball was dropped. Had there been more effective processes around that facility, then he would, hopefully, still be here today. That kind of loss, obviously, has a lifetime impact on family and wh\u0101nau members. I\u2019d like to acknowledge everyone else in New Zealand who has lost someone in these circumstances, and really send my aroha to you and the lifelong impacts that this has.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005846\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo, really, for me, speaking on this bill\u2014it\u2019s quite deep. I am really pleased to be able to contribute in this small way, and so much thanks to those that have done the real mahi in this space, because this will make a real difference. I appreciated the Minister\u2019s comments around the compulsory psychiatric assessment being the last resort only. I appreciate that, and hope in implementation that that is the case. We need to have a human rights approach to this and that it is the last resort when we require compulsory care, obviously taking into account the health of the person and those around them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005847\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI would like to talk about some of the aspects where we would hope to go further. In regard to \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHe Ara Oranga\u003C/span\u003E report, the Government inquiry into mental health and addiction, really, this report falls short of the transformational reform that the report envisioned and the real matter of human rights for people in this space. We would have liked to see a greater emphasis on voluntary participatory care, and supported decision-making, where possible, and where the therapeutic evidence supports this. We also would have liked to see more in the implementation workforce planning and accountability, which still remains a significant concern, in particular, the workforce planning.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005848\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFrom my experience in the system, there were multiple people who didn\u2019t have the training required to do the job to look after the people they were required to care for in quite acute health situations. I would like to see a real emphasis on training for people working in the system, in whatever space they\u2019re in, as healthcare workers. We need to make sure that they are trained and also paid effectively\u2014#EqualPay.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005849\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo, thank you. Labour supports this bill. I hope to see more, and I will continue to advocate for more safeguards around compulsory care in the future. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002288978fb9592a4911a8e47eae04d164f3\u0022 data-id=\u002286897e609aad87c6e6c61a945f072a7a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005850\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002288978fb9592a4911a8e47eae04d164f3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002286897e609aad87c6e6c61a945f072a7a\u0022\u003EDr VANESSA WEENINK (National\u2014Banks Peninsula) (21:57)\u003C/span\u003E: It is an honour to speak at this historic point in the journey that New Zealand has been on in the care for people who are experiencing mental health crises and mental health ill-health. This takes us forward. The Minister has done excellent work, along with the committee, and I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022 data-id=\u00228e2d9bac5c07824baf7af6a77329b3fd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005851\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228e2d9bac5c07824baf7af6a77329b3fd\u0022\u003EDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (21:57)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I, too, rise to take a call on the Mental Health Bill at this second reading. It\u2019s very appropriate that Labour supports this bill because it is essentially updating\u2014well, it is replacing a very outdated law that we simply can\u2019t continue to operate under: the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. A lot has changed since 1992. Certainly, the way that society as a whole conceptualises the difference between mental illness, mental health, and mental wellbeing, and a lot of improvement in our understanding\u2014and in our expectations\u2014of what people care could and should expect from their mental health system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005852\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs has been noted, the law was written more than three decades ago. It no longer reflects the modern understanding of human rights, of supported decision-making and how that can be possible, not just in an idealistic way but in a therapeutic way, and something not just to strive towards but something that can be inculcated into something even as complicated and as important as treating mental illness and mental wellbeing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005853\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt also no longer reflects our modern understanding of disability rights and cultural safety, or the importance of involving wh\u0101nau in care, and all of those other things that, since 1992, we have prided ourselves in this country of improving. So we do think this bill was a substantial improvement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005854\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019d like to acknowledge the Minister for his work. I\u2019d like to acknowledge the Health Committee for all of the work that they have done. I wasn\u2019t on that committee, but even just listening tonight, you can see the nature of the robust questioning that would have happened, the nature of the genuine and inquisitive inquiries that would have been offered only with the absolute intentionality to do the very best by this bill and the very best by the people who would be most impacted by this bill. I\u2019d also like to acknowledge, no doubt, all of the officials and the people with expertise who submitted, people with lived experience, because only with that breadth of input could we make necessary improvements. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005855\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhilst I say that the bill has made substantial improvements\u2014as we\u2019ve heard, it follows the He Ara Oranga and the royal commission into abuse in care\u2014I do agree also with my colleagues that it does also feel somewhat of a missed opportunity. I understand the tension between fixing something that needs to be fixed because it is outdated and no longer reflects society\u2019s expectations, and the tension between doing something that is much more transformative. That has been the decision that has been made. Would we have made, potentially, a different decision? Yes, probably so, but we do respect where we\u2019ve landed, but it is incumbent upon us to make those notes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill introduces, as I said, a more modern rights-based framework and places a greater emphasis on participation, which we know, therapeutically, is actually a really important factor in the efficacy of any kind of treatment regime, particularly when people are under all sorts of stressors, as is often the case in this domain, but ultimately, always need to be treated with dignity, and voluntary care should always be the goal, so that direction is welcome. We fundamentally believe that compulsion should never be the default simply because there is a lack of time, staffing, or resources. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005857\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s on that point that I do just want to take a moment because that, for as long as I can remember, has always been a justification, an excuse, a perfectly decent and reasonable explanation\u2014however we want to term it\u2014but for as long as I can remember, a lack of time, staffing, and resources has always held up a different way of doing things in mental health. I\u2019ve worked with many nurses in particular who have worked in mental health, and my goodness, they really do an amazing job. I have worked with nurses who work in all sorts of health sectors. Whilst some people, for instance, might assume that some aspects of nursing are harder than others, I can absolutely tell you that the people that work in mental health have a very unique perspective, and they work incredibly hard under very difficult circumstances, and often face quite personal issues in terms of their own safety in those areas. We shouldn\u2019t be allowed to use a lack of staffing as a means by which to have lower expectations of what the system could look like. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005858\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA right written into legislation, ultimately, is only as meaningful when a person can actually exercise it. We do implore, along with our support of this bill, much more focus on increased staffing and even things like increased capital spend, because I\u2019ve seen several facilities that just simply are not designed for what they\u2019re being utilised for, and even just basic layout can pose really, really significant risks to people\u2019s safety, including staff. Without those foundations, there is a risk that the language of this law changes\u2014which it will through the passage of this bill\u2014but people\u2019s experience of the system doesn\u2019t necessarily change if it\u2019s not resourced properly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005859\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe have also touched on tonight, and both of my colleagues on this side of the House have, I think, spoken quite eloquently about the need to have a genuine plan to end seclusion, and Labour supports New Zealand\u2019s commitment to eliminate seclusion. This bill doesn\u2019t go that far. It doesn\u2019t turn that commitment into a credible plan. We acknowledge that annual reporting is important, that the five-year legislative review is better than no review at all, but neither of those things actually amount to a commitment to end seclusion in practice. I acknowledge that that\u2019s a resourcing issue as much as it is an educative and a legislative process, but Labour certainly does believe that the legislation should set a goal of ending seclusion. Even within five years would be a reasonable goal to require a proper systems phase-out plan. That matters because ending seclusion can\u2019t simply be directed from Parliament. It requires, as I\u2019ve said, the investment in workforce capacity first and foremost, therapeutic environments as I\u2019ve mentioned, and appropriate building designs, specialist training, and alternative models of care. All of those things are possible. All of those things are well-advanced in terms of knowledge. There are just some pieces missing to the puzzle, and that is appropriate resource.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005860\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWith regards to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), I\u2019d like to echo my colleagues\u2019 reservations and their comments that they made about the process and about making the Health Committee\u2019s ability to be able to make some leeway on what the bill as drafted had in it. I would also like to note that ECT can be a really emotive topic, and it\u2019s one of those things that we\u2019ve heard, quite rightly so, a lot of horror stories over the years. It absolutely is something that has been used abusively over many, many years. It is an area that I\u2019ve had a little bit to do with through my personal background, and I have seen it also be put to incredibly good therapeutic use. When it\u2019s considered as a treatment of last resort, it actually can save lives. I think that this bill does strike a right balance between acknowledging the therapeutic qualities and the necessities that still exist for ECT, but also having much more robust safeguards around when it should be used and on who that should be used too. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005861\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELabour will support this bill. We absolutely acknowledge the fact that the 1992 Act is old and not fit for purpose. The bill moves us closer to the goals that I think many of us, regardless of what side of the House we sit on, would agree is an ultimate outcome and an ultimate goal of a much, much better mental health system, and we are therefore happy to commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227ef423fda7b143b890e93f8018529ebe\u0022 data-id=\u0022a3220884b183bbd18404d771703cac16\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005862\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227ef423fda7b143b890e93f8018529ebe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a3220884b183bbd18404d771703cac16\u0022\u003EGREG FLEMING (National\u2014Maungakiekie) (22:07)\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003E[Authorised reo M\u0101ori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005863\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005864\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005865\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a second time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005866\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002249ad09202cd1182b1d519d2537e84e54\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The Mental Health Bill is set down for committee stage immediately.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005867\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00226bfa78b0a9bcb80788e823b6cdc8211c\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005868\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022cbcf92d941649bfc001c6d4fbfe37087\u0022\u003EPart 1 Preliminary provisions, and Schedule 1\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005869\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ea0654c5fda6851d9ea61c13dde53f56\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the House is in committee on the Mental Health Bill. Before we begin debating this bill, I will note that Government Amendment Paper 648 on this bill was released at 12.45 p.m. today. I remind members of Speaker Brownlee\u2019s ruling earlier in the sitting that committee stages are always going to proceed slowly when substantive Government amendments are released on the day that the bill is in committee. While I am satisfied that the majority of the amendments in this Amendment Paper are minor and technical, there are some that, on the face of it, appear to be more than minor. The committee stage is always an opportunity to correct matters in a bill, but it is not good practice to release a Government Amendment Paper so close to the beginning of a committee stage, and I will take this into account to enable members to properly scrutinise its contents.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005870\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWe come first to Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 11\u2014\u201CPreliminary provisions\u201D\u2014and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u00224eedbf31acf9e7aec4ed3f6937299e69\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005871\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224eedbf31acf9e7aec4ed3f6937299e69\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (22:10)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Can I begin by just acknowledging what you\u2019ve read around the Amendment Paper. I think, in fairness to officials, genuinely, they thought the bill would be up tomorrow afternoon, so putting it up today was going to be a day early. But I think you pointed out, quite rightly, that it could have been in a bit early, so I do accept that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005872\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is good to be here to debate the Mental Health Bill and Part 1. The bill, as we know, has already been out for extensive public consultation before it was introduced to the House, and is a critical piece of legislation for people experiencing severe mental distress. Part 1 of the bill sets out the foundation for this bill to support a shift towards a rights-based and recovery approach to mental health care; to establish a modern, rights-based framework that promotes decision-making capacity, safeguards rights, supports recovery, and protects the safety and wellbeing of people and their communities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005873\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s a key principle in this bill that voluntary and least restrictive practices be used. However, with the exception of extending all rights to voluntary mental health care consumers, the scope of the bill is about the rights of people who are subject to compulsory care, including assessment and treatment. In this part of Part 1, we\u2019re introducing a new decision-making capacity criterion, ensuring compulsory care is only available when a person has seriously impaired mental health, is experiencing serious adverse effects, and lacks decision-making capacity about their mental health care. The compulsory care principles in Part 1 require care to be therapeutic, least restrictive, supportive, and responsive, and to recognise the dignity of risk.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u00223967d5b984d99b3109d50b9723a69b9c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005874\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223967d5b984d99b3109d50b9723a69b9c\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (22:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I take on board the direction that you\u2019ve given us around the Amendment Paper today. I understand that when we met with the Minister the other evening, he was of the mind that the bill would be in the House tomorrow. Having said that, this bill has been sitting on a dusty shelf for many months, and so there was plenty of time for that amendment to come before the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005875\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI thought it may be useful, as I look at Part 1, clause 3, the purpose clause, to just also provide a little bit of an architecture about how we intend to prosecute the bill, because it is a very big and significant bill, as has been said. I want to frame that around the purpose as it\u2019s articulated in clause 3(a), which talks about promoting the decision-making capacity. I will note that it talks about promoting decision making, not safeguarding, so there is a threshold there that the bill purports to put into place. Many of my questions around this very first section are, really, whether that threshold is indeed met or whether those words are appropriate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005876\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EYou will find, Mr Chair, from our side, that many of our questions will be in Part 1, including the definition section, because that will help to inform the rest of the debate. There will be some questions in Part 2 and probably the fewest questions in Parts 3 to 8, including very little, if anything, in the schedules. But we also would like to debate the amendment that\u2019s before the House, because that is indeed around one of the changes that Labour members had put forward and it does appear to have reduced in scope the protections afforded in there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005877\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen I look at clause 3, there are two things I would like to prosecute, perhaps in a couple of contributions. The first one, really, is around process. It was mentioned in the second reading speeches, but it\u2019s important to bring it up here, just around the time constraints that we\u2019ve had to look at this comprehensive bill. It\u2019s not just us who are saying it. The Ombudsman said at point number 3 of his submission that this is a very short time frame for commenting on such a significant piece of legislation. He also talked about time frames not being appropriate, given key stakeholders included people with lived experience, the mental health workforce, and wider disability community. He mentioned their rights to be involved through the United Nations (UN) Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities\u2019 concluding observations on the second and third periodic reports of New Zealand, and also the UN recommendation to New Zealand that development process for the new legislation actively involves persons with disabilities, particularly persons with psychosocial disabilities. Again, I refer to the word \u201Cpromote\u201D in the purpose in Part 1 that I am referencing there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005878\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second issue is that the Ombudsman talked about how this was being compounded by a lack of accessible formats such as Easy Read and/or other accessible and engagement tools. We also found that the advice to the Health Committee, while the officials worked really hard, did feel very rushed and it didn\u2019t cover many of the items raised by submitters. In the end, we drafted a table of 50 areas for discussion and debate, and we had to fight very hard just to have substantive discussions about recommendations, and for many of them we didn\u2019t get to do that. The time frame was extremely tight, and we don\u2019t believe on this side that it did justice to the issues raised by the submitters. Some areas, including forensic mental health, including incarcerated people, got very little, if no, attention, and there\u2019s a whole section of the bill devoted to that that appeared to have been lifted and shifted. It would be good to be able to scrutinise that before it is to come into law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005879\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy questions around process are, really, to ask the Minister: why was the select committee phase of the bill rushed, particularly when it appears to have been languishing\u2014not even on the Order Paper, actually\u2014off the Order Paper and on a shelf for some months, when that could have been valuable time for people to submit? Why were submissions open on 25 October last year for just six weeks, which, if one were cynical, one would say that was just before Christmas. The committee acknowledged the tight turn-around, and Labour asked for an extension. The extension was only until 20 December 2024, so during a very busy time before Christmas. I probably am a bit cheeky asking if that was deliberate, but it does give us pause to wonder why those time frames are chosen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005880\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust a few more questions on this: why couldn\u2019t submissions have been extended until Parliament resumed in February so people could at least have had the summer period to read the bill and get their heads around it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005881\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhile I have the floor, I\u2019ll just also make the point that there seems to have been very little attempt to reach out to disabled communities and neurodivergent communities to solicit their views on the bill in a way that could have afforded them much-needed protections. We have drafted amendments around that, and we heard really compelling evidence from people who were mainly their representatives rather than necessarily their own voice, although there was evidence from some groups as well. But if we think about the context of the young neurodivergent girl who was mistakenly placed under the current Act and given sedation, that is an example of what can go horribly wrong under the Act if we don\u2019t have the right safeguards in place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005882\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve got some more to say about the substance, and I\u2019ll just go into one point around this, still on clause 3, which is that one of the most significant goals of the bill relates to decision-making capacity, including a shift from the current emphasis on risk aimed at eliminating compulsory care. But it involves treatment irrespective of consent, and if someone lacks capacity in a certain area, then proper process must be followed. It seems to be that although there is lip service in clause 3 in talking about promoting the decision-making capacity\u2014and there are other parts of the bill that talk about that\u2014we don\u2019t see in the functioning of the bill that substituted decision-making will be a last resort. It feels like there aren\u2019t ways to do that, and it also feels like there\u2019s a kind of blanket approach to capacity rather than a decision-by-decision basis, which is the modern approach to mental health philosophy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005883\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe questions I have around that are: why does the bill take an approach regarding restoration of capacity, which is a binary approach and doesn\u2019t seem to follow best practice? Wouldn\u2019t the purpose of the bill be better served by ensuring that safeguards are in place to support the full exercise of decision-making capacity? Is there a financial reason why those changes haven\u2019t been made? Ultimately, it might take more investment into the mental health sector\u2014and I do appreciate that; I don\u2019t say that glibly, because it could be a major investment\u2014and yet, if the bill is trying to achieve that, then, perhaps, workforce development and resourcing and legislative safeguards around delivery would be the way require the delivery of that, rather than making it contingent upon the capacity for the Public Service to do that. There will be other questions that really look at the decision-making capacity and the full exercise of that when we come to clause 9 of the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022032a51b696602144efb773c2a6024284\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005884\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022032a51b696602144efb773c2a6024284\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (22:20)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, to start off, I think we\u2019ve all agreed that this is an important bill, right? So we can get up and grandstand, or we can actually get into the issues. I mean, to raise for five minutes the issues of select committee when, obviously, select committees are independent of Ministers is, probably, quite a disappointing first call from the Opposition spokesperson, and I think it says a lot. That Opposition spokesperson should actually\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005885\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022962049befbe959bf693ceab897b47f24\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: What! For goodness\u2019 sake.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005886\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229b40d29d11a91183c6aa51e4216a4253\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY\u003C/span\u003E: Well, no, you can\u2019t have it both ways. They are independent of Ministers, and, actually, the select committee was a standard process. You can\u2019t have it both ways\u2014and, actually, as that member will also know, because it happened under her last Government, there was a full public consultation on this policy of this bill by Andrew Little before it came into the House, and there\u2019ll be many members here who probably haven\u2019t debated a bill before that went through such a thorough process before it came to the House. I don\u2019t want to hear, \u201COh, well, it could have been transformative.\u201D  I mean, quite frankly, that\u2019s what the problem was under the last Government in mental health, when it was all about transformation, and look where it got them, right? So, actually, everyone has worked hard on this bill\u2014every party\u2014and the public has been fully consulted; and it turns up to the House in very good shape. Not only that, it had an expert advisory panel that fed into it. So, yep, we\u2019re going to debate the points of this bill, but let\u2019s do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022 data-id=\u0022181c54de6051ed1cf6d8d5eb2b127283\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005887\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022181c54de6051ed1cf6d8d5eb2b127283\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (22:22)\u003C/span\u003E: I want to try and get back a semblance of collegiality in this debate. As the Minister has acknowledged, this is a bill started under our Government and completed under theirs. It is incredibly important, it is historic, and it deals with issues that touch on the human rights of some of the most vulnerable people in New Zealand. I think it behooves us to approach\u2014yeah, as I said\u2014 this debate with collegiality. It is late. It\u2019s probably, while we\u2019re talking about mental health, worth reflecting that everyone\u2019s probably quite tired. Why don\u2019t we write some elements of behaviour off as that and try and get off on a different foot?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005888\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think it is fair, for a bill that deals with human rights, for the Opposition to have some concerns about the amendment that we are about to debate. It is an amendment that takes a decision made by the select committee and that affects the rights of mothers to be with their children and changes it substantially. I won\u2019t, in this contribution, pose questions about that, because we\u2019re not up to clause 38A yet, but I think it is an important procedural point to raise that it appears to be a substantial change to an issue that is a very important issue, made under urgency and without the opportunity for the public to consult on this. We will have questions about that, and I understand from my colleague that the nature of this change\u2014we only learned about it when we saw the Amendment Paper. It is not how I would like to participate as a parliamentarian\u2014to be discussing the rights of mothers to be with their babies when I\u2019ve only seen it very recently. That\u2019s not good. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Minister is entitled to say that other elements of the process have been consultative; they have been. But this particular issue stands out as one that is very problematic and disappointing, because there was such a full process. As I said in my second reading speech, it\u2019s hard to remember all of the submissions. Although my notes are helpful, it\u2019s hard to remember them all, because it was some time ago. I don\u2019t understand why we\u2019re in this position where this change is happening now. It\u2019s been several months since the Health Committee reported back, and the opportunity to have a conversation about what\u2019s on this Amendment Paper when we\u2019re not under urgency for a bill of this importance\u2014it would have been good to take it. It would be good to hear from the Minister what it is that led to the timing of this particularly important amendment only being in front of the Opposition now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005890\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f88daea6d2b832e198176190de0398ed\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Before I take the next call\u2014this bill is an important bill. I was listening carefully to the speeches before we stepped into the committee stage here, as well, and so I would ask members on both sides of the House to step through this carefully. I do note the point around process and select committee. Select committees are independent; they make their own choices and so on and so forth, so if we could say that the questions around the internal work of the select committee process have been resolved, then let us step through this carefully. This is important, and I know that people across the country will be looking with the expectation that we do step through this carefully.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022c77c3bc959b6f1061424a7527f9aa440\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005891\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c77c3bc959b6f1061424a7527f9aa440\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (22:27)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I do want to answer the genuine question around the amendment with the birth parent clause. The first point is, I think, that, genuinely, you will find that we have similar intent and we share the intent. The Amendment Paper 648 proposes a change to clause 38A, \u201CRights of birth parent\u201D. The change ensures the responsible practitioner determines if separation is in the best interests of the person and the baby and ensures that the safety and wellbeing of the baby is the paramount consideration.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005892\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThis is a really important right that the Health Committee added to the bill, and the changes I\u2019m proposing will not alter the intent. These changes are simply to ensure it is workable in practice and is consistent with guardianship laws. As originally drafted, there was ambiguity as to who made the decisions. Guardianship arrangements can be complex and involve multiple people and views. This change addresses that while maintaining that the baby\u2019s wellbeing is paramount.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00224605638d45d654a9e7d9995b2fa27eef\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224605638d45d654a9e7d9995b2fa27eef\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (22:28)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I also want to signal to you first, Mr Chair\u2014and my colleague the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall merely alluded to this as something we will be discussing, which is part of Part 2. While the Minister has given the response, somewhat, to this, we want to have the opportunity to examine it further under Part 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005894\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI will, however, go back to Part 1 and clause 3, at this stage, in particular. I want to focus on the purpose first. Now, a lot of the bills, as we know, have a purpose clause, but quite often, we see the purpose clause used in the legislation\u2014I\u2019m personally most familiar with the Education and Training Act 2020. Sometimes, the operationalisation of the purpose clause doesn\u2019t quite match or meet the expectation of that purpose clause, so you can have a beautifully crafted purpose clause, but it is hard to match it. I think, in this case, it is really important\u2014like the Chair said, this is an incredibly serious issue. So I want to check with the Minister: is the purpose clause an aspiration, or is it binding? I think that is really important so when we go into the subsequent parts discussing the operationalisation of this, we\u2019re able to draw back to: does this meet the standard that we see in the purpose clause? I think that\u2019s one of the most important aspects of this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005895\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, if we\u2019re looking at the specific elements of this, from subclauses (a) to (d), I know that my colleague Ingrid Leary already mentioned that there are areas that she would like to discuss, but one of the things I would like to discuss, to start with, is around (d), and then I\u2019m kind of going to work my way backwards. The first question I have around (d), which is protecting \u201Cthe safety and well-being of t\u0101ngata whaiora and their communities\u201D, is: how, then, does the Minister define or have an expectation of what is meant by \u201Ctheir communities\u201D? We know that\u2014particularly when we\u2019re looking at not just the t\u0101ngata whaiora themselves, their immediate family, the disabled communities, but if we\u2019re looking at the fundamental principle of intersectionality\u2014communities are complex. To give the Minister an example, how, then, would we expect the agency or the community or the hospital, etc., who will be responsible for meeting that purpose would respond to, let\u2019s say, Asian communities, if we have that in there? Would that be done in a way that would be culturally appropriate?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005896\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think that\u2019s my second question to the Minister, and I will leave that there for the time being, Chair, because I want to just ask a few at a time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u0022b8b2ecac50f41fe38de42e7ffd8101bb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005897\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b8b2ecac50f41fe38de42e7ffd8101bb\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (22:32)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019d like to move to the interpretation section. Just going through part by part, we will have some more questions regarding advanced mental health directives, particularly in the later sections, about how they would be operationalised. But for now, we\u2019re wanting to understand if the definition has the same meaning as it does in the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers\u2019 Rights. The reason I say that is, for those who are listening at home, an advance directive is basically a statement that you sign saying in advance what kind of treatment you might want in the event that you become unwell. It\u2019s particularly relevant to mental health situations, where an episode of mental illness might leave somebody unable to decide or communicate how they want to be treated. Under the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers\u2019 Rights, anybody who is legally competent can make one of these. All t\u0101ngata whaiora, at some point in their mental health and mental wellbeing journey, would be in a position to make one of these.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005898\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat it can do is have a really a profound impact, for example, if you\u2019re in a crisis about what kind of drugs you might not want to be medicated with; whether you are open to electroconvulsive therapy or absolutely do not want it at all; whether you\u2019d prefer to receive services in crisis in your hospital, in a home, in a crisis centre; and so on. We know from the way the legislation is drafted that there is some weighting put on these advance directives to the extent that they are therapeutically useful or to the extent, I guess, that they don\u2019t impede the person from decision-making capacity. It will be good to tease out later which end of the spectrum the Minister sees the legislation being interpreted at.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005899\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWith the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers\u2019 Rights, there are five elements to the advance directives for them to apply, which are: was a person competent to make the decision when they made the advance directive; did they make it of their own free will; were they sufficiently informed to make the decision; did they intend the directive to apply to the present circumstances, which could be different from those anticipated; and is the advance directive out of date?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005900\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy question to the Minister at this point in the interpretation, clause 4, is: does the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers\u2019 Rights apply, and if not, why not? If it doesn\u2019t, then how is this bill any different to the 1992 bill? Do the appeal provisions to the Health and Disability Commissioner still stand if someone thinks their directive has not been adequately taken into account under the 2025 Mental Health Bill, or do the bill\u2019s review provisions extinguish or transfer that right of appeal? How do they interact with enduring powers of attorney, for example, through the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988, which can apply to many t\u0101ngata whaiora? For example, if someone has an enduring power of attorney to make healthcare decisions on their behalf when they are not competent to do so, whose determinations prevail, the attorney\u2019s or the medical practitioner\u2019s? I\u2019m thinking here of, for example, in dementia cases, where, often, a family member will have the ability to make decisions when the person loses capacity, and yet they may also have an advance directive. I\u2019m really wanting to understand that interaction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005901\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll go on, for the purposes of getting through the bill, to a question about the next one, which is an \u201Cadvocate\u201D, in the interpretation, clause 4. We heard this at select committee and it never got resolved, which is the different roles of the different support people. They seem complex and confusing. Could the Minister please tell us the difference, in his view, or an explanation between the attorney, the independent support person, the support network, and the welfare guardian.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005902\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhile we\u2019re on that note, why is attorney\u2014it\u2019s got the meaning in section 2 of the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act\u2014written in the American spelling? Is that a typo or is that being done deliberately? If it\u2019s a typo, perhaps that\u2019s indicative of the rushed process. If it\u2019s been done deliberately, is it because it\u2019s trying to align with that other legislation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u00227bb4f459fd4b4377c875902a9a4ce4d6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005903\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227bb4f459fd4b4377c875902a9a4ce4d6\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (22:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Just thought I\u2019d answer a couple of questions by the member Lawrence Xu-Nan. He talked about the change from \u201CNew Zealanders\u201D to \u201Ctheir communities\u201D. Really, the intent of that change was to capture communities that the person identifies with to make expectations that the care is responsive.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005904\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe member also talked about the purpose\u2014is it aspirational or binding? The purpose clauses are a key interpretive aid throughout the legislation\u2019s provision. In interpreting a requirement, decision makers and the courts will interpret clauses with regard to the purpose, especially if there is any interpretive ambiguity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00229e1d1c2228f168accbe22b10ad675fce\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005905\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229e1d1c2228f168accbe22b10ad675fce\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (22:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for that, Minister. I think both responses are very helpful, so thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005906\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to ask one more question on clause 3 before moving on to clause 4. This is, again, a question around a word, because it\u2019s important for us to get understanding as well. I want to focus on clause 3(b), which is \u201Cimproves equity in mental health outcomes among New Zealand\u2019s population groups\u201D. I want to just also check that when we are looking at outcomes\u2014presumably there will be measures that come with it as well\u2014in this case, the Minister intends outcomes to be genuinely about outcomes and not about output. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005907\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust to give an example to the Minister, when we\u2019re looking at outcomes, are we seeing the fact that the people who are using the care services\u2014and I do have to be careful and I will probably have to refer back to the interpretation for some of the terminologies, because I know that some of the terminologies have changed; the people under compulsory care\u2014are feeling like their wellbeing is looked after, are in the process of either rehabilitation or being within their families and communities. Whereas output, in this case, could be more quantitative and saying, well, we managed to churn X number of people through our system, or we have X number of people here. I want to just check if the Minister wouldn\u2019t mind clarifying how that outcome could potentially be measured.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005908\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy next question is also quite a small one. In the interpretation, in clause 4, with \u201Cmental health practitioner\u201D\u2014this is page 14, line 14, for both the Chair and the Minister\u2019s reference\u2014I have noted that, previously, when we were looking at some of the other definitions for specific professions, there was an inclusion specifically of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act (HPCA). I want to check whether, other than the four criteria that are listed in subclauses (a) to (d), is there anyone else within the HPCAA 2003 that could also be captured by this but isn\u2019t included in here?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005909\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThose are my two questions. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022 data-id=\u0022113489ed309e3185a49a71d7aa21c146\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022113489ed309e3185a49a71d7aa21c146\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (22:40)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it would be helpful for the officials who may be advising the Minister for Mental Health if my question, which follows on from Dr Xu-Nan\u2019s, is asked now\u2014also clause 4, the mental health practitioner defined as \u201C(a) medical practitioner; (b) nurse practitioner; (c) registered nurse practising in mental health; or (d) any other \u2026 class of person appointed under section 149.\u201D The powers of the mental health practitioner comes up in a latter part of the bill, and does include conducting examinations for the purpose of determining if someone should receive compulsory care. My question to the Minister is twofold: (a) is it correct that this paragraph (d) allows non-regulated workforces to take the role of the mental health practitioner and their powers? And second question: does the Minister have an intention of appointing non-regulated professionals\u2014and by non-regulated, I mean under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act\u2014to fulfil the role of a mental health practitioner?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u0022472430caa95b12df01e4aefe317bc93a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005911\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022472430caa95b12df01e4aefe317bc93a\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (22:42)\u003C/span\u003E: Just to follow on as a bit of a supplementary, really. With the \u201Cclinical psychologist\u201D definition, the same issue applies where it\u2019s talking about the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act, and we are aware that there is a new associate psychology role. Wanting to understand how \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Etangata whaiora\u003C/span\u003E will be assured that the Act doesn\u2019t widen the scope of clinical psychology in particular to people who don\u2019t have the clinical experience to make the decisions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005912\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a53d5d804a3d250ee902c7a4e9364a4b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Can you just tell me what section?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005913\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022412ffb9ef4e022464f395fe1c6d2ab37\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, sorry, this is still in the definition section under \u201Cclinical psychologist\u201D. And then speaking to the point that both the previous speakers made about the medical\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005914\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229d4467ff1fa9934484781a96ae98d4fb\u0022\u003EHon Matt Doocey\u003C/span\u003E: What clause?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229c9aa211ffd5b912191a36b6f476a613\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: What page?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005916\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002288e9e075b1defe466b8d2bf5f32c02de\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Page 11, line 32.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005917\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002244c6e7a01ebfee074c2c0ba16ed012d3\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. It talks about a clinical psychologist being a health practitioner and then it talks about under that Act. But we know that, under this Government, there have been some new roles created that don\u2019t have a clinical element and yet could be considered psychologists for the purposes of other parts of the law. I\u2019m wondering if the Minister for Mental Health would consider, given the concerns raised around the health practitioner definition which have been raised by the previous two speakers, whether he would consider my amendment 1.50.05, which would amend the interpretation of health practitioner in clause 4(1) so that it would say, \u201Cfor the purposes of the Act, the health practitioner exercising powers or performing functions must have appropriate competence, training, and experience in the assessment, diagnosis, treatment, and care of people experiencing mental distress or mental illness.\u201D? I think, in doing that, we\u2019re looking, again, at using Dr Xu-Nan\u2019s language about the outcome of the level of skill and training and competence of the health practitioner, rather than looking at a kind of regime or more of an input measure of what kind of certification they have. I do have that amendment on the Table and would like to know if the Minister would support that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u002247b7cf463d26c003d35b4bc10a75b243\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005918\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002247b7cf463d26c003d35b4bc10a75b243\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (22:44)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Just gathering up a few questions. There was a question around the new decision-making capacity, enough safeguards, and I think the member Ingrid Leary made the comment, \u201CIs it just lip service?\u201D I\u2019m confident that there are safeguards, and that will explicitly recognise decision making throughout the bill. I would just point to, as an example, the principles of the bill where we have a guide for all decision making in those principles as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005919\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere was another question around advance directives, and, clearly, within this role, there is a role for advance directives. They are different, much more detailed in the legislative provision of the bill, and more detailed than is present in the Health and Disability Commissioner code. The provisions expand much more on high-level code provisions reflecting the need for legislative clarity in this area, and I think, when you see the principle in the bill around fluctuating capacity, that is why that is required.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005920\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere was a question, which I think was from the member Lawrence Xu-Nan, around the different roles. Clearly, the bill, when you read the bill, does introduce several new roles. Each has a defined purpose that is set out in the bill, and I consider this as sufficiently clear, and guidance and communications for people receiving this care will be set out for them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u00225ba9854a2eb0544370c36fe6bea267fc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005921\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225ba9854a2eb0544370c36fe6bea267fc\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (22:46)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. It would still be good to hear the Minister for Mental Health\u2019s understanding of what those various roles entail\u2014the attorney, the support network, and so on. That would be very helpful, I think, on the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E. If we keep moving through the definition section, I\u2019d like to turn now to the community care order. We did hear evidence from Professor Tony O\u2019Brien, who discussed assertive outreach and was raising queries around community care orders. We\u2019re trying to understand in this section why the wording or the nomenclature has been changed to \u201Ccommunity care\u201D rather than \u201Ccompulsory care order\u201D, which seems to be the better phrase given the effect in the bill, which is, essentially, to keep the treatment compulsory.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005922\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe first question is: why is the word \u201Ccare\u201D included when there\u2019s no proactive duty on the State to actually provide the care? Wouldn\u2019t it have been clearer, for people who have experienced being under the current Act, to perhaps use the same language given that the impact of the changes to the community care orders do not change the compulsory nature of them? Why was the wording changed after the submission period rather than beforehand so that people could submit on it? It is one of the few areas, I think, where people who are subject to these orders could have felt some agency and participation if they had been able to express their responses to that, and yet that seemed to be denied of them. It was changed to \u201Ccommunity care order\u201D, and it\u2019s a directive, not an order. We\u2019re trying to understand what the change of the word from \u201Cdirective\u201D to \u201Corder\u201D is trying to achieve. Again, wouldn\u2019t it have been better to stay with the previous\u2014or the current, under the current Mental Health Act\u2014naming so that we don\u2019t overstate the difference in these community care orders, which are pretty similar to under the Act? If they\u2019re not, then I stand to be corrected and it would be great for the Minister to explain the difference in them. We will have a lot more to ask about the community care orders when we come to clause 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022844b60bd7fdca9c4269dce67d1dc2b22\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005923\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022844b60bd7fdca9c4269dce67d1dc2b22\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (22:49)\u003C/span\u003E: I just want to go back to the member, Lawrence Xu-Nan, who asked a question around outcomes, which I think, for mental health, and especially in compulsory care, is a very important topic as well. Within the bill, I think it sets out clearly the importance of strong monitoring, and not only outcomes, but activities and outputs, I think, are important as well. What I\u2019ve focused on, as the Minister for Mental Health, is not only ensuring in this bill, but actually in the wider mental health system, that we do have better public reporting. I\u2019m a big believer that if people feel that there is reporting and there is management and public reporting, then outcomes do improve.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005924\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAnd the last one is ensuring that we get and measure outcomes of people improving under compulsory care as well. That also comes at a population level, and we need to ensure that we are recording and reporting on population groups receiving care as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022a93196e73ba8a8c750a1378cd6aff973\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a93196e73ba8a8c750a1378cd6aff973\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (22:50)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for those responses. I am heartened to hear the Minister\u2019s response on my question around outcome. I think that\u2019s quite important. I know that in some of the later sections we\u2019ll get to discuss some of those principles more specifically, but I want to just continue on with the interpretation. I also want to acknowledge the updates the select committee has made on the sensitivity of some of the languages. I think that\u2019s really appreciated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005926\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy question over here is around infringement\u2014let me just double-check\u2014infringement fee and infringement offence. This is page 13 line 38 and page 14 lines 1 and 2. I will double-check on this as well, but my understanding, when it comes to infringement fees, for example, it\u2019s a fine that doesn\u2019t necessarily have to have an offence attached to it. You get given a particular fine and that\u2019s it. There\u2019s really no real recourse for you to challenge that. It\u2019s not upon conviction or anything like that. I could be mistaken, so I think that clarification is needed because I think understanding what that definition for infringement is will be quite relevant to some of the things we see much later on when we get to, possibly, Part 8 of this bill when it comes to regulations, which I won\u2019t touch, but I want to understand that term \u201Cinfringement\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005927\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy last question over here, I guess, is mainly just when we talked a little bit about some of the definitions around health practitioners, which is page 13, line 20 and line 21. For example, in that case, it does specify the meaning that you have with section 5 of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act (HPCAA), which I mentioned before. But I\u2019m still just checking with the Minister, around the clarification I was seeking regarding whether there was any mental health practitioners, that were also captured within that, because I\u2019m assuming that we have these definitions between \u201Cclinical psychologist\u201D, \u201Chealth practitioners\u201D, \u201Cmental health practitioners\u201D, etc., which will be important in later parts of this bill, but it\u2019s important for us to understand, in the broader context, how they work within the HPCAA.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u00229f720d1dfbf03a637fbeb3751b964f47\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005928\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229f720d1dfbf03a637fbeb3751b964f47\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (22:53)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Just responding to the member Ingrid Leary\u2019s question around community care order and why the care when no proactive duty to care. In this bill, the term here refers more to the care plan. So whether the person is in in-patient care or community care, they\u2019re required to have a care plan and that is more holistic here as well. Of course, by definition, the care can only be provided in accordance with the care plan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005929\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWhy is it not called \u201Ccompulsory care order\u201D? I\u2019ve been advised the legal term is already used in intellectual disability compulsory care and the Rehabilitation Act. And as mentioned earlier, the reference of care is more than just treatment, it is a holistic view of that person\u2019s care.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022 data-id=\u00225752e003358cd211608a689b3b7ae0fd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005930\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225752e003358cd211608a689b3b7ae0fd\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (22:54)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. It would, perhaps, help our progress through the bill if we could have an answer to my previous question about whether the definition of \u201Cmental health practitioner\u201D, under (d) on page 14, includes non-regulated professionals as defined in the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. And the second question which was whether the Minister has any intention of appointing non-regulated professions or groups of people to the role of the mental health practitioner.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u00228ac995f2b58207229f3238c84786213b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005931\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228ac995f2b58207229f3238c84786213b\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (22:55)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, thank you very much for the question. The Director of Mental Health can deem someone a mental health practitioner who holds the required skills and competencies. Careful consideration will be given to that, deeming to ensure that there is a qualified clinical care.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022 data-id=\u00229eeacb855e6b62380f7a890c71eaf7f4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005932\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229eeacb855e6b62380f7a890c71eaf7f4\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (22:56)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Clearly the answer then is \u201Cyes\u201D. Could the Minister give some examples of groups of non-regulated workers who might be suitable to have the powers of a mental health practitioner under the Act? I\u2019m aware that non-regulated practitioners are paying an increasing role in our in our health system. So I\u2019m interested to understand his thoughts there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005933\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI guess, I understand the point about skills, that\u2019s clearly the most important thing for exercising those powers, but there are other parts of being a regulated profession under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act, other than just the skills: being on a register, having a community of professional practice that you\u2019re a part of, peer review, sometimes ethical requirements will definitely be one of them. And in the non-regulated professions don\u2019t have that framework applying to. I mean just being on a register means the police can find you, right? So there\u2019s a number of things there. I would like to understand more about the types of groups of workers who might be suitable to exercise the powers of a mental health practitioner but aren\u2019t in the regulated professions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u00227f58994948cb92b2f1260a6e857fba84\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005934\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227f58994948cb92b2f1260a6e857fba84\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (22:57)\u003C/span\u003E: Just a supplementary on that to sort of make the point, I guess, if we look at registered nurses practising in mental health: how much experience do they need? If a nurse had just graduated a month prior, would that be enough time? Would they need to have trained and gained qualifications? Same goes with paramedics. We will have more questions on this under clause 149.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI want to go back to compulsory care, but to the assessment and care of a person. Looking at a question that relates to clause 62(2) and the interplay between compulsory care, the definition, and how that plays out. And I hope the Minister\u2019s officials are listening because a little bit complicated, but in the definition section it says\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005936\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022713b0950a62da8f46f7ab9c322daec57\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Just feel free to wait while the Minister\u2019s taking advice, if you\u2019d like.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005937\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a4adabd8582daed73a9e6b3780fd6623\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY\u003C/span\u003E: Sure. Yeah, in the definition, compulsory care \u201Cmeans the compulsory assessment and care of a person from the start of the second assessment period until the person is released under section 53, 64, 66 or 76\u201D. So my questions are: what does the start of the second assessment period mean? Is that after they\u2019ve reached the first threshold and prior to the second assessment or is it the day on which they are notified? And if so, what time of that day? Is it on the moment of notification? Is it after notification or is it after the second assessment period until they are released? And if it\u2019s the latter, then what is the period of care called after the initial assessment until the second assessment? This looks directly at the definition of \u201Ccompulsory care\u201D in the definition section of clause 4 and how it plays out in clause 62(2).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005938\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll continue on, noting that I do have that amendment on the table regarding mental health practitioner that the Minister hasn\u2019t indicated whether if he would adopt\u2014that would be helpful to respond to our questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005939\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn the definition of \u201Ccourt\u201D, it talks about \u201Cthe court with jurisdiction to hear and determine applications, set out in section 70\u201D. It also talks about the \u201CCourt Martial of New Zealand established under section 8 of the Court Martial Act 2007\u201D. My questions around this are related to the stigma and discrimination, and we did hear submissions where people quoted from Te Hiringa Mahara, in 2023, that \u201Cthe carrying over of Family or District Court arrangements for initial decisions appears at odds with the policy objectives towards a rights-based approach\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005940\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EDid the Minister consider using a tribunal decision-making process model instead of court proceedings, particularly to reduce the stigma? We\u2019ve seen that in the Family Court, for example, or a tribunal approach; I know the Minister\u2019s very keen on not necessarily having police be at mental health events unless there\u2019s a requirement for them to be there because of the stigmatisation. Has he considered that? Did he receive any advice on that? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005941\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhy do people in the armed forces go through the Court Martial process under this bill rather than a civilian one? If the principles at play are universal and if the risk principles are the same, there wouldn\u2019t seem to be a reason to need to have a Court Martial for the armed forces. Was that a lift and shift from the previous Act, and did he turn his mind to whether it might be better to have universality of the tribunal and the intention to reduce stigma and discrimination, which is the whole purpose of the changes and reforms we\u2019re trying to make in mental health? Doesn\u2019t including the Court Martial element once again entrench the stigma and discrimination?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005942\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do have a second amendment, and my question around that amendment is whether, perhaps, the Court Martial is appropriate only in forensic cases\u2014the equivalent of prison-type, criminal-type cases for Court Martial? If that is the case, I wonder if he would consider my tabled amendment lodged at 1.50.02 p.m., which just says, \u201Cin clause 4(1)(b) of the definition of \u2018court\u2019, after \u2018Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971\u2019, insert \u2018for the purposes of this Act\u2019\u201D? That would mean that the Court Martial of New Zealand would only be used within the definition of \u201Ccourt\u201D in relation to persons subject to forensic compulsory care, rather than if they were having a medical mental health event that didn\u2019t involve something that could attract a criminal charge if it wasn\u2019t in an armed service setting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022bf4964335686a3b6aed41097cfec42ae\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005943\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bf4964335686a3b6aed41097cfec42ae\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (23:03)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. There was a question from the member Ingrid Leary about the reference to the new assistant psychology role, or psychology assistant, in relation to the reference in the bill for \u201Cclinical psychologist\u201D. By definition, the psychology assistants aren\u2019t clinical psychologists and, as deemed by the Psychologists Board, don\u2019t have that title.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005944\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question from the member Ayesha Verrall was around the use of the non-clinical workforce, and, as referenced, we have grown the non-clinical workforce. I think it plays a very good role in complementing the clinical workforce, but it wouldn\u2019t be my expectation that the non-clinical workforce would be used for clinical work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005945\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere was also a question from the member Lawrence Xu-Nan around infringement fees, especially around the serving of the notice. Every infringement fee has a requirement to include a statement, and under that requirement, the person who is being served the infringement fee has the right to request a hearing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022 data-id=\u0022153cd28a0f6eac33c845e98bcc9ba067\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005946\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022153cd28a0f6eac33c845e98bcc9ba067\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (23:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Just to follow up on that helpful response from the Minister for Mental Health, the language in the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act is that there are professions that are regulated. Can the Minister confirm that he means that he doesn\u2019t expect \u201Cmental health practitioner\u201D, as defined in this bill, would be given to people who are not in a regulated profession?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022be9d1b4fb262956124818ef1a24f622f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005947\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022be9d1b4fb262956124818ef1a24f622f\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (23:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, and I think that\u2019s a fair clarification.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u002218b8ef8bdafded892938ce1904e5104b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005948\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002218b8ef8bdafded892938ce1904e5104b\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (23:05)\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019re nearly getting to the end of the definitions section. I have got a couple more amendments. One is around the compulsory care criteria and its interplay with clause 7. We won\u2019t need to revisit this in clause 7, but I\u2019m trying to understand whether the compulsory care criteria are those set out in the definitions section exclusively or whether they\u2019re broader than that. My reading of the bill would suggest that, perhaps, it needs to be only those in the definitions section, so I have proposed an amendment in clause 4(1) to, after \u201Cmeans\u201D, just insert the word \u201Conly\u201D, and that would make it really clear that clause 7 doesn\u2019t enable other criteria to be included. I\u2019m hoping to get an answer on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005949\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAlso, in clause 4(1), there is a definition of the \u201CDirector-General\u201D, and it says, \u201Cwho holds the office of Deputy Director of Mental Health\u201D. The problem with the legislation, of course, is that if there is another change to the Ministry of Health, as there has been in the past, or the Director-General title, then the legislation can\u2019t apply. I just wonder if it might be prudent to add, in clause 4(1), replace the definition of \u201CDirector-General\u201D with \u201CDirector-General means the chief executive of the department responsible for administering this Act, and includes any person to whom that chief executive has delegated a power or function under the Act\u201D. That would future-proof the Act; we wouldn\u2019t have to come back with an omnibus bill for a silly little amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005950\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, just talking again around forensic compulsory care, it\u2019s a bit confusing about what that means in relation to clause 113. We don\u2019t need to revisit clause 113, but I\u2019m wondering if it should just be put in the definitions section for clarity so that it would say that clause 113 would be amended by clause 4(1). It would say that clause 113 \u201Capplies to a person under forensic compulsory care as defined in clause 4\u201D, and in clause 4, it would simply say \u201Ca person under forensic compulsory care means a person described in section 113\u201D. That would be some legislative coherence. As I say, we don\u2019t need to revisit it, but this would make it just a bit easier for people to understand how the interplay of those sections works. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022b6845ea9279120a249b6dfd825fadaa4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005951\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b6845ea9279120a249b6dfd825fadaa4\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (23:08)\u003C/span\u003E: Just in reference to that amendment, which we wouldn\u2019t support, the definition of this bill is standard Parliamentary Council Office practice. The intent is achieved through the Legislation Act 2019.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005952\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EJust rounding off the question of Court Martial, the Court Martial provision was already in the current Act. Then there was the question around what the start of the second assessment means. I suppose, if we look at the process of compulsory care, the first assessment is undertaken, and when there are reasonable grounds to believe the person meets the compulsory care criteria, that notice is given in writing for the second assessment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022b4f27a33bd0a64f2acd2ba2e99c913a9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005953\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b4f27a33bd0a64f2acd2ba2e99c913a9\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (23:09)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I know that my colleague Ingrid Leary might still have a couple of final questions on clause 4, but I\u2019m going to move on to clauses 5 and 6. I may have follow-up questions for the Minister for Mental Health on clause 5, but I\u2019m going to ask a quick one to begin with, which is: would the Minister anticipate any changes to clause 5 as part of the changes that are intended by the Government around Te Tiriti o Waitangi clauses?  Would that affect this particular one? That will determine some of the questions I might have for the Minister coming up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005954\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll maybe come back later for clause 5, but I do just want to touch on two things for clause 6, and I want to speak to my colleague Kahurangi Carter\u2019s amendments. The first one is around the therapeutic purpose, and this is \u201CCompulsory care principles\u201D, under subclause (1)(a)(ii). The proposal is to maybe insert a new subparagraph (iii), which is that the compulsory care should only be used \u201Cwith appropriate measures in place to support a person to move from compulsory care to become a voluntary mental health consumer\u201D. Sorry, Mr Chair, this is Amendment Paper 644.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005955\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe reason for that is that, as I mentioned in my second reading, one of the things that the Green Party is particularly interested in is the ability for people to fully transition into that voluntary care, and we emphasise that the reduction of compulsion shouldn\u2019t reduce the care and there needs to be some sort of voluntary support. I want to check whether the Minister would be interested in adopting my colleague\u2019s amendment, but, if not, if the Minister wouldn\u2019t mind pointing out another principle that that potentially could be incorporated under. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005956\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe next thing I want to mention is Kahurangi Carter\u2019s Amendment Paper 645 and that is to, after clause 6(1)(d), insert new paragraph (6)(1)(e), which is around \u201CCommitment to provide community care\u201D. This does tie in to amendment Paper 644. Again, this is to do with the kind of support that\u2019s expected and the community support commitment that is expected after involuntary hospitalisation becomes voluntary, which, again, shifts us\u2014hopefully\u2014from a high level of compulsory treatment to avoid cases of seemingly indefinite compulsory care. I wanted to check whether the Minister would be interested in those, and I still have further questions on both clauses 5 and 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u002212fd85a65da31742f56249c1dbdbee1c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005957\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002212fd85a65da31742f56249c1dbdbee1c\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (23:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Just on the fact that the Minister won\u2019t clarify, in the bill as it currently, the issue around \u201Cperson under forensic compulsory care\u201D, I think it is good for us to work out which bit of legislation takes precedence. As I say this, I\u2019m thinking again about the incidence, at Wakari Hospital, of people who would be potentially under both the Mental Health Act currently but also the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005958\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf someone is a special care recipient under section 2 of the Intellectual Disability Act and they also have a mental disorder, which statutory regime will now take precedence, and how does that compare to the current Act? Can the Minister identify any circumstances in which a person could potentially fall under both bits of legislation, given the changes and the fact that we\u2019re not going to clarify that now in the definition section? And, if so, what safeguards exist to ensure that people aren\u2019t inadvertently moved from protections available under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act and into the mental health regime? As I say, they sound a bit nitpicky and a little bit conceptual, but they\u2019re very, very real right now, given what\u2019s happened at Wakari Hospital and is mentioned in the Ombudsman\u2019s report. It is worth us understanding the interplay of those two pieces of law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGoing back to the Armed Forces Discipline Act, where I talked previously about \u201CCourt Martial\u201D, Part 10 continues to apply under transitional provisions, and yet we don\u2019t have \u201CCourt Martial\u201D anywhere else or in any other reference to the Armed Forces Discipline Act, except under Part 10 of that Act. I\u2019m wondering if it\u2019s just an oversight and if we should still remove that from the definition section, or why is it that it doesn\u2019t appear to be anywhere else in this bill? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005960\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen, finally, we\u2019ve covered the medical health professionals\u2014the New Zealand Health Plan; it would be great to understand from the Minister where we are with it. I believe that there has been a draft and there may be a strategy due for finalisation, but it would be good to know when the plan will be published under the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act or if the Minister can let me know if it has been published. I haven\u2019t been able to find it, but it may have been.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005961\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226e10214d2987f5d0720e34925b8e9c58\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, it has been.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005962\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d965212248246e454d2c0d9c99090c9e\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY\u003C/span\u003E: The Pae Ora mental health one?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005963\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022280e418d654f3b53b3c564431c59fb9d\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: No, the health plan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005964\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022183cff021aaa789d53fc39746f80876a\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY\u003C/span\u003E: The health plan. Sorry, I\u2019m just\u2014oh, no, that was 2025. I\u2019ll leave that, then, because my colleague is telling me that doesn\u2019t apply. So that\u2019s fine. We covered that one off. I think that\u2019s just about all from there. Then if we go to clause 5, which is the Treaty clause\u2014I will sit down and let someone else take a call while I gather my thoughts. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022f177cfc12fb91692fa5a210d40be57ce\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005965\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f177cfc12fb91692fa5a210d40be57ce\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (23:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I just wanted to respond to the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan. He\u2019s referencing Amendment Papers 644 and 645 in the name of Kahurangi Carter. Amendment Paper 644, to require measures to support transition from compulsory to voluntary mental health care, looks to add a new compulsory key principle requiring \u201Cappropriate measures\u201D, and, for that reason, we would not support that. It would be unclear what \u201Cappropriate measures\u201D actually refers to in definitional terms, and it would not be appropriate to include it in the principles of the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005966\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAmendment Paper 645 introduces a commitment to provide community care. Look, I understand the intent of the proposal, ensuring those who come out of, potentially, hospital inpatient compulsory care can be joined up with community care. The issue with that proposal is then that you would create, potentially, a new entitlement or preferential access through that route, as well. What I think we all can agree on for community care is that the decisions for referral should be undertaken through established clinical assessment and service eligibility and prioritisation, which currently exists.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022b116ed0fa7f52020fb89972302c610c0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005967\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b116ed0fa7f52020fb89972302c610c0\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (23:17)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for the response, Minister. I have to say, it\u2019s very refreshing to get such a detailed response to any Amendment Paper, so I appreciate that. Just picking up from what the Minister is saying\u2014and I\u2019ll get on to the community part\u2014I understand there are currently existing processes, and I acknowledge the Minister\u2019s point around preferential care.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005968\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI want to check in terms of clause 6 around \u201CCompulsory care principles\u201D. I\u2019m looking now at subclause (1)(b) regarding the \u201CLeast restrictive application\u201D. One of the things that I raised, as well, in my second reading speech is that we want to move in a direction where compulsory care is a last resort. Can I just check if that is in line with the interpretation here under clause (6)(1)(b), which is \u201Cbe applied in the least restrictive manner\u201D? Would that still imply that compulsory care is being used, but just less restrictively, and that there are different hierarchies of restrictiveness when it comes to compulsory care? But, also, over here in subparagraph (i), the bill mentions that \u201Cvoluntary care options should be actively offered and preferred\u201D. Can I just check if \u201Cpreferred\u201D, in this case, would also imply it\u2019s the default starting point for that, and then the level of severity, I guess, depending on diagnosis and the requirement for the person needing compulsory care?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022f727962713a25665dc18a440314fc4d4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005969\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f727962713a25665dc18a440314fc4d4\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (23:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you for that question from Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan. I think, when you look at the purpose of the Act, especially around the compulsory care principles, it does state around the therapeutic purpose, and I think that is very important in the context of the discussion here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005970\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ENot only therapeutic but the least restrictive application as well. What we do find with voluntary care options is that, quite often, they can be the most therapeutic and the least restrictive. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u00223259642c4ad1b559fc2dcdf2edd8a0e9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005971\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223259642c4ad1b559fc2dcdf2edd8a0e9\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (23:20)\u003C/span\u003E: On the definitions section, this is just a quick note to say that we did have a long discussion about the wording of t\u0101ngata whaiora, and some of the Government members didn\u2019t like the definition, but we have it defined in the bill as \u201Cpeople with lived experience of mental distress\u201D. I am interested to understand from the Minister whether speaking of distress rather than mental illness is appropriate or how does he see that, because mental distress tends to be a short duration\u2014less gravity; less, perhaps, diagnosed as a medical illness, and not necessarily a clinical kind of definition\u2014so would it be better to say \u201Cmental illness\u201D or would it perhaps be better to have a te reo word that defines what t\u0101ngata whaiora is so that we don\u2019t have to try and have this kind of transliteration?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005972\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen I go to the Treaty of Waitangi clauses, there were a number of submissions on that, and the biggest impression I had was that there seems to be a commitment to Te Tiriti in an overall sense but that it doesn\u2019t feel like it applies in the delivery of service to t\u0101ngata whaiora. I wonder if the Minister would entertain tabled amendment 1.50.06, which says, \u201Cin clause 5, after subclause (1), insert \u2018that persons exercising powers and functions under this Act must actively support equitable outcomes for M\u0101ori and enable M\u0101ori participation in decisions affecting the care of M\u0101ori receiving services under this Act.\u2019\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005973\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf we look again at the promotion of decision-making capacity in clause 3, that would seem to align really well. Alternatively, there is my tabled amendment 3.04.01, which just says that, under the heading, \u201CEvery person performing a function or duty or exercising a power under this Act must give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti.\u201D I know that the current wording talks about giving to effect as the bill, but it doesn\u2019t actually require anything of the people delivering services, so that could be another way to do it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005974\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe did have the opportunity to meet the other evening, and I was hoping that the Minister would take on board my tabled amendment on clause 6, which is around disabled and neurodivergent people. We heard that they are implicitly protected in the bill, but I do have tabled amendment 3.04.01, which would explicitly ensure that disability, neurodivergence, and different styles of communication would not be treated as evidence of impaired decision-making capacity. Just another plea to the Minister: I know it didn\u2019t make it over the line the other evening, but this would be of great comfort to our disabled and neurodivergent communities, because, often, with the way that they can present, it is assumed that they are suffering some kind of mental health event when it is actually a form of their expression and communication. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI know the Minister\u2019s going to stand up and say, \u201CYes, it\u2019s implicit in the bill.\u201D, but disabled and neurodivergent people do not get the protections. We know that they are overrepresented in all of the abuse in care scenarios, and so having an explicit mention as per my tabled amendment would be really helpful. The other one, which would be also something that I would have thought the Minister would support because he is a champion of lived experience, is to actually recognise the value of lived experience wherever reasonably practicable. We could do that with my tabled amendment 8.00.01. We could put that into clause 6(1)(c). Then we could actually, after clause 211, have the director-general actually have a plan and a statutory requirement to take into account advice from people with lived experience of compulsory mental health care, some of whom we heard at the committee stage, but also including appropriate M\u0101ori, Pacific, disabled, and youth lived experience\u2014again, the most marginalised communities. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005976\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EUnder clause 6, I have tabled amendment 1.50.09 to include the words \u201Cincluding wh\u0101nau and cultural support\u201D, which would be to specify what kind of support is referenced in the definition section. That would make sure that support was available to the person, including wh\u0101nau and cultural support, housing, income, education, employment, and so on\u2014all the things that people might need to get onto their journey of recovery. That would then apply the principle of least restrictive care and it would also require some investment into resourcing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005977\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMr Chair, if I can keep going with these amendments, we\u2019ll get through them really quickly?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005978\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eaea41861668088be4bca5873123f4da\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, yes, that\u2019s a good idea to finish them off. We\u2019ll go through them; it would be a nice way to finish your contribution.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005979\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002259956097d404d8c874864040196cf115\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I\u2019ve got an amendment under clause 8, tabled amendment 15.00.11: which would be, \u201Cafter the words \u2018Seriously impaired mental health\u2019, insert the words \u2018without evidence that those matters are contributing to a serious impairment of mental functioning\u2019.\u201D This is another safeguard. We\u2019ve heard that there\u2019s quite a binary position in the bill about people either lacking capacity or not, and yet we heard from expert submitters that those judgments should be made on a decision by decision basis because mental capacity fluctuates. Putting this amendment in clause 8(2) would help to move us into the 21st century when it comes to best practice around how we determine mental impairment and capacity so that it\u2019s no longer binary but more a journey, and appropriate supports can be put in at each gateway.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005980\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe also have two amendments on clause 9 which are, again, safeguards for people with intellectual disability, which is that they cannot be presumed to lack capacity to make decisions about their mental health care solely because they have an intellectual disability or a neurological or brain condition. We have seen the Wakari Hospital incident. We have also heard evidence from people where they are the most vulnerable, and just having that safeguarding would be something that would give those communities confidence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005981\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, the \u201CMeaning of capacity to make decisions about mental health\u201D: we could capture all of that in assessing capacity, to say that reasonable steps must be taken to support the person to make or communicate their own decision before determining that the person lacks capacity; so it\u2019s a kind of active or proactive duty of care on officials to take the person as they are before them. Yes, it\u2019s implicit across the bill, but it doesn\u2019t really apply individually on a case by case basis where somebody may be taken at face value rather than for their particular situation or circumstances. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005982\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, in clause 12, I suggest amending advance mental health directives so that a copy of the statement that is given must be provided to the person. They must be consistent with that person\u2019s wishes and to the person\u2019s support network and to the independent advocate. This is around giving them reasons why their advance directive might not be followed. We heard a lot about advance directives and people wanting them to be taken more seriously and to be on hand, rather than them just being discarded, and having a duty of care on those choosing not to follow them\u2014probably for good clinical reasons. It would be prudent to have that in writing so that there is a process to safeguard their rights.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u002212b8617ac02719d9be52b273cb9204b1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005983\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002212b8617ac02719d9be52b273cb9204b1\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (23:28)\u003C/span\u003E: Alrighty, hey, let\u2019s get into this; alrighty. We have tabled amendment No. 6 from Ingrid Leary wanting to insert additional requirements around equity and participation for M\u0101ori. I would not support that, because there are already overarching principles in the bill, recognising the Treaty of Waitangi\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229c11484d6bc76a9d2f16d4ea7796f4e4\u0022\u003EHon David Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s \u201CWai-taa-ngi\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005985\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c774ea394a31fb4f08b2000a66852774\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014Waitangi; apologies\u2014and requiring care to be responsive and meet cultural needs as well. Another tabled amendment\u20141.50.09\u2014expands the principle to housing, income, education, employment, counselling, and peer support to be available to the person. I would not support that, because, as we do know, care planning already requires a holistic assessment for the person and the support that is required under the bill as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005986\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere were some quite technical questions/statements, I suppose, around the interface between the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 (IDCCR) and the Mental Health Act. No compulsory care order may be made if the person is under IDCCR. If on an ID order, to become under the Mental Health Act, the ID order needs to be suspended.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005987\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe next one I have here from Ingrid Leary talks about inserting into the bill compulsory care principles relating to disabled and neurodivergent people. I would not support that, because the compulsory care criteria in the bill already ensures that disability, neurodivergence, and different communication styles are supported.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005988\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI have another one here. I\u2019m not sure whether it\u2019s got a number on it, to be honest. Well, the response to it is\u2014the request in the amendment here, I think\u2014sorry, Mr Chair, is that 150.05?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005989\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225fc63d777d05036de5aff1288c65f691\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: It might relate to the time it was received.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005990\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b6a86ed8dfba4efc068202624bda0fb6\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, OK. Do we get a number on these, or\u2014it\u2019s not the tidiest, is it? OK. Looking to insert \u201CA health practitioner exercising powers or performing functions under the Act must have appropriate competence, training, and experience in the assessment, diagnosis, treatment, and care of people\u201D\u2014I wouldn\u2019t support that, because, as the member would know, that\u2019s already covered by HPCAA, or the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act, which provides for processes to ensure all practitioners remain within their competency as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005991\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThen we have this other one. Maybe that\u2019s number four, do you think, Mr Chair?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005992\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002237a0c790cbc9a8737ca0c23b3a604d2c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Four, yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005993\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002235e4921857ce35bb2bdc40cf75764482\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY\u003C/span\u003E: OK, that\u2019s helpful. To insert \u201CThe person under forensic compulsory care means a person described in section 113\u201D\u2014that\u2019s interesting. I would not support that one. Drafting practice is that the definition section is reserved for definitions throughout the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005994\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b16aa7f70ce854f90124b41f637b36ff\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Lawrence Xu-Nan. We\u2019re getting near the end here, so quite substantive now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00226ca281cdc3c3d88ed46e5d988be33f1a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005995\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226ca281cdc3c3d88ed46e5d988be33f1a\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (23:33)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve got just a few short questions following on from a previous one. Just the first short question is on clause 6(2). I just want to check, when we\u2019re looking at who determines whether the compulsory care principles have been reasonably practicably met, who would the burden of proof be on? It does mention specifically courts and tribunals. I think that\u2019s an important question: is it up to those who are providing the compulsory care or those who are challenging the provision of that compulsory care? That\u2019s my first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005996\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy second question\u2014I\u2019m going to move on to clause 8. In clause 8(2), I have noticed that the select committee has made changes, and I do believe the changes are important and significant. However, what I\u2019ve noticed also is that a large number of prohibited grounds for discrimination under section 21 of the Human Rights Act are not in there, so the likes of, for example, sex, ethnicity, physical disability, I believe, etc. Can I just check that, for example, when we\u2019re looking at \u201Ca person cannot be assessed to have seriously impaired mental health on the basis of\u201D this list, if it\u2019s inconsistent with section 21 of the Human Rights Act, if someone challenges under the Human Rights Commission, how would that interact with this particular list?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005997\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy final question for this contribution is clause 9, and in clause 9, I would like to know, when we are looking at \u201CMeaning of capacity to make decisions about mental health care\u201D, who would be the one assessing this? I also want to check, in terms of the definition, the definition doesn\u2019t give an interpretation for what is considered a \u201Csustained basis\u201D. In this case, we see clause 9(1), line 16 of page 21, explicitly mentions \u201Cunless they cannot, on a sustained basis,\u201D. Is there a specific duration? Is there a range of duration?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005998\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThose are my three questions at this stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u00227f6dfac53d3637d3f054926c1a969304\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30005999\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227f6dfac53d3637d3f054926c1a969304\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (23:35)\u003C/span\u003E: There was a question from the member Ingrid Leary about the question of distress versus illness and how we would apply the bill to that. I suppose, when you look at compulsory care, it is not limited to a specific diagnosis, because there is a range out there about ensuring we provide timely care and support.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022297bc572c27f45308dffb067ca3e7915\u0022 data-id=\u00228317bdc64db7de891f8af7641cb80b79\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006000\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022297bc572c27f45308dffb067ca3e7915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228317bdc64db7de891f8af7641cb80b79\u0022\u003EDr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National\u2014Ilam) (23:36)\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006001\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006002\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 67, Noes 52.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002276b98c53146e3ef24db0c1b9a73a2a80\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 648 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022775fa6f80b16936fdf9c5a85d2802918\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Ingrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendments to clause 4 amending the definitions of \u201Ccompulsory care criteria\u201D and \u201Ccourt\u201D are out of order as being of no substantive legislative effect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIngrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendments to clause 4(1) inserting a definition of \u201Cperson under forensic compulsory care\u201D and to clause 113 are out of order as being not in the correct form of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIngrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 4(1) inserting text after the definition of \u201Chealth practitioner\u201D is out of order as being not in the correct form of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Ingrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 4(1) replacing the definition of \u201CDirector-General\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006014\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225ce145e501ef3f7ddfa6bda1f05deafe\u0022\u003EHon Dr Duncan Webb\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. Labour votes 30 votes, not 34\u201430 votes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ca014d3c7e4a366cbc461eb39f08ff63\u0022\u003EHon Member: \u003C/span\u003EWhere are they?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229a3419ba5df1c513a559db79ee20abee\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: In silence\u2014voting. Be good for the rest of the night, too. Does Labour want to correct its vote on the closure?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bf5b4bf37f019b565a811d8c5f1cdcb8\u0022\u003EHon Dr Duncan Webb\u003C/span\u003E: Happy to seek leave to correct the vote and vote 30 votes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002239adb3f1766aa5bb9cd27721fd7c64a3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The closure now, restating that motion, is 67 to 48. For the Ingrid Leary amendment, the Ayes are 48, the Noes are 67; the question is not agreed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Ingrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting subclause (1) relating to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006026\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022af27f23a1bb0686472e93069ebcdeb07\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Ingrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 5 relating to supporting equitable outcomes for M\u0101ori be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006033\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225dfd54e7763c913c3092ae962a038fbc\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question that Kahurangi Carter\u2019s amendments to clause 6 set out on Amendment Paper 644 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006040\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d52ab6c134038cc37c7ac58ebef6b78e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Ingrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 6(1)(b)(iii) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006047\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022326ca1ad95470ea7b4b71ef0216a9796\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Ingrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 6(1) inserting paragraph (d) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006054\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002244bcb426eecbd3ef04f1d7a2e1b52072\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Ingrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 6(1)(c) inserting paragraphs (v) and (vi) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006061\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f976fef32395ace5c5f3bc03696d1442\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Kahurangi Carter\u2019s amendment to clause 6 set out on Amendment Paper 645 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006068\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f0e4d21f6dc7145b5f2b310ee53a8fe4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Ingrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendment to clause\u00A07(1) is out of order as being of no substantive legislative effect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIngrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 8(2) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Ingrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 9 inserting subclauses\u00A0(2A) to (2C) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006077\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022527afe4419aae66070cfc7d5dc472047\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Ingrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 9 inserting new subclause (5) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006084\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 1 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e8f6b294de6ba31ce51b13dbc0ae4571\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022467f7983212d96ab24ba9ba1b9130b6c\u0022\u003EPart 2 T\u0101ngata whaiora rights and support\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226404b246a7a6221c413feb87f63ab94f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 12 to 40, \u201CT\u0101ngata whaiora rights and support\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=\u0022b03f42c6634e8801f431447e81d2387e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b03f42c6634e8801f431447e81d2387e\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (23:47)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I don\u2019t have a huge number of suggestions or questions on this part, but I do want to go into the community care orders, because what we currently have is a situation in New Zealand where we use a significant number of these orders, compared with countries that we compare ourselves to. They have a disproportionate effect on M\u0101ori in particular, and yet we have before us a bill that purports to strengthen the human rights of t\u0101ngata whaiora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere is international research-based consensus that compulsory community treatment is not effective in achieving its stated aims of reducing hospital readmission and improving mental health outcomes. Given that\u2014and given that it is a significant breach of human rights\u2014we\u2019d expect a substantial amount of evidence of the benefit needed to justify these orders, but that evidence doesn\u2019t seem to exist. In fact, in their submission, the FACTORS team, which included Professor Anthony O\u2019Brien, concluded that, if the bill were to pass in its current form, it would be unlikely to have a significant impact on the current practice or on reducing the use of compulsory community care.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy questions to the Minister are: does he know roughly how many people are currently on compulsory care orders? What evidence does he have that they actually work? Why is he so resistant, and why are his officials so resistant, to making community care orders voluntary? Is it do with a sense of moral panic or the assumptions from medical practitioners, who maybe haven\u2019t seen the evidence, of wanting to do something that looks like they are being accountable and responsible for patients yet doesn\u2019t seem to have the evidence to back up that they actually work? And is he aware of evidence that participation by patients in their own care in the community actually has a better chance of getting people on to the road to recovery? That is my first tranche of questions. I\u2019ll continue so we can move through the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn section 13, there were submissions around the advance mental health directives and the status that they have, where there seems to be\u2014again, I hate to use the words \u201Clip service\u201D because they do have some waiting, so that would be too cynical. What are his reasons for saying that section 13 can be overridden when the advance directive was made by the person when they had capacity? There may be good reasons, but it would be good to understand what they are because I think there is a sense that these community care orders provide a lot more human rights protection than what they actually do in practice. I\u2019ll stop my questions there, and I\u2019ll go into clause 17 later. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022365c90a5e46454de290ac43fa0631e2a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022365c90a5e46454de290ac43fa0631e2a\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (23:51)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I think it\u2019s well traversed with this bill that before it was introduced to the House, there was significant public consultation. On top of that, it had its own expert advisory group. It had a full select committee process. We\u2019re here at 10 minutes to 12, so it would be good to get some questions specific to the clauses, not just general questions that, quite frankly, could have been answered\u2014and probably were\u2014several times with officials in the select committee. We are talking about community care. By definition, if you are not providing that, what sort of level of care are you providing some of the most vulnerable New Zealanders in a time of need? Now, if the member\u2019s advocating that every person needs to then go into inpatient hospital care because there is no community care, then that\u2019s an interesting proposition, because she\u2019s just been going on for the last few days about Wakari and the issues we\u2019ve got in there. The whole principle of this bill is to ensure that we have compassionate care for people at some of the most vulnerable times of their life, and it just, quite frankly, beggars belief that we are now still questioning whether we should have community care in New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u0022fe31ecb08c0c76a64334d209b561b1d1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fe31ecb08c0c76a64334d209b561b1d1\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (23:52)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. The Minister has said that we traversed this in select committee. In fact, we didn\u2019t really get much time to look at it. Just for clarity, we\u2019re not suggesting that there wouldn\u2019t be community care. The suggestion is that there would be assertive outreach with statutory resourcing and people being able to participate in their own level of care and that there would be a small number of cases of people who might need to be under compulsory care.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Minister didn\u2019t answer any of my questions regarding evidence, but the numbers of people under compulsory care at any one time in New Zealand is around 6,000. The researchers who have done this\u2014 well-respected university researchers\u2014have shown that around 50 people might need to be held under compulsory care. So the question is not whether to remove community care but whether to remove the presumption of having it be compulsory and, instead, to legislate and resource the care that would be needed for assertive outreach, to make sure that people could participate in their own wellbeing. I did say that very directly in relation to clause 12. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do have an amendment. I\u2019m not going to read it out, but if the Minister was minded to read it, it is around giving effect to valid advance community care orders. I also have some other amendments, which I may as well go through now, since it is late. Another one is making sure that if somebody\u2019s advance mental health directive is not used, then they would be able to get something in writing around that. I\u2019ve got an amendment to clause 17 around attendance at hui by order, where people should be able to request that somebody else could come along, and there are insertions there in clause 17(4)(a) and (ca). \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI have an amendment around clause 23, \u201CIndependent supported person\u201D, to make sure that when there are independent supported persons under the bill, they can\u2019t be people working for Health New Zealand, the Ministry of Health, or their agencies. That is just, really, to reflect some of the arrangements that happen because there are so many organisations that have formal relationships through legal relationships that may not necessarily be seen as being independent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn clause 24, I\u2019ve got an amendment around independent advocates\u2014that we amend clause 24(2)(c) so that they will represent \u201Cthe views, will, and preferences of persons under compulsory care\u201D. That is to make sure that that person does have a distinct role, compared to a legal advocate, because we didn\u2019t get any clarity from the Minister about what the different roles were in the definition section.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve also got another amendment under clause 24 around what those advocates could do\u2014particularly in relation to electroconvulsive therapy and also seclusion\u2014to strengthen safeguards there, because, as we\u2019ve said, we don\u2019t believe that there are enough safeguards in the bill as it is currently worded. Also, it is making sure, in clause 37, that a responsible practitioner must take all reasonable steps to ensure that a person is able to access independent advice as soon as practicable. That is something that was said to us at select committee would be good, and I don\u2019t believe it was given due regard.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen we have some other amendments around the rights of children and young persons. A great deal of the evidence that we heard at select committee was around the fact that children and young people are, unfortunately, going into adult institutions. It\u2019s happened under successive Governments. There isn\u2019t any statutory resourcing requirement under this bill, and there is a requirement for children to be put into appropriate care where it\u2019s available, but where it\u2019s not available, there aren\u2019t additional safeguards for them. We heard that there\u2019s nothing to safeguard their educational development, their outdoor living space, the things that would make them feel nurtured and protected. The most we were able to get was the ability for them to be accompanied when they were being transported between facilities. So this amendment in clause 38\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EBell rings\u003C/span\u003E] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c973c1b1be1f0ee8ca8107b91a407b00\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The time has come for me to leave the Chair. I\u2019ll allow the Minister to cogitate on those amendments overnight. The committee will resume at 9 a.m. Have a good evening.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EDebate interrupted. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterItalicsCentred\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 11.58 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Saturday)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00226732d09e1dd573c9e452c4cc2af4b823\u0022\u003EUrgency\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002261ea41c0351c69a71a5d9efebd8b7a70\u0022\u003ESaturday, 4 July 2026\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00227d6319d9fbe3cc067924db69bb02519c\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00225cae0fca3730620ca5c86c4359ac928e\u0022\u003EMental Health Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022bdd72367972994ac2ba63ba723012d26\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022282bd7570e9a31c4bca9fc4068abc35f\u0022\u003EPart 2 T\u0101ngata whaiora rights and support (continued)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222fbe3ad722d864e1e890768f6216ea39\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Good morning, members. It\u2019s Tuesday morning again. When we suspended last night, we were debating Part 2 of the Mental Health Bill. This is the debate on clauses 12 to 40, \u201CT\u0101ngata whaiora rights and support\u201D. Just before I put the question to stand part and we start the debate, I just wanted to note that we spent some time in the committee on Part 1. We\u2019ve got some amendments from both the Minister and the members which are worthy of discussing. What we don\u2019t want to see is a relitigation of the select committee. We need to be moving forward, particularly, with the Minister\u2019s amendments or any other amendments that people have to speak to, but we have had a select committee, and although it was some time ago, we\u2019re not reliving the select committee; we\u2019ve set the scene for this bill pretty well. I would just also express to members, on a bill like this, to be respectful, because members of the public will be watching, and this is an important piece of work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe question is that Part 2 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u002245ac3b563f5bb2fd7e45a7efa0703407\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002245ac3b563f5bb2fd7e45a7efa0703407\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (09:01)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, thank you. Yes, we\u2019re on Part 2\u2014I will just indicate to you, Madam Chair, that I would like to go subpart by subpart, noting the three subparts here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EStarting from Part 2, and particularly later on, we\u2019re getting into the operational bit. So it\u2019s a good chance for me to ask some questions around specific clauses. I\u2019m going to start with clause 12, \u201CAdvance mental health directives\u201D, and I want to check with the Minister: clause 12(1) says, \u201CAn advance mental health directive may specify the matters \u2026\u201D. Now, we see two columns, the left and the right column. Can I just check: in terms of my interpretation of \u201Cmay specify\u201D, where the person is performing a function or duty, can they selectively include which part of that column they would use in the exercise of their power\u2014which, to me, is what \u201Cmay\u201D would imply\u2014or do they have to consider all five aspects of that column but they\u2019re able to add additional things on top of that? So this is page\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aebcc2be59004645dc6363eb761895c2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, which page?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002232f88d68b8b1daafac979277db923e7d\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Page 22, clause 12(1)\u2014the very beginning of Subpart 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227760d0a7aae940d72c711d8cacc076e9\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ede8b08592782ae85edeac15ecb53d8c\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Yep, so it\u2019s mainly just on those five criteria that we\u2019re looking at\u2014or content\u2014and the obligations that are associated with that. Does a person performing a function or duty need to include all five, or can they select one or up to five, or do they need to, as a basis, consider all five and then choose to add additional things on top of that? I just want to get a sense of what \u201Cmay specify\u201D means.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn terms of clause 13, my question is around the process. In clause 13(1), \u201CA person may make or revoke an advance mental health directive\u201D if there\u2019s a mental health practitioner involved. But, then, if you\u2019re looking at the witnessing of the advance mental health directive in a later clause, in clause 14, the mental health practitioner doesn\u2019t need to be present when the directive is revoked or made. Can I just check how that process would work and whether the people who are witnessing the advance mental health directive, either the making of it or the revocation of it, need to have some sense of what the mental health practitioner is informed of.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022e0e58bb15ff443492bf22718809122c6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e0e58bb15ff443492bf22718809122c6\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (09:04)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The question was around advance directives and around the five\u2014I think the word to use there is \u201Ccan\u201D. A mental health directive can set out within those five. On the question about the requirement of t\u0101ngata whaiora, which, if I take a step back, is largely a question around whether t\u0101ngata whaiora are involved in their care planning, there will be decisions to be put under the compulsory order or discharged from that, and my expectation is they will be part of care planning.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u0022fefc1149cd1c908e10a67f0d4463be44\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fefc1149cd1c908e10a67f0d4463be44\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (09:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m working around clause 17 of the bill, but I would like to jump now to the Minister\u2019s Amendment Paper, in the interests of getting into probably the most substantive part of this debate, at the start of it, and just make a very short contribution to say that one of the small wins that Labour members were able to make was to get the presumption that mothers and babies would not be separated unless there was good reason to do so. I know that my colleague the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall has a number of questions on this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EMy very first question is just: what change, in his words, does the amendment make to the presumption? We did get advice at the time from officials where the wording was provided by them. We knew that this was a real balancing act between the rights of the parent to not have further distress added by their child being taken away, versus the rights to safety of the child. And it is a fine balancing act. I can imagine that the scenario that absolutely everybody wants to avoid is making that wrong judgment and having a child harmed in the process of them being kept together. Nevertheless, when I look at the wording of this Amendment Paper, it does seem to distil down or sort of over-explain the caveats that are already in there. Just a very first explanation of how this differs from the current wording would be helpful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u00229efc16f0a2998c65f9e2e0fd3f1037a7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229efc16f0a2998c65f9e2e0fd3f1037a7\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (09:06)\u003C/span\u003E: This was canvassed last night. The principle here is workability, and it is to keep the intent of what the select committee members intended\u2014but workability with guardianship laws.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022 data-id=\u00222b5db14bf72f4880a5abf38ba7a4e14f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222b5db14bf72f4880a5abf38ba7a4e14f\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (09:07)\u003C/span\u003E: If the Minister\u2019s referring to the point in the debate that we had an exchange about last night, actually, the question that was asked at that point was the purpose for the Amendment Paper being presented so late, not the substance of this discussion, which we\u2019re pleased to be having now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019d like the Minister to explain: it seems that the guts of this is that whereas we had clause 38A(1), that said a birth parent is entitled to have their baby remain unless they agree or there is felt to be a change necessary in the best interests of the baby, now the clause is rewritten to emphasise that decision makers must favour the interests of the child. I wonder why that change is necessary, because it was already in the version that the select committee voted on\u2014that the safety of the child would be a reason for separating the mother and the infant.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat I guess is uncomfortable, currently, about the Minister\u2019s amendment is that it does seem like what was a statement with an exception that recognised the parent now appears to have no discussion about the right of the parent in the current language. I worry that that will lead to situations where it is just presumed that separating a baby from their mother is always OK. I understand that, in the Minister\u2019s comments last night, he indicated that everyone has the same concern. I think that is correct that we all do. No one wants to see situations where either parent or baby is harmed, but it does appear, in the present wording, that there is very little in there in favour of the rights of a parent who is at risk of losing the opportunity to be with their baby. It\u2019s not an insignificant issue; it\u2019s not a small, rare situation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPost-partum is a time where there is a higher risk of major depression. Post-natal depression can be a cause for coming under the Act, and there are facilities in New Zealand specialising in the care of people in these situations. So it is important that we get this right, and I\u2019d like to understand why the language seems to have been so substantially reversed so as to now have no statement in the bill outlining why it is important for a mother and their child not to be separated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022dd42533d9ce828b2160fd31363793f07\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dd42533d9ce828b2160fd31363793f07\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (09:10)\u003C/span\u003E: I can assure the committee that the presumption remains that the baby remains with the parent, unless the baby\u2019s safety outweighs this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u00225ef5944ff20a7ca4d52f72ec725af8a2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225ef5944ff20a7ca4d52f72ec725af8a2\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (09:10)\u003C/span\u003E: Just a supplementary on that. The language, if we look at that in testing how that applies\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002247a02d171d24bc9315741904f56db1f1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Just a quick supplementary, please, because I was actually watching this conversation last night and we\u2019re in danger of overdoing it. So be crisp and clear.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a699a990c6d2945f425106bcc60963af\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY\u003C/span\u003E: Yep. In new clause 38A(1A) on Amendment Paper 648, for example, if we look at paragraph (a), there\u2019s very clear language there that they \u201Cmust give priority to the safety and well-being of the baby;\u201D. If we look at paragraph (b), it doesn\u2019t say \u201Cmust consider\u201D or \u201Cmust give weight\u201D to the preferences as to childcare; it simply says \u201Cmust make reasonable endeavours to consider\u2014\u201D. That is how watered down the language is, and so there is a clear weighting difference between those two paragraphs. I ask whether the Minister could explain how he believes that that reaches a balance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022be6ff7c1b748bf928cba599f602d9f4b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022be6ff7c1b748bf928cba599f602d9f4b\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (09:11)\u003C/span\u003E: The parent is entitled to remain with their baby unless the practitioner considers separation is in the best interests of the baby.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224d1576f7f5f7b999c0f058295099bcf0\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229cb968e83818744cbd3dbf60f11cf444\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Is it on the same issue\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223a624f30c016088d583c80e101cc8eb1\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022087030f27ab21c11e94063008f86c1d2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014because the Minister has been very clear. So is it new?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022 data-id=\u0022a4d4a36eb91643856aa0be14e33d12bd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a4d4a36eb91643856aa0be14e33d12bd\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (09:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, yes, it is. It seems that the Minister, in order to justify the amendment\u2019s language, has gone back and repeated the language in the Health Committee\u2019s version, and so it seems very odd to me that his justification for what he\u2019s doing was the select committee\u2019s justification. I have not heard a reason why the language needs to change.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022540fc37fd87361d0e89947352f6aa22b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022540fc37fd87361d0e89947352f6aa22b\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (09:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, we\u2019re now traversing previous ground. We\u2019ve established in the committee that it\u2019s the same intent and presumption, and the change is in line with guardianship laws.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002289a02dc688b533712e95c0294bed63bc\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m going to call Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, but we\u2019re moving on from that particular issue, and I want to focus on the Minister\u2019s Amendment Paper or any changes since the select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223e64d475c209b040825926b06b0bec0a\u0022\u003EIngrid Leary\u003C/span\u003E: This is the Minister\u2019s Amendment Paper.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c5d81d5bec35a248530bcfb67f7166fa\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I know that that was. I\u2019m just making it very clear that that\u2019s what we\u2019re focusing on this morning: any amendments, or the Minister\u2019s amendments\u2014new.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u00229c4f613ce4e8bfabeb9ff76b7780ae4f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229c4f613ce4e8bfabeb9ff76b7780ae4f\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (09:13)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, can I just interrupt. I think it is important, because the claim was made that it was the select committee language. It\u2019s not the select committee language; it is the Minister\u2019s language, and it is that the birth parent is entitled to have the baby remain with them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022a6ed1e57599cc594fd9ed09713e3a698\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a6ed1e57599cc594fd9ed09713e3a698\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (09:13)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, thank you. Just for our clarification, because the Minister\u2019s amendment to clause 38 is actually quite far down Part 2, and I still do have questions on earlier clauses in Part 2\u2014would they still be acceptable? I do have\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bf3d13d20a4588626f38f888b8e4b48c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: As long as they are a change\u2014something related to the Minister\u2019s amendments or something new that didn\u2019t happen in select committee\u2014I\u2019m happy to take your call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002209dd8aa63287525231ebe4a9a4a8827b\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: OK. I do want to seek a couple of clarifications from the Minister on the earlier parts. Just to the Minister\u2019s response to me regarding the advance mental health directive, I think that the clarification I was trying to get at is this. In clause 14, that directive needs to be \u201Cwitnessed by a person\u201D, but it doesn\u2019t say that a mental health practitioner needs to be present, and so my clarification is: would the witness need to know or to have had interactions with the mental health practitioner ahead of time?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f8513989c1b53ce97b1cb416671dc091\u0022\u003EHon Matt Doocey\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a7d42d08b34d900a462ea411f3fc7638\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: But I\u2019m\u2014oh, sorry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224a13a652e09f168d90d0b5e24dbbc4dc\u0022\u003EHon Matt Doocey\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, I could answer that directly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b5a978b982f914b83938577a7e153cd8\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, sure\u2014absolutely.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b1b4cfd9b6d3a0af75983ecd541627c1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: If the Minister wants to answer it directly\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002209eb3a058d2cc164fea521c7eb7ce6b1\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, thank you\u2014thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022159d71a01b5bc0f15ea3e912698381a0\u0022\u003EHon Matt Doocey\u003C/span\u003E: To assure the committee and the member, the witness must be there when the advance mental health directive is being made and signed, as long\u2014and I think people would expect this\u2014as it is the responsible practitioner. I would just put it to that member, respectfully, that it was Kahurangi Carter on the select committee. This bill had a full public consultation before it came to the House, it has had a standard select committee process, and it is coming into the committee of the whole House stage with cross-party support.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002287bf8e4970d006ebb71b5ce448ad6724\u0022\u003EHon Members: \u003C/span\u003EMadam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002213e9427bbe84bba8f67b622a71d1022b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan is still finishing his call, which we interrupted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220d26dc5e8e4be3a5129a1fd4cbe67dc8\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree, but we also need to note that this is the only chance\u2014and this is one of the few chances that we can have things on the public record, as well. To be clear, when we are looking at it from a \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E perspective, if any part of this bill is challenged in a court of law, it is the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E of this House that lawyers refer to, and not simply the department\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002252ab9a83714d19181a04bbf04e36f671\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I do actually just contest with Dr Xu-Nan that there is also a record of the select committee available, and if colleagues have been on it and they have been satisfied to support that, I am just looking for areas that are outside of that select committee process. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f4fc0106a9eaebe3176ab9bb0bf37ddc\u0022\u003EHon Dr Duncan Webb\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Madam Chairperson. I\u2019m just perplexed as to what appears to be your position that matters which were raised in select committee aren\u2019t for debate in the committee of the whole House stage, because whilst I accept that there is a select committee report available, nevertheless, this is an entirely different stage of the proceedings and one which is, as we can see, a much more public and open debate. So whilst I can see that there might not need to be as exhaustive a debate as matters that are found in the select committee report, I\u2019m just unclear that there\u2019s some approach which says that because something was traversed in the select committee, it\u2019s not appropriate to debate it in the committee of the whole House stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228c6d8974db0f8f34e27c3ecab763af17\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Dr Webb, I listened to the debate last night. We\u2019ve had a couple of hours of debate last night on this and the select committee was mentioned extensively, and I have no objection to that being mentioned, but we\u2019re not relitigating what\u2019s gone on in the select committee, other than any Amendment Papers or any amendments that the Minister has made. Referral to the select committee is fine, but we\u2019re not rerunning\u2014we\u2019re giving the advantage to members in the committee of the whole House who perhaps weren\u2019t at the select committee to clarify some things, but this is not a rerun of the select committee. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002272776e9faacb18b1a1fb33df88119ade\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I do want to speak to specific clauses to ask for specific clarification, and I\u2019m now moving on to Subpart 2. I\u2019m just checking: one of the languages we did see previously was around the term \u201Con a sustained basis,\u201D\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002218aca2cafa58564c378213e2cd1be713\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Which clause in Subpart 2?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022acbe601633208d206de15d0b2eb99c92\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Clause 16(2), which begins with \u201CIn proceedings or processes to which this section applies,\u2014\u201D. I want to check with that, because we\u2019ve seen the language of \u201Csustained basis\u201D when we are determining if a person under compulsory care\u2014when we\u2019re looking at the maximum degree appropriate to their capacity to participate, would that also require it to be under a sustained basis, or would it just be that while in this minute, the person is able to have the capacity to participate, and they can participate\u2014yeah. So I would like to know what the sustained basis test is, if possible.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EMy next question for the Minister\u2014and I\u2019m going to keep it to these two because I have only two questions for Subpart 2 of this part\u2014is when we are looking at clause 17, \u201CHui whaiora (well-being meetings)\u201D, what I can\u2019t see at this stage in this particular clause\u2014clause 17\u2014is how a person who is requesting a hui whaiora is informed. Are they informed of the hui whaiora and the options they have prior to it, because if I\u2019m looking at clause 17(2)(a)(ii), the responsible practitioner must request a hui whaiora if the practitioner is satisfied that \u201Cthe person under compulsory care\u2014 \u2026 has requested\u201D it, but a person doesn\u2019t know that there is such a thing as a hui whaiora, how would they request it? I just wanted to check whether, as part of this, a person would be told up front their different options.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022366a01b11e727edb72f7e9dbcbdfa878\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022366a01b11e727edb72f7e9dbcbdfa878\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (09:19)\u003C/span\u003E: I think that that\u2019s a valid question, and I can confirm that that is the case. The question around decision-making capacity has been well traversed\u2014about the principle of it fluctuating\u2014and that\u2019s why we have the review every three months of the care order and the care plan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022 data-id=\u0022a11e7abf1684270a10d2098fe934df1f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a11e7abf1684270a10d2098fe934df1f\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (09:20)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, we may move on from the previous discussion about the amendment and the issues surrounding the separation of mothers and their children. I do want to just put some issues on the record before we move on from that area. Yes, it\u2019s correct that this process isn\u2019t one that can replace a select committee, but we did have a long and fulsome Health Committee hearing and didn\u2019t have the objections that appear to have come from officials raised at that point. For those of us on the Opposition who are considering these very important issues that relate to the human rights of mothers receiving compulsory care, I hope it is understandable to colleagues why it is that we feel we haven\u2019t had a full opportunity to ventilate those issues.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ESome of the answers to questions about why the changes are required appear to be somewhat superficial and don\u2019t offer us the reassurance that we might have had if we had either had this discussion at select committee and the opportunity to go into it further with officials, or if we had even had a week of notice and the opportunity to reach out to groups who submitted on these issues, go back to them, and ask their perspective on this change. My colleague, Ingrid Leary, will be caucusing with other members of the Labour caucus about our vote on the amendment. I don\u2019t want to get ahead of whatever decision is made with that, but just to assert that it is very reasonable, for a procedural reason, for the Labour Party to vote against this amendment if that\u2019s the decision colleagues choose to take.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c96149a439844ecfa86967f9caf5f50d\u0022 data-id=\u002238ff5b8ed3b07b099320d9a058d94bef\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c96149a439844ecfa86967f9caf5f50d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002238ff5b8ed3b07b099320d9a058d94bef\u0022\u003EKATIE NIMON (National\u2014Napier) (09:22)\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006171\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 42\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e30b40c7d9d88c7a4cad14b9da6e87fe\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendment to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 648 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006178\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 42\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002206eb11fbe158736b7bb79c0f8dbc0c30\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Ingrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 12 inserting subclauses (3) to (5) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Ingrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 12 inserting subclauses (3A) to (3C) be agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006186\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 42\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226cf52eedbf89c629b99e2158f66bc3ab\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Ingrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 17 inserting subclauses (4A) to (4C) relating to wh\u0101nau participation be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006193\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 42\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228c095cbc0372adac32a65749fb87bf11\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Ingrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendments to clause 17 inserting paragraph (ca) into subclause (4) and inserting new subclause (4A) are out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMembers, Ingrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendments, inserting \u201Cor their agencies\u201D into clause 23 and clause 24, lend themselves to being grouped. I will put a single question on them unless members indicate that they wish to vote differently on a specific amendment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Ingrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendments inserting \u201Cor their agencies\u201D into clause 23 and clause 24 be agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006202\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 42\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002201ce285df31f469c37fc33cd8f7b8ae5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Ingrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 24(2) replacing paragraph (c) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006209\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 42\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220addf7f17569d9e782622644e4bca271\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Ingrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 24 inserting subclauses (2A) to (2C) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006216\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 42\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225887eff6b3f960a50101b258f33b5dbc\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Ingrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 37 inserting subclause (3) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006223\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 42\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220d816cd02d6a0e194973d87506f2169e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Ingrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 38 replacing subclause (1) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006230\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 42\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002263e4c99a7dc033a6a50b16db749fe620\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Ingrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 38 inserting subclause (5) relating to additional safeguards for children and young persons be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006237\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 42\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a780327436440e19c13d52610cc85dc6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Ingrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 38 inserting subclauses (5) to (7) relating to the rights of children and young persons be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006244\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 42\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228f993f4ec747beb91e48b112cd318180\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Ingrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 39 inserting subclauses (2A) and (2B) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006251\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 42\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 2 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ba6f3d14dcbfda69544eb182810bd353\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022edf22841b8e13f39105ade69446054ed\u0022\u003EPart 3 Compulsory care, and Schedule 1A\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223a206fa66d4d28f7578de601cf563986\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 41 to 100\u2014\u201CCompulsory care\u201D\u2014and Schedule 1A. 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=\u0022c4ccf432efc5430c0205390928f39028\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c4ccf432efc5430c0205390928f39028\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (09:36)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I have been one of the people bringing the voices of some of those who spoke to us in the Health Committee into the debate, and I intend to do that where it is appropriate, in this section, if that\u2019s alright with the Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e2270a7fea07c836c111588fe806a4ec\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: As long as it\u2019s not long.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022227b45912f575a007d2142f738e88aa9\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY\u003C/span\u003E: Given the number of clauses in this rather large bill, we have been running fairly tightly, I would suggest, Madam Chair. If I look at clause 41 now, this is a clause that worries us, because it currently seems to extend powers to non-medical people to be able to make decisions around compulsory care. The questions I have are, really: what has been the basis of this, and has the ministry somehow included in its thinking whether it\u2019s primarily intended to address workforce shortages rather than improve clinical care? I won\u2019t go back into the questions that were raised in the definition phase, but, very clearly, there has been a broadening under some of the definitions of who can make decisions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy specific questions are: why does clause 41(2) allow any mental health practitioner to be appointed as a responsible practitioner rather than requiring a medical practitioner or a psychiatrist? What clinical decisions are they expected to make under the bill, and are those decisions appropriate to be exercised by someone who is not medically qualified? If they\u2019re not a psychiatrist, who, ultimately, carries responsibility for the diagnosis, the treatment decisions, and the compulsory care reviews? What safeguards are there for the postcode lottery across different districts, where one director may appoint nurses or psychologists in one area, while, in a different area, somebody else might only appoint psychiatrists? If the Government intends psychiatrists ordinarily to perform this role, why is the expectation of that not reflected in the legislation? What evidence demonstrates that extending the role beyond medical practitioners improves patient outcomes?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe do know that we have a shortage of psychiatrists, and that\u2019s, indeed, across the mental health services. The Minister himself alluded to the associate psychologist role and the fact that they do not have clinical competence as currently assessed under the Act. We need to be really clear who is expected to be authorised under this provision and who will be accountable under this provision. Would the Minister look at my amendment 19A, which would tidy this up for him?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u00221e611d6ae16e4e4d15fc40c9d27bdbd3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221e611d6ae16e4e4d15fc40c9d27bdbd3\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (09:39)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, thank you very much. The substantive part of that line of questioning is around the member\u2019s amendment, which I would not support. The change is unnecessary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe question was raised about the postcode lottery. Well, I would put the principle of the law that would prevent that postcode lottery, because the Director of Area Mental Health Services needs to be satisfied that the mental health practitioner being appointed has undergone the relevant training and competency. That is important, because only a competent and trained practitioner can properly operate within the scope of practice under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u002262c98918d08d226aff8b0d5715fe30af\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002262c98918d08d226aff8b0d5715fe30af\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (09:40)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start with Subpart 1, around compulsory care requirements. I\u2019m going to start with three of the clauses. Starting with clause 41(1), which is that \u201Ceach person under compulsory care has a responsible practitioner.\u201D, what I can\u2019t find from Part 3 is whether there is a ratio requirement when it comes to how many\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002284375e13f1e9672bbf211dad461824c8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Dr Xu-Nan, could you just repeat that clause? We just had a distraction here. The Minister is just asking which clause it is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002273b5b5655104735c1f6e13dab21357b1\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Clause 41(1), page 38.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022da8b04321371bd1017dd8c3209d7d70a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220d1ebd5c05d7291ac4c616b2177b07e8\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: I just want to check if, for each responsible practitioner, there is a ratio for how many persons under compulsory care they should be in charge of.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second question is on that as well, if the Minister wouldn\u2019t mind clarifying. If you\u2019re looking at regional or rural New Zealand and you have a person under compulsory care, what is the distance or geographical distribution, if that is applicable, of how far a person would need to travel to see\u2014if they do need to see\u2014a responsible practitioner? Or does it allow for, under that clause, the use of audio-visual links, etc.,\u2014people can FaceTime, Zoom, or etc., I just want to kind of understand what it meant by \u201Chas a responsible practitioner\u201D. That\u2019s my first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy second question is on clause 42(1). This is to do with r\u014Dp\u016B whaiora, and it says, \u201Ccollaborative care team\u201D. I just want to check with the Minister if there is an expectation to what the size of a team is. Presumably, it will be more than one. Has there been any discussions or any base understanding of\u2014are we looking at two to five, etc.? I think that\u2019s also really helpful to know, because, as we see, the intent of the bill is to ensure that people don\u2019t fall through the gaps, so I think that\u2019s an important question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI am going to jump a little bit\u2014noting that others may have questions before that\u2014but I want to just mention clause 49, which is \u201CReduction and elimination of seclusion\u201D. I would like to speak to my colleague Kahurangi Carter\u2019s amendment as part of her Amendment Paper 646, noting that there are a few other bits to it on later parts. But I want to speak to her amendment for clause 49. This is something that the Green Party has mentioned. I mentioned in my second reading speech that there doesn\u2019t seem to be a sunset clause when it comes to seclusion. Would the Minister mind considering the amendment, which is to add an extra clause to say that \u201CThis section is repealed 5 years after Royal assent\u201D, which would imply that a sunset clause is five years, or would the Minister prefer to give a commitment that we are going to be doing away with seclusion within five years?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, there is the amendment from Kahurangi Carter, inserting new clause 49A, which is just to specify, around the prohibition on the use of seclusion, that a person under compulsory care must not be placed in seclusion. This is, again, something that the submitters have asked for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u002269f3ab6dbc56864ad82bf660aa7b4047\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002269f3ab6dbc56864ad82bf660aa7b4047\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (09:44)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to that member for those questions. The first two questions were more around, I suppose, how we operationalise the Act, which I think is a fair question. There\u2019s one around the ratio and the access. This being an operational matter, the guidelines and secondary legislation will guide that practice. And also there was the question around size of the team and, I suppose, multi-disciplinary care planning teams. The size and make-up of a team is expected to reflect the needs of the person.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo the more substantive question around seclusion, I think we\u2019ve heard loud and clear that, as a direction of the country, we need to look towards removing seclusion in our mental health services. The first point I\u2019d raise is it\u2019s not necessarily a question of money. If you look at, potentially, some of the announcements of the last Government around funding into mental health, the data shows seclusion rates actually went up. The conclusion I\u2019ve drawn from being Minister is not only is it about adequate resourcing\u2014I\u2019m not disagreeing with that\u2014there is a particular focus needed on training and the workforce. I would like to share a reflection where I visited an inpatient facility, not far from here, that had actually reached zero seclusion because of a decision made by the clinical leadership team around the culture of the organisation. I think it\u2019s incumbent on us, when we are aware that no comparable countries have achieved the removal of seclusion, that as we move towards potentially being the first country in the world, we ensure that we have the right plan. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m comfortable that the regulations in the bill allow for ending seclusion. That\u2019s why I do not believe there needs to be a sunset clause. What I\u2019m also encouraged by is the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission\u2019s recommendation around New Zealand\u2019s first seclusion plan that Health New Zealand has accepted to be published in 2027. My expectation, with that plan, is that it would set out a road map of how we would achieve that and that it would then be incumbent on any Government of the day to ensure that we follow the road map. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe final point I\u2019d make is that the regulations allow for that and actually could be brought well forward from the five-year review and a lot earlier within the regulatory framework that this bill sets up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u002296d297e090ac9190dbd4623991f094e5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002296d297e090ac9190dbd4623991f094e5\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (09:47)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m sure we\u2019ll have a number of questions around the Minister\u2019s response to that question on seclusion. I just want to tidy away the last clause that I want to look at before going on to clause 49, which is around care planning. The Minister himself, last night, raised the relationship between the compulsory care order and the person\u2019s care plan under clause 43. It\u2019s important because the compulsory care order authorises compulsory care but the advance directive or the care plan arrangement records a person\u2019s wishes, preferences, and treatments. Understanding what parts of those will be given weight and when is really important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy questions are: does a compulsory care order compel treatment generally, or does it only authorise the compulsory care that is subject to the treatment safeguards elsewhere in the bill? If a person has an advance mental health directive refusing a particular treatment, how is that reflected under the care plan required under clause 43, and, if they do refuse, what legal effect will that refusal have? Where there is an inconsistency between a care plan and an advance mental health directive, which one of those prevails? And shouldn\u2019t there be a requirement under clause 43 to distinguish between treatment that the person consents to, treatment authorised despite lack of consent under the Act, and treatment that has been expressly refused in an advance mental health directive?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe reason I raise that is because we did hear evidence from people who had been subject to different treatments under the Act\u2014some of them restraint treatments; some of them seclusion. Almost all of them universally talked about the increased trauma and the impact it had on their worsening mental health, and they also talked about not having a voice in the treatment that was applied to them. So, where we have an arrangement where that could be there in writing but there is also the prevailing clauses and powers in the bill, it\u2019s really important to understand what the Minister\u2019s expectation is around how that should prevail and what weight should be given to the wishes of the person receiving the treatment. After this, we intend to go on to seclusion as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022 data-id=\u0022cb1582ff509b597d12bf1c936964dbd0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cb1582ff509b597d12bf1c936964dbd0\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON (Green) (09:49)\u003C/span\u003E: I just wanted to supplement on clause 43 of Part 3 by asking and inviting the Minister to provide an explanation around the role of the wh\u0101nau of the whaiora who is in care. As we see in the care planning, there\u2019s great detail in terms of the review, the way that notes and the plan need to be updated, the way that the service is being provided to the whaiora, but I haven\u2019t seen, within this part of the legislation, any mention of wh\u0101nau and what the role of wh\u0101nau is in the care planning. Further, how is the wh\u0101nau engaged and kept up to date in terms of care of their wh\u0101nau member who might be within care at that time? Particularly in the transition component of this clause, where you\u2019re moving from service to service, how is the wh\u0101nau engaged and how do they maintain connection to the plan of care for their whanaunga or tangata whaiora? I also acknowledge that, maybe, tangata whaiora may not have wh\u0101nau there in support, so what advocacy or what supports, external to the service, independent or otherwise, may be provided within this care planning process so that wh\u0101nau or an independent person or agency is there walking alongside the patient in care? Kia ora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u00229c973da3edc72dc14c89edb61f781be6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229c973da3edc72dc14c89edb61f781be6\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (09:51)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank that member for those questions. I think that the bill, quite rightly, as a part of some of the 10 recommendations, achieves the abuse in care recommendations of new roles, of independent roles, and of advocates as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThere was a question around involvement of the family, and I think a good example of that is around the new advance mental health directives, where a hui whaiora must be convened if a person under compulsory care does not have an advance mental health directive to assist with decisions about their care. My expectation is that where and as much as it\u2019s appropriate, wh\u0101nau would be involved; and if there was no wh\u0101nau, then there would be the use of the new independent role in advocacy roles. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u002225895dc79d57fe303234fdc4821f76d5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002225895dc79d57fe303234fdc4821f76d5\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (09:52)\u003C/span\u003E: Turning to seclusion. We did have multiple submissions, including really strong submissions from the Mental Health Commission, page 10, clauses 47 to 50, and also the Ombudsman, pages 18, 19, 20\u2014particularly point 88.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question that we have is it feels like there is a practicality kind of \u201Cwe don\u2019t have the resourcing to do this, but we might be able to one day\u201D, and when I heard the Minister talk about a plan being ready in 2027, that sounds like we are inching at a snail\u2019s pace to something that both the Minister has experienced and also we, on the select committee, had heard, has been able to be achieved in this country through planning, culture change, training and so on. So my questions are: if he\u2019s saying that seclusion is an objective of the bill, why is he still declining to set an end date? Doesn\u2019t he accept that if there isn\u2019t an end date, there is less incentive to change the system? The whole point of statutory safeguards is to require systems to get up to speed with things like human rights protections and so on. And, particularly, if there had been a workforce training and resourcing statutory requirement, which is in my amendment, which I think the Minister is probably going to decline, in the workforce capability, then that would be really helpful, because it would set the Minister\u2019s expectation. He\u2019s said it\u2019s his expectation, but there\u2019s nothing in the legislation that reflects that expectation of the Minister. This would strengthen the expectation and make it very clear to the institutions what they need to do and there would be the requirement for there to be adequate funding.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat evidence does he have that five years is the right amount of time to transition away from seclusion? The Minister will be aware of my tabled amendment that says, \u201Cat least have two yearly reviews\u201D, so that we can put some kind of pressure on the system to show the direction of travel. What message does retaining an indefinite statutory power to seclusion send to those services who had managed to eliminate it? It\u2019s not just in Wellington; there is one in Auckland as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m curious to know if it\u2019s the Government\u2019s position that seclusion will always remain necessary somewhere in the system. I know there are different clinical and professional views on this, and I\u2019d like to have on the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E what the Minister\u2019s view is on that. I don\u2019t have a position for or against it because I know there\u2019s a lot of discussion and evidence, but it would be helpful to understand what the Minister\u2019s own expectation is of that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf we\u2019re not ready to move to seclusion, can he tell us what specific workforce, infrastructure or funding milestones remain outstanding? If services are not ready today, isn\u2019t that why the transition period of five years, which does seem generous and does seem proportionate\u2014isn\u2019t that the right time frame to be able to get that in order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe final couple of points are really that he\u2019s talked about regulation being able to be used in the bill to end seclusion, but, equally, there are force and search powers, in and clause 204, that also relate to those limitations on human rights. That worries us because we all know that any limitation on human rights should be in primary legislation. Wouldn\u2019t it be better to lift and drop both of those elements into the bill? The sunsetting of seclusion as well as the limitations on people through force and search powers\u2014once again, it is feeling like bad law making to be relegating that to regulation. I agree seclusion could be done through that, which is less problematic, but if we\u2019re going to do that, we should have everything in primarily legislation, so we avoid the issues caused by clause 204. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, the Minister has talked about the fact that seclusion won\u2019t apply to under-18-year-olds. That\u2019s something we absolutely welcome. The reason that we\u2019re given also for the non-ending of seclusion is that other restrictive practices that could be harmful, as harmful, or even more harmful to adults will occur as a result. Now, the Minister can\u2019t have it both ways. If that is the logic relating to adults, surely that is the logic relating to young people\u2014many of whom, we have established, are also in these adult secure mental health facilities. Against the backdrop of what we were discussing in the committee last night and with Waikari Hospital and the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EOtago Daily Times\u003C/span\u003E story this morning, I think it\u2019s important, particularly, to hear the Minister\u2019s view about whether there could be an unintended consequence in the way the bill divides up the rights of under-18-year-olds with adults as we discussed seclusion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022ecec776a4770a75e2a43efc2b5349196\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ecec776a4770a75e2a43efc2b5349196\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (09:57)\u003C/span\u003E: There\u2019s a bit in there, so I\u2019ll step through it. I suppose we are slightly returning to Part 1. If I remind members that one of the principles in this bill is the principle of the least restrictive practice, the second is that this bill brings in quite significant safeguards. I\u2019m confident that we are heading in the right direction as a country. When we came into office, seclusion rates had significantly increased, and the data shows that they have now significantly reduced. So we are on a direction as a country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs previously said, I\u2019m confident that we\u2019ve got the right regulatory framework to ensure that we continue that direction as we work with the mental health system. I\u2019m acutely aware, as that member is, there is actually a wide-ranging number of views within the existing workforce, and other advocates within the system, that I think we need to bring along in that journey as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere is a concern by some of the workforce around the risk of removing seclusion, and I think that does need to be acknowledged; and others, as was well-canvassed during the select committee stage, are concerned about the unintended consequences of seeing a reduction in seclusion but, actually, then seeing an increase in chemical and physical restraint as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere was a question about why we are confident we can remove seclusion or prohibit seclusion in under-18s but not apply the same measure in over-18s. Well, the advice around under-18s is that it is a very small number of young people that are secluded. I\u2019ve just got the number here: 32 young people across all inpatient services in 2023-24, compared to 561 adults.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe point I\u2019d make there is that it\u2019s very emblematic of past Governments that think they can put an end date somewhere and it will just happen. I think what we\u2019ve shown around the reduction and the prohibition of seclusion for young people in this bill is that if we take a targeted approach, we can continue to reduce the numbers. That\u2019s why the regulatory framework allows for that and also New Zealand\u2019s first seclusion plan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022dc42b34e1e5510f41e8abe0165bf2b73\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dc42b34e1e5510f41e8abe0165bf2b73\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:00)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have one follow-up question on seclusion for the Minister for Mental Health, and then I\u2019m going to move on to subsequent clauses. This is to do with new clause 49(1A), and it\u2019s to do with reporting annually. Can I just check: as a part of that reporting, would the Minister have an expectation that the average hours and the maximum hours that a person spent in seclusion will also be reported as a part of that report, particularly consecutive hours?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u00224ec4c6dd9a94cb985373cf1a23681a31\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224ec4c6dd9a94cb985373cf1a23681a31\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (10:01)\u003C/span\u003E: That data is already collected. I think it\u2019s a very important point, because it\u2019s not only the unique numbers of people under care but it is the total number of seclusion events, the total number of hours in seclusion, and also the ability to identify where the seclusion is happening within each individual in-patient facility or wider setting as well. We\u2019ve also got the reporting on population groups, because, as we do know, M\u0101ori are overrepresented in seclusion rates. That\u2019s why I welcome the public reporting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ENot only that, when you look at the seclusion regime that this is bringing in, there is a lot more requirement now on reporting. Services now have to report every time there is a seclusion, with the reasons why there is as well. That\u2019s why this gives me comfort that, with the framework that this bill sets up, we can continue the direction of travel around reducing and, ultimately, eliminating seclusion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u002254e9e2cc7bf4805e5483611b6efc20bd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002254e9e2cc7bf4805e5483611b6efc20bd\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:02)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you for that, Minister. I think that is really heartening to hear, and I think, in that, I also implied that there would be reporting on consecutive hours as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to move on to clause 50, and this is on ECT, electroconvulsive therapy, and again it\u2019s to do with reporting. I\u2019m looking at clause 50(2): \u201CThe responsible practitioner must record the use \u2026\u201D. I wanted to check: with that recording, will they, again, record the frequency of the use on an individual? Again, it\u2019s part of that broader, I guess, accountability mechanism. That\u2019s my question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI know that others may have additional questions, but to signal to you, Madam Chair, my last question on Subpart 1 is on clause 52(1)(d), and that\u2019s the right to repeal or review.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227004b28dca5047e783e3de794a6e6b1b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: You may as well ask it now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002295a36c9f017f64acea5457f09bedd5fb\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, I\u2019m going to ask that now, and then, depending on the Minister\u2019s response, I\u2019m done with Subpart 1 and I\u2019m happy to move on to Subpart\u00A02.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI want to check with the Minister: paragraph (d) says, \u201Ca Judge of the High Court \u2026\u201D. Can I just check whether it is only the High Court that is able to have the right to review this, and is there any sort of advice that the Minister has received on how frequently we would be looking at this anyway? Would it put a strain on the High Court system?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u00229f0c758278a00de5a93cc6349c720951\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229f0c758278a00de5a93cc6349c720951\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (10:04)\u003C/span\u003E: Just to tie off those last questions around seclusion and electroconvulsive therapy, I think the member Lawrence Xu-Nan does raise an important requirement around reporting and publicly publishing that data. That\u2019s something that I take quite seriously. That would be my expectation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226de53c5d946896986347414de37bf8ea\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll take a call from Ingrid Leary, but I have to say that, on this part, we just need to be focusing on changes\u2014any changes\u2014now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u002226325088b60dd203651bc0bf1f8c94e4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002226325088b60dd203651bc0bf1f8c94e4\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (10:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Thanks, Madam Chair. I note that, in the definitions section, there doesn\u2019t seem to be a definition of seclusion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn the Wakari Hospital incident, one of the things that has emerged is that people suffered serious seclusion that wasn\u2019t recorded as seclusion, because of the circumstance of the building. I\u2019m wondering if the Minister could respond to how we\u2019re going to be able to capture those events under the bill, and whether he would entertain a definition of seclusion, to be able to make that something that institutions couldn\u2019t wiggle out of because they don\u2019t have a formal seclusion-type room.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do think, Madam Chair, we\u2019ve only just started the questioning on electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). ECT is highly controversial, and I think it\u2019s important for the public to know that we looked at this as a select committee really carefully and we\u2019re pretty happy about\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002262faf7d35c2a384471cf00023b2b31e2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I did hear questioning about ECT in last night\u2019s session, so this is specifically around any amendments or adjustments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ff31a257f30c0b41ca3ca2de0c307715\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY\u003C/span\u003E: Sure. We\u2019re pretty happy about where we\u2019ve landed with safeguards, but we still think there could be additional safeguards. They\u2019re only minor. One of them would be for the consent to be called \u201Cfully informed consent\u201D and to take into account future side effects of ECT. The other one was something to ensure the independence of two psychiatrists, because sometimes psychiatrists can work together, or may not\u2014they simply rubberstamp other people\u2019s notes. There are amendments on the Table to that effect. Those are my questions on ECT. I do have more questions on this part, Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u002269bbcabeb70d84ee4c94070c8b0b9915\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002269bbcabeb70d84ee4c94070c8b0b9915\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (10:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, the continual reference to Wakari\u2014patients at Wakari are actually under different legislation, the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act, so that is clearly out of scope. I have been advised that the seclusion definition is in secondary legislation, and that allows for the adjustment with new practices as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI would like to say, in response to the question, that I do welcome the changes at select committee. I think, when you look at Part 1, the principles of the Act are ensuring that we do have safeguards. I welcome now the new safeguards, especially around the second opinions, also around the reporting as well\u2014if you look at seclusion specifically, around having identified seclusion rooms as well. My view is that this bill gives more confidence around the existing practice of seclusion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWithin electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), of course, there was a range of views at the select committee. I respect that. We heard from the Hon Ayesha Verrall in the second reading about her concern and whether we should prohibit the use of ECT, but actually, through the select committee process, the validation and the clinical evidence\u2014but, of course, it is around the safeguards, and I welcome the changes made here today to ensure that we do have those better safeguards.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u0022d6483e73f7995a208fd85870b190f767\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d6483e73f7995a208fd85870b190f767\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (10:08)\u003C/span\u003E: Going to clause 70, just a quick question: I know that the Mental Health Bill has been through the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act process, but has he specifically considered section 7 of the Human Rights Act, the requirement of the Attorney-General to bring into the House of Representatives any bill that could be deemed inconsistent or any provision, in relation to community care orders? In other words, what specific advice has he had on that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI turn now to clause 80. This is around what we heard could be a change in the threshold regarding the determinations that are made. In the previous bill, the practitioners were required to make determinations, and that language is not used in the current bill. There were submissions to suggest that that reduces the level of protection for t\u0101ngata whaiora. We know that \u201Creasonable grounds to believe\u201D has been removed from a lot of the provisions, which is really good, but we still don\u2019t have a determination one. We have words like \u201Cin their opinion\u201D rather than a determination, which would seem to have a higher clinical threshold. Can he explain if he is happy with that language and why he\u2019s chosen that language rather than determinations?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b1349d393727d16860035e5cbf6c6d70\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister\u2019s just looking for something, Ingrid Leary, did you have another\u2014Ingrid Leary, the Minister\u2019s just looking up some answers. Did you have further questions?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fbc6cc2377a8c386c826d247326cd682\u0022\u003EIngrid Leary\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll cede to Lawrence Xu-Nan at this point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00229d359db0b5e222a65fdc8a710c3559fe\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229d359db0b5e222a65fdc8a710c3559fe\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:10)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I indicated I\u2019m happy to move on to Subpart 2. I actually only have one question for Subpart 2, on compulsory care assessment. I think Schedule 1A is actually very clear in terms of the process. My only question is around clause 57(1)(a) specifically. This is page 48, line 15. Again, this is when we\u2019re looking at the first assessment. I want to check with the Minister\u2014again, you get the Director of Area Mental Health Services determining the mental health practitioner. Can I just check if that practitioner\u2014I\u2019m just checking, unless I missed it\u2014is able to conduct that first assessment using audiovisual links? For example, I\u2019m, again, thinking about distribution and distance to travel, etc., for rural and regional areas where it might potentially be quite hard to have access to a mental health practitioner to determine that first assessment. I want to the check with the Minister if there\u2019s any consideration of how that could work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI now want to move on to clause 73. This is in Subpart 3, and this is page 56. The reason I want to speak to this clause\u2014and my question and my next question\u2014is to do with the Minister\u2019s amendment on clause 73 and clause 81. I want to check with the Minister: in clause 73(3)(c), why has the term \u201Cproposed\u201D been removed in the Minister\u2019s amendment? Is it just simply to do with the fact\u2014I\u2019m just going to check that there is no explanatory note on this particular bit. Can I just check: is it because the care plan is already in effect, therefore it is not a proposed one, and that\u2019s why that word was removed?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy final question for this contribution is on clause 81, and this is to do with the Minister\u2019s amendment as well. We\u2019re looking at, possibly, the top of page 60, right after line 7, and that\u2019s to do with if the responsible practitioner considers that a person under compulsory care meets the compulsory care criteria. It\u2019s about the record that\u2019s being sent. The Minister\u2019s amendment added this new Director of Area Mental Health Services. I just want to check if there is anyone else who should also be sent a copy, assuming that this is quite a last-minute thing. For example, a person I could think of is\u2014I just mentioned before in terms of the assessment that there is a requirement for the mental health practitioner to conduct an assessment, but I don\u2019t know if the mental health practitioner needs to be also sent a report or if that is encapsulated under clause 81(3)(c) as the primary health care provider. Any clarifications on the Minister\u2019s amendment for clauses 73 and 81 would be appreciated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022135115cedfe83507721aa7a14edcb285\u0022\u003EIngrid Leary\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a0541638096f213cf014bb84cd77e9a6\u0022\u003EHon Matt Doocey\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c046c4fb6b22ba08ab9519bf97cbd9bc\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Ingrid Leary\u2014oh, sorry, the honourable Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022ef101ea701b750985999277065169cff\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ef101ea701b750985999277065169cff\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (10:13)\u003C/span\u003E: There\u2019s a few questions I\u2019ll gather up there around the question of the section 7. The bill was vetted for consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and considered, in its entirety, to be consistent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere was a question from Ingrid Leary about the amendment in her name\u2014number 80, if I understand that to be correct\u2014about questioning the reference to \u201Cin their opinion\u201D. I\u2019ve been advised that the current reference \u201Cin their opinion\u201D makes it clear that the status review decision requires careful assessment to form a reasoned opinion, not just an issued decision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe questions from Lawrence Xu-Nan, in only, respectfully, a way Lawrence Xu-Nan can, I think some of them by the end of it answered his own questions around clarification. If I don\u2019t\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022307b47ac657b07d248cb04b1b02f847f\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: OK. That\u2019s helpful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a872a7d919a39e0b07bed3469507045d\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY\u003C/span\u003E: Ha, ha! If I don\u2019t answer your questions, then do let me know.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere was one around the practitioner being able to conduct first assessment using audiovisual links (AVL) as well. Clause 215 sets it out when AVL can be used.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere was the question around who would be notified at certain points of the care planning process. Of course, there is the principle of confidentiality. The person under care can nominate people as well, and we expect when this bill is operationalised, we do have comprehensive care planning processes as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220510aa4ad72a7e52872f9f548c241b68\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I was about to take a call from Ingrid Leary, so I\u2019ll come back.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u002249deb39fa4781a435a24b870e860c84e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002249deb39fa4781a435a24b870e860c84e\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (10:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Moving to clause 85, this is the subsection that talks about the expiry and extension of mental health care orders and, again, involves people making decisions that potentially have an impact on the human rights of those who they\u2019re deciding about. Some of these do seem to be broader in scope than the current Act. Therefore, it\u2019s important to ask questions about them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe first one is the first extension, which is six months. What additional safeguards, if any, are provided before a person\u2019s compulsory care order is extended to the first six months, and how will the responsible practitioner make the determination about whether they should be under a compulsory care order or whether they\u2019d be better supported through voluntary care? What weight must be given to evidence that the person has regained decision-making capacity or is engaging voluntarily? Does he expect the first extension to be the exception rather than the norm\u2014it would be good to have that on the record\u2014but also, if so, how will that expectation be monitored? There doesn\u2019t seem to be anything in the bill around that, so it would be good to hear what kind of operational monitoring might be occurring.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s also, in clause 86, second and subsequent extensions, where, after the first extension, the court can grant an order for up to 12 months, and the Government has increased the maximum duration of subsequent extensions to that level. The committee changed the wording to say for a period of \u201Cup to\u201D 12 months, but it does create questions, because it means there\u2019s a discretion. What factors does he expect the court to consider when deciding whether an extension should be, say, three months, six months, or the full 12 months? Wouldn\u2019t it be important, if there is that discretion, which is implicit, to have some safeguarding wording around that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere are also questions about whether an annual judicial review is sufficient for monitoring those extensions. That means that once a year, there will be some kind of report done, but somebody could potentially just have the order extended over and over again without any kind of transparency or ability in the system to be able to see it as a milestone or a gate to reassess, so what\u2019s in place in the bill to do that? Is there anything in clause 86 that requires the court to grant the shortest extension reasonably necessary, and, if so, can he point to that, please? How will he ensure that there will be consistency across different courts, because at the moment the legislation is silent on that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI guess we\u2019re really wanting to see some direction from the Minister, given that there isn\u2019t the safeguarding, necessarily, in the bill, of his expectations of how these two clauses, 85 and 86, will, in practice, be delivered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022497248018f3248e137ca70d71f774f94\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022497248018f3248e137ca70d71f774f94\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (10:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. There were the statements made around decision-making capacity and the criteria for being placed under compulsory care. I\u2019m confident they are explicit in the bill. The more substantive question at the end there around the 12 months with the care order\u2014I would just point to the key principle of the legislation, the least restrictive practice, as well as the additional safeguards. What gives me great confidence and also why this meets 10 of the abuse in care recommendations is that there may be a 12-month order, but, of course, because of the requirement for a review every three months, if a person is deemed not to be required to be under the Act, then they won\u2019t remain under the Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d610c8bf31550c8850894c25fed75731\u0022\u003EHon Member: \u003C/span\u003EMadam Chair\u2014Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002299bf7d1851f69e6a666ba7cd8fd99ca9\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: H\u016Bhana Lyndon. I said I\u2019d take a call from H\u016Bhana Lyndon.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022 data-id=\u00225158ec7f70f28121a5909336d8e4c38e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225158ec7f70f28121a5909336d8e4c38e\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON (Green) (10:20)\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EKia aroha mai\u003C/span\u003E [ [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003Esorry\u003C/span\u003E], Madam Chair\u2014we skipped ahead, and I wanted to take us back to page 46 for a quick question with the Minister in regards to section 53, in the \u201CRelease from compulsory care\u201D. It notes that at any time when a responsible practitioner considers that a patient under compulsory care does not meet the criteria for compulsory care anymore, that the person must be released immediately\u2014ka pai. But then when there\u2019s a disagreement that might occur, the case gets referred on to the Mental Health Review Tribunal. My question is, because we\u2019ve heard data around both youth and overall adult, those who are retained within compulsory care, the monitoring function and the retention of data and reporting of how many contests or challenges around the review of release of release of care\u2014is that recorded? Will it be made public, as a part of the reporting, to show the progress in the way that we are being robust in considering our retention of a person and release of a person from care?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022212e0c7670a5e83c95a95e19668bd497\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022212e0c7670a5e83c95a95e19668bd497\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (10:21)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it\u2019s actually a very important question about the Mental Health Review Tribunal. As I sketched out to the previous member\u2019s question\u2014around the three-monthly review and being discharged from the Act\u2014where there is a disagreement, I suppose, from the person under compulsory care and the responsible practitioner, it does go to the review. So I\u2019m happy to commit to that capturing of the data and publishing it. If that\u2019s not happening already, then that will happen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022 data-id=\u002299f65a667afb5753c8f1564026de1632\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002299f65a667afb5753c8f1564026de1632\u0022\u003EDr CARLOS CHEUNG (National\u2014Mt Roskill) (10:22)\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006347\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 41\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228b924078eb00b9d50f7564f2081a4a63\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, Mr Speaker has given permission for Tom Rutherford to help out in the Chair today, and so at this stage, while I move to go and do something else, I am going to ask Tom Rutherford to take the voting on this part. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224b3b92d72d44af21fc17d2c8bafcebed\u0022\u003ETEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford)\u003C/span\u003E: Alrighty. Thank you, members. The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Part 3 set out on Amendment Paper 648 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002285b09d532d51f61deff4ddc672afe900\u0022\u003ETEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Ingrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendment replacing clause 41(2) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006357\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 41\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222d1b26507ea47b8cacd5efd1673a6946\u0022\u003ETEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Ingrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendment inserting new clause 48A be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006364\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 41\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ccb7c75480f44f5e3daaaabacf033964\u0022\u003ETEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Ingrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 49 inserting new subclauses (1B) to (1D) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006371\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 41\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022406d70b539ad79af820c997f94db96b2\u0022\u003ETEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Kahurangi Carter\u2019s amendment to Part 3 set out on Amendment Paper 646 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006378\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 41\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022800ab29362ef3193c1e745ff40d6aeb7\u0022\u003EDr Tracey McLellan\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. I just thought I could draw your attention to photos being taken in the gallery, if you had any discretion to be able to do something about that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d33ed894065e1e4454d891676ec62439\u0022\u003ETEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m just taking some advice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPermission is needed to take photos, so if permission hasn\u2019t been granted then I ask the member to refrain. But thank you for raising that and bringing it to my attention.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ECarrying on: Ingrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendment inserting clause 49A is out of order as being of uncertain legislative effect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Ingrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 49 inserting subclauses (1B) to (1D) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006389\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 41\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c250672a05be8ecb845abb04743d11f7\u0022\u003ETEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford)\u003C/span\u003E: Ingrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendment replacing clause 80(8) is out of order as not offering a serious alternative form of words.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EPart 3 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022337b6b1d1f4ae5aa3edd6e7999405c9a\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f7788679ca64b79c7bc3e77bbb3d672a\u0022\u003EPart 4 Persons under forensic compulsory care and persons on restricted orders\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ffe3b90f222dff694bcf636fa1156317\u0022\u003ETEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we now come to Part 4. This is the debate on clauses 101 to 135, \u201DPersons under forensic compulsory care and persons on restricted orders\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=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022758c1d18f17c0184e209d90a14a9ebb3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022758c1d18f17c0184e209d90a14a9ebb3\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (10:29)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I do want to sort of slightly get ahead of the questions in this part. The reason I say that is, actually, when you look at this part, it is one of the most consistent parts with the current Act\u2014some of the least changes\u2014and also, I would point to members that the new principles of the bill we are debating will now be brought into forensic care for the first time. I\u2019m sure we\u2019ll agree, when we think about our prisoners who experience psychiatric issues that need to be transferred out of corrections facilities into forensic Health New Zealand facilities, that we want to ensure that they receive the same level of care that people going in under the comprehensive Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00221f56f7d220a72f6d0f88d2a277b99a20\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221f56f7d220a72f6d0f88d2a277b99a20\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:30)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I do have a few questions for Part 4, and it\u2019s good to hear from the Minister for Mental Health that it\u2019s the most consistent, which in some ways is also the more concerning because of the development in terms of our criminal and justice system. This part, in some ways, has more to do with justice as opposed to purely a mental health portfolio element.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227322ad89f44abf5d95e0a2b3aa5de23f\u0022\u003EHon Matt Doocey\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223a3827bda6f0950f6619eef9c392469e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Is this a point of order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u00228c4704fc474167af5a84e53dc035ad7d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228c4704fc474167af5a84e53dc035ad7d\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (10:31)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I\u2019d just like to respond to that because, before we go off, it doesn\u2019t have anything to do with justice. When a prisoner, if we use this as an example, is deemed needing psychiatric care, they come into a Health New Zealand forensic service, which is covered by this legislation. They\u2019re solely covered by this legislation. I just want to reiterate that this part is the least change from the current Act and has no significant changes. I accept that there is an important discussion, maybe in a general debate, about how we better manage our prisoners in New Zealand, but I just wanted to point out the substantive of the clauses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u002206f41e8cbabaca7048ccd13a5f8a7198\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002206f41e8cbabaca7048ccd13a5f8a7198\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:32)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I think the Minister for Mental Health has jumped ahead in anticipation of what my question is going to be. My question starting with section 101 in terms of notice of admission. The reason I ask this is actually to do with the fact that we have just had a debate on the declaration of inconsistency when it comes to public protection orders and extended supervision orders. This particular section, I think, in reference to the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act, was a specific component of the consideration when we\u2019re looking at that declaration of inconsistency. I want to check with the Minister then, when we are looking at this section in particular, has the Minister received any advice on the potential contradiction with section 26(2), I believe, of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act around double jeopardy. My second question is to do with clause 103\u2014collection of biometric information. Now, the reason I\u2019m asking questions around this is what the Minister said, that this is kind of mostly consistent\u2014our Privacy Act has also changed quite substantially over the last couple of decades compared to 1992. I do want to check, when it comes to collection of biometric information, for example, how is that being stored and how is that being used? I do have some supplementary questions later on biometric information, but I want to check those two questions to set the premise around.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u00226556d6355418eb1aedf3abb2989a0f37\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226556d6355418eb1aedf3abb2989a0f37\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (10:34)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Just noting that I endorse what Lawrence Xu-Nan has said. The reason that we need to scrutinise this part of the bill is because it is indeed the most similar to the current law, which we know is not fit for purpose, so we will have questions about that. I\u2019m not sure it\u2019s appropriate. I hope the Minister for Mental Health is not going to stand up and require me to stand down in the middle of my contribution. I want to go to clause 112(4A), which is the new provision that was advocated for by Labour members at the Health Committee, which is, where a person under compulsory care is to be transported, they can request from the Director of Area Mental Health for him or her to permit a support person for the duration of the journey. It can be a retraumatising event for a young person, and subpart (b) says \u201Cthe request may not be unreasonably denied\u201D. Further in the provision ahead of that, there are planning and delivery elements about how that is to happen using Government transport. I just want to ask the Minister, would it be, in his opinion, an unreasonable denial of that permission if the young person was not able to make the request in a timely way? I\u2019m thinking here of situations where somebody might be told on the day that they\u2019re due to move, that they need to be transferred to another facility, and they simply don\u2019t have time either to make the request or for that response to be received. Would that be considered an unreasonable denial of that new right for that young person?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022431bdb930a9d77048b22c132f810eb68\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022431bdb930a9d77048b22c132f810eb68\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (10:36)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. There\u2019s a question by the member Lawrence Xu-Nan about the bill. It was independently vetted against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and found to be consistent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u002275d9c0d30f023ed225d2a839667b1608\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002275d9c0d30f023ed225d2a839667b1608\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:36)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair, and I\u2019m just signalling to the Chair that I\u2019m waiting for the questions around biometric information and how they are going to be used and stored against the new privacy principles. Again, I\u2019m not seeing, in this particular section, that privacy is even mentioned, which is deeply concerning. I think the second question is, for example, with that\u2014and again, this is something we\u2019re seeing quite recently in some of the justice-related portfolios, and also immigration-related materials\u2014in and around the use of biometric information. Can I check, is this being stored within the agency and are the agencies compelled to share such information? For example, because we\u2019ve seen it with immigration, are they compelled to share that information with Five Eyes partners?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022 data-id=\u002247d9447e93b1a7f0e45c2214105470bd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002247d9447e93b1a7f0e45c2214105470bd\u0022\u003EDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (10:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, and thank you, Minister for Mental Health. I just want to reiterate a couple of quick points, and that is, when we have debated this bill in second reading before entering into this committee of the whole House stage, everybody noted that the current legislation is simply not fit for purpose. I also want to lend my voice to the fact that when we get to Part 4, which is what we\u2019re on now\u2014and we can see and then have that confirmed via the Minister\u2019s opening remarks that this is essentially unchanged\u2014it does raise legitimate questions that should be ventilated in this process now as to why the Minister feels as if, throughout policy development, throughout all other aspects of making changes to this legislation, that the forensic part of the operation of the Mental Health Act was deemed to be pretty much fit for purpose. Just needs a little bit of an update of language, because, certainly, from a prison perspective, and I appreciate the difference between this Act and the Corrections Act, but it is clear that there are many things that are not working in the health component of people that find themselves incarcerated into the corrections environment. I would like to hear\u2014and this is a perfect opportunity for the Minister to be able to just walk us through, talk us through\u2014why he feels that there wasn\u2019t a need in this Part 4 to make any substantive changes that could have improved the way that this bill acts for real-life people in those environments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u00222cdca53812cb111ebb8a1b853283e94b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222cdca53812cb111ebb8a1b853283e94b\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (10:39)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, that\u2019s because, as we\u2019ve reaffirmed multiple times during this debate, the bill had full public consultation before it was brought into the House. I also took some comfort from the Health Committee in its recommendations or, potentially, lack of recommendations in this part. There was a question around privacy of Five Eyes concerns by the member Lawrence Xu-Nan. The answer there is no. The issues are here. The Privacy Act continues to apply for storage and sharing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThere was a question around collection of information, and the biometric information is collected in accordance with the regulations as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u002209a1b543b986d3ecffd04ec9b71f9d5c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002209a1b543b986d3ecffd04ec9b71f9d5c\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (10:40)\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister for Mental Health has mentioned full consultation. Can he confirm, then, that patients held under forensic legislation or in prison mental health settings were consulted as part of the drafting of this bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u002268b0ef0bb34db316704a251dbf1ebe31\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002268b0ef0bb34db316704a251dbf1ebe31\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (10:40)\u003C/span\u003E: I can only reaffirm, and that was the advice, because, as we know, the full public consultation happened under that member\u2019s last Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022369692071dfbfb53cfeae97c5a05ad2d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022369692071dfbfb53cfeae97c5a05ad2d\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:40)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you for that response, Minister, around the information privacy principles\u2014IPP. Just to check, one of the directives that the Privacy Commissioner has submitted around that is to do with the fact that our IPP actually, in some ways, doesn\u2019t cover the sharing of information, both individually but in also in terms of collective or bulk. I do wonder if the Minister for Mental Health could just confirm with me not just simply that this is something that has been checked through but that the Minister or officials have had a conversation with the Privacy Commissioner about this particular area. I think that would relieve a lot of our concerns as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI do want to move on to clause 106, in terms of the detained person in need of care. This goes back to one of my earlier questions around public protection orders (PPOs) and extended supervision orders. In here, what you\u2019re looking at is specifically a person who is detained in prison or a residence established under the Public Protection Orders Act. I just want to check with the Minister on what then would be the process of transferring someone from PPO to person under forensic compulsory care status, and if the Minister wouldn\u2019t mind saying just how many of those are currently in the system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u002205d170d47d54434b154b459de8ac54e8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002205d170d47d54434b154b459de8ac54e8\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (10:42)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, just to tie up the questioning around that, the Privacy Commissioner was consulted around the policy and made a submission.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022297bc572c27f45308dffb067ca3e7915\u0022 data-id=\u0022cfb88e2744fed123895cec50348c416d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022297bc572c27f45308dffb067ca3e7915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cfb88e2744fed123895cec50348c416d\u0022\u003EDr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National\u2014Ilam) (10:43)\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=\u002245cc965afd9956b7eef45a5c9c9ea15b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002245cc965afd9956b7eef45a5c9c9ea15b\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:43)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chair, I just want to seek clarity from you. We\u2019ve got some outstanding questions. If the Minister for Mental Health wants, we are happy to move on, but then if the Minister, in future parts, would be able to still respond to some of the current questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eefe985dc7a13339198e7c10fa2ccbf3\u0022\u003EHon Matt Doocey\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m happy with that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c1080d6abbdf348975bb9133d2c60625\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: You\u2019re happy with that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227125df36e174ac93fcd1c9c10c03d655\u0022\u003EHon Matt Doocey\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022 data-id=\u002286d1952cbdb7e6dd868ec035ac1782ac\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002286d1952cbdb7e6dd868ec035ac1782ac\u0022\u003EDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (10:43)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, and I appreciate the Minister for Mental Health\u2019s previous answers; I just wanted to further dig into a little bit of context. The Minister said that the consultation had happened under the previous Labour Government, and that\u2019s all very well and good, and obviously we\u2019re very well aware that a lot of this work was initiated and instigated under a previous Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Minister has had the opportunity to add his two cents\u2019 worth, so to speak, for lack of a better term, but the context is quite different now to what it was then in regards to forensic mental health, because the prison population has absolutely risen. There are clearly a lot more concerns about the forensic capacity within the prison system being able to cope with what is a booming prison population and all the requisite problems that that forces on other types of less forensic but still mental health responses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006424\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHas the Minister engaged in any further policy development or any kind of consideration of a very, very different environment to what it was three years ago, and how can he assure us that this even touches the sides in terms of an appropriate forensic mental health component of this bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u002250365d1bd1d7fa78c7208e9089fca9b8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002250365d1bd1d7fa78c7208e9089fca9b8\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (10:44)\u003C/span\u003E: As has been well traversed, this \u201Crepeal and replace\u201D, which is a once-in-a-generation improvement of the Mental Health Act will equally improve care for those forensic patients that come outside the wire from Corrections into a forensic Health New Zealand setting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question around, I suppose, capacity and ensuring we have the right number of beds: I would point the member to not only Budget 2025\u2014$51 million specifically for more forensic mental health beds\u2014and then Budget 2026 with $36 million specifically for more forensic mental health beds.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 4 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006428\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f2d507fb05183a758b65e303859dc354\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u002277876f2669fd5785694d25d414042940\u0022\u003EPart 5 Reviews, appeals, and judicial inquiries\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d0ad9cc41188828a76bcea87828fd713\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to Part 5. Part 5 is the debate on clauses 136 to 143, \u201CReviews, appeals, and judicial inquiries\u201D. The question is that Part 5 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EJust before we move on to Part 5, and just to assist those of us at the table as well, many of us were not at the Health Committee, so it can be appropriate for you just to mention that in your address, and then we can sort of deal with that as that arises\u2014but then also noting that we do have a Minister who is engaging, so it is possible that if you signal that you have a series of questions, you can just take a couple, I\u2019ll take a beat, and if the Minister is going to engage, we can move forward that way as opposed to jamming 10 questions right at the end, which then makes it harder for us to track up here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u0022d8f5eda23076730faf602de979e280d4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d8f5eda23076730faf602de979e280d4\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (10:46)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chair, thank you. I\u2019m looking at the first clause in Part 5, clause 136, which is \u201CTribunal reviews of persons subject to compulsory care\u201D. This records where a Mental Health Review Tribunal can review the condition of any person under compulsory care.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve had a bit of discussion in this House about whether compulsory care is appropriate in many settings, given that there\u2019s no evidence of its therapeutic benefit. My question is on clause 136(4). It says that \u201CIf it appears that for any reason a status review \u2026 has not taken place, a Mental Health Review Tribunal may review the person\u2019s condition\u201D, etc. Given that this is a bill about safeguarding, wouldn\u2019t it be better to have the word \u201Cmust\u201D there? Under this bill, people are entitled to those reviews of their compulsory care. What are the circumstances in which it would be ethical to not actually require that to occur, given all the direction of travel in this bill about the safeguarding of tangata whaiora?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA similar question on clause 140, the \u201CApplication to revoke appointment of nominated person\u201D. We\u2019ve got a perceived safeguard there where, if \u201Cit considers that (a) the appointment is not in the best interests of the person under compulsory care; or (b) [they\u2019re] unwilling to \u2026 participate\u201D, or the appointment could have been obtained by some weird reason, a Mental Health Review Tribunal may basically revoke the appointment of that person. Now, again, if we\u2019re really interested in the human rights of tangata whaiora, wouldn\u2019t it be better just to change that word to \u201Cmust\u201D? The fact that there are reasonable grounds, that it\u2019s not in the best interests, and that they have reason to believe that\u2014they consider that\u2014which means they have decided and landed on that view, means it would be untenable, from a human rights perspective to then enable the a Mental Health Review Tribunal the ability to overlook that. Tangata whaiora are sick of being overlooked. These are the very operational details of this bill that would make sure that wouldn\u2019t happen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00228231188c24a73c0d834d7d5ecafcb1c2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006435\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228231188c24a73c0d834d7d5ecafcb1c2\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:49)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I do have a couple of questions for this section as well, nothing that while it\u2019s a smaller section, this is sort of one of the accountability measures and mechanisms that we have in this entire bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to start by looking at clause 136(3). This is on page 93. I understand the clause in general when you apply to a tribunal, but I think this is quite an interesting clause where \u201Ca Mental Health Review Tribunal may at any time, of its own motion, review the condition of any person under compulsory care.\u201D We\u2019ve only seen a few of those instances in a tribunal or in a court setting. I do want to check with the Minister, what then would the criteria be or the circumstances that would encourage the tribunal to review of its own accord? That being my first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy follow-up question is, usually when we see tribunals or courts, the tribunal itself cannot undertake any additional research. One of the few examples where we have the ability for tribunals to also undertake its own research is the Waitangi Tribunal. Can I check with the Minister if the Mental Health Review Tribunal is able to, in its own motion, review the conditions? It also implies that the Mental Health Review Tribunal can also undertake its own findings rather than just simply based on the submissions or the applications that they\u2019re hearing. So those are my two questions to start with.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022e2183f6c1f202dc49ef15969eb980b8f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e2183f6c1f202dc49ef15969eb980b8f\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:50)\u003C/span\u003E: I do believe that if the Minister is waiting to get some response, that\u2019s totally fair, but we would be keen to at least get one engagement from the Minister for this part because we do have a couple of questions on this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI want to check with the Minister, when we\u2019re looking at clause 139 subclause (5), this is page 98, at the conclusion of the review, the Mental Health Review Tribunal must record its findings stating the following\u2014but what I want to check, and what is not clear, as far as I can see at this stage, is whether the conclusion of the review and the findings by the tribunal are binding or is that just simply a recommendation? If it\u2019s binding, that\u2019s clear; if it\u2019s simply a recommendation, who then will take that recommendation further as a result of that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u002236fb907323f7571946f6f8ec21c9f0fd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006440\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002236fb907323f7571946f6f8ec21c9f0fd\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (10:51)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Just in response to those questions from Lawrence Xu-Nan: my expectation that the tribunal would use its authority to ensure that it does have all the relevant information about the review. If you\u2019re asking the first question about their ability to seek and undertake their own activity to require that information, that would be my expectation. And to the latter: yes, because, ultimately, we want the tribunal to make a decision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EPart 5 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022eb25adaca607bec9a14964edda55186c\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f3c90b7ff4ed2d2fb33275fa31c29677\u0022\u003EPart 6 Administration and public assistance\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227f58edf30f311c406b782e67d16598f2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we now come to Part 6. This is the debate of clauses 144 to 181\u2014\u201CAdministration and public assistance\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=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u0022d2582ddb7278227b8f9760ced4f9329a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d2582ddb7278227b8f9760ced4f9329a\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (10:52)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019d like to look at clause 164, \u201CAppointment of Mental Health Review Tribunals\u201D. We did have an amendment that landed on the Table at the eleventh hour, which has made a change to this, that says after clause 164(6), there should be an insertion about \u201Cnothing in this section prevents the appointment of a member of the Forensic Mental Health Review Tribunal to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.\u201D In clause 164, we have a list of up to four appointees that can be made by the Minister; they include legal experts, health practitioners, people with lived experience and so on. Was the addition of this an afterthought where it is common practice for a forensic mental health review person to be on there and we\u2019d just forgotten to put it into the bill? Or is there another reason why we\u2019re having this late-stage amendment because it could conceivably raise issues of conflicts of interest insofar as the forensic mental health side of things being around forensic mental health versus mental health and not having the forensic elements. I\u2019m wanting to understand, is it an oversight that\u2019s already in common practice or are we trying to extend something here so that there is greater synergy but perhaps less transparency depending on how it\u2019s safeguarded in the bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022f3d9d2e23ca8385d22fc00e6d2815d4a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f3d9d2e23ca8385d22fc00e6d2815d4a\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (10:54)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I think it\u2019s a valid question. Just to assure the members, it\u2019s a small technical change that provides clarification.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00225eb07d89a375762371f676e1190972a7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006447\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225eb07d89a375762371f676e1190972a7\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:54)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I think this is a particular section that has quite a few amendments from the Minister, so I do want to go through some of them, and my colleague Ingrid Leary has gone through the first one around clause 164.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI want to now move on to clauses 164 and 174. I, actually, then want to move on to clause 175\u2014this is on page 113. Just to signal to you, Mr Chair, that we may have other questions, but we do want to address the Minister\u2019s Amendment Paper 648 first. In clause 175, what we\u2019re seeing is an insertion of two additional parts. I do want to check with the Minister\u2014I see that in the explanatory note that he just says it provides us with more functions and powers, but he doesn\u2019t actually address the fact of why the Minister considered that these are important to include last minute. So if the Minister wouldn\u2019t mind to just elucidate the House on how this particular bit came about. I may have further questions based on the Minister\u2019s response.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u00221c03705b6c2b4d7d5c518913b17e6fd4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006449\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221c03705b6c2b4d7d5c518913b17e6fd4\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (10:56)\u003C/span\u003E: If the Minister could just clarify, since he said it was a clarification: is it currently practice for that forensic member to be able to be on the tribunal under the current Act, and does that currently happen in practice?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022baed1da0c69dbfa224194d0997d2b109\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006450\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022baed1da0c69dbfa224194d0997d2b109\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:56)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I will continue to look at some of the other sections, but I want to, now, first go back to an earlier section. This is something that is of interest and something we actually discussed yesterday in a separate bill, which is around fees and travel allowance\u2014this is clause 172, page 112. The reason I want to look at this part is I want to check, as this came up in the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill, if the Minister wouldn\u2019t mind just clarifying, the members on the Mental Health Review Tribunal, are they employees or are they contractors? Because that did come up yesterday, in terms of referees and adjudicators, and there is a level of consistency that\u2019s expected that they\u2019re all now going to be contractors and not employees. So if that if the Minister wouldn\u2019t mind clarifying that, that would be greatly appreciated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI do want to check on a separate section of this bill and that\u2019s more to do with the appointment of the Mental Health Review Tribunal. Can I just check, and again, this is something that came up previously. I\u2019m looking at clause 168 subclause (2), which is that the \u201Cdeputy of each member who is a lawyer must be a lawyer, and the deputy\u2014\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006452\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022370027e7020090e8ac224ae11dabd538\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, are you looking at clause 160 now?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d90e8c091cde94f8e668d59d0a10a3a9\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: 168.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006454\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227344f865ae988849bcdfd1c9a8dd301d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: 168. Alright.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006455\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bb650257b11c9165ae391f63316b408f\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Page 111. I do apologise. I\u2019m jumping just a little bit, Mr Chair, because I want to check the Minister\u2019s amendment first before going back to earlier sections.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EOne of the considerations I had before is the capacity of the pool of people who are able to fulfil a particular role. That came up yesterday, I believe, as a part of the occupational regulation amendment bill. Can I just check, with the criteria that has been listed in clause 168 regarding deputies of members and also in terms of the criteria for the appointment of members in general, whether the Minister is confident that they are able to have the people who are able to fulfil all of those roles and particularly the role of, I\u2019m assuming, that the tribunal will have a lead or a chair of some sort.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022b035afa61e8c00b9937708029ba7ff8d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b035afa61e8c00b9937708029ba7ff8d\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (10:59)\u003C/span\u003E: The answer\u2019s yes, I am confident.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question around the types of role being advised: independent statutory officers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe response to the member Ingrid Leary around \u201CIs this current practice?\u201D: as she will know, the Forensic Patient Review Tribunal was new, so no current practice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u0022a2e0b88e58d5eb408aebff4b59485e69\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a2e0b88e58d5eb408aebff4b59485e69\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (10:59)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I\u2019d like to turn to clause 181 around police assistance. This is a clause that lays out the powers that police have when they are attending an event and need to use powers of restraint, I guess. It\u2019s really a policy question, Minister\u2014a policy and resourcing question\u2014about how you see this working given the direction of travel towards mental health response teams, which we applaud, and how this is going to work in effect because we are hearing lots of reports of police not attending situations and mental health workers having to put themselves in harm\u2019s way, sometimes, to take people to hospital. They are clear they don\u2019t want to have additional powers of restraint\u2014that is not their core job. Their job is to support tangata whaiora and yet there are often powers of restraint needed. I can see these laid out in clause 181. How does he see this working where police are infrequently attending these events?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWe know that they are not necessarily declining to attend; often they\u2019re just saying to mental health workers or families, \u201CCall us back in 10 minutes.\u201D, \u201CCall us back in half an hour.\u201D, \u201CLet us know how you\u2019re going.\u201D, and workers are telling us in the end they\u2019re just having to unilaterally make those decisions and try to get people into vehicles\u2014sometimes for four- or five-hour drives to hospitals in rural areas like the lower South Island. It\u2019s of great concern to mental health workers and I\u2019m wondering if the provision could somehow be futureproofed, or does it need to have a reference to mental health response teams as a way of making sure we\u2019re not back here doing something with an omnibus bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022a067a50aaa3e8da0a34df14e26da7a26\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a067a50aaa3e8da0a34df14e26da7a26\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (11:01)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, look, I welcome that question by the member; it\u2019s a very important topic. I suppose it starts to stray into the question of how we operationalise the bill. Something I\u2019ve been very clear about with the police mental health change programme is that between Health New Zealand and NZ Police, they have new operating procedures. My expectation with this legislation is that it would inform those new operating procedures, because until there is surety that any changes between police and health can happen safely with new operating procedures then they are not green-lit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u002262834c42e810646e282e856bd8ce6c0a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006463\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002262834c42e810646e282e856bd8ce6c0a\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:02)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I also have questions around clause 181 in terms of police assistance. I\u2019m just noticing that this section does make a lot of references to other parts, and so I was hoping to wade into this section before I discuss this. One of the areas I\u2019m not seeing, in terms of police assistance, is actually around clause 89. I understand that there are a lot of other sections here, and just to refresh the memory of the Chair and also the Minister for Mental Health, section 89 is around\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022933db4d4ef029e016ee3db24ea2b9580\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Are you still on 181?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b10cce12786b2389ab51549c1ca33a64\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: I am on 181, but it refers to how then\u2014are there any expectations, police assistance, when it comes to leave for a person subject to the hospital care? A responsible practitioner \u201Cmay grant the patient person under compulsory care leave of absence from the hospital for a period specified\u201D. But what I\u2019m not seeing in both that section but also in this section is the fact that what happens when that person who is leaving will require police assistance. Because unless I\u2019ve got it wrong, my understanding is it\u2019s about a person who has leave from compulsory care going into the community, potentially for weddings, funerals, tangi, etc., with the care plan that everything that\u2019s all considered. But also in those kinds of circumstance, in neither of these sections do I see a cross-referencing on awareness or an awareness to the police in case something does happen, so I just want to check with the Minister on whether that is a baseline expectation already: that the police may be assisting in the event of a leave, or whether that is actually not required as part of the care plan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022b45af9f271979cecd2181a607de38d0e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b45af9f271979cecd2181a607de38d0e\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (11:04)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, look, a good question. I suppose where it gets slightly conflated when we talk more broadly about operations between police and health, that will be in response to those under the compulsory care Act, and of course those in mental distress who are not under the Act as well, but I think it points to more an operational issue. As you know with NZ Police and also health, the expectation when there may be a risk to the individual or others and how health work with police.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002290f442a79aea4ce0aeae083763135935\u0022 data-id=\u0022a91d6295e667b12544662a0406207f30\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290f442a79aea4ce0aeae083763135935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a91d6295e667b12544662a0406207f30\u0022\u003ECARL BATES (National\u2014Whanganui) (11:04)\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=\u0022636c0ed493c1a7aa0d53b23535c42924\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022636c0ed493c1a7aa0d53b23535c42924\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (11:04)\u003C/span\u003E: Just a final question on that\u2014and thank you to the Minister for Mental Health for his answers\u2014the wording of clause 181 is really interesting because it\u2019s written passively around the words that somebody \u201Cis believed to be\u201D. Then there\u2019s the question of whether they should be under the Act. Currently one of the problems that we have is that it feels to mental health workers that the final decision about whether that person needs restraint or not is being made by police rather than by a clinician.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019m guessing that the wording is deliberately silent on that so that those protocols can be established, but I wonder if the Minister could just point to exactly where the determination will be made about in whose belief those decisions will be made. Because what we\u2019re seeing is tangata whaiora falling through the cracks, family falling through the cracks, because the opinions of mental health workers are seeming, under the protocol, sometimes to fall secondary to the non-clinical decisions being made by police. Whose belief and on which protocol can that be put very clearly so that there is certainty for families and for tangata whaiora and mental health workers about who makes that decision? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u00220c8ca4b7022eec5c63c8cfab32f1f513\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006470\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220c8ca4b7022eec5c63c8cfab32f1f513\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (11:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, important question and that\u2019s why it\u2019s important in this bill that there is clear criteria and principles under compulsory care and also the process of not only first but second assessment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022 data-id=\u0022a0b871a42038577dc44fcb5af97bfcc8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a0b871a42038577dc44fcb5af97bfcc8\u0022\u003ESUZE REDMAYNE (Junior Whip\u2014National) (11:06)\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006472\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 42\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002200165d2df9f76f82444fe532a60ba12a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Part 6 set out on Amendment Paper 648 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 6 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a324499bc78bf43b5052519b6dfe4c12\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u002288c33381f25a8bdf65d24460b1fbd602\u0022\u003EPart 7 Powers and offences\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226d4420fced2a0e0694bec50d65f5a714\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we now come to Part 7. This is the debate on clauses 182 to 201, \u201CPowers and offences\u201D. The question is that Part 7 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u0022ba1e9e52912887d1230eac703691c057\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006484\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ba1e9e52912887d1230eac703691c057\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (11:08)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019d like to go straight to the Amendment Paper that was dropped onto us very late in the piece, Amendment Paper 648. This does go to the question of police powers, which are important when it comes to human rights, and we have not been able to see this at the Health Committee. I notice that clause 182, \u201CPolice powers in relation to person appearing to meet compulsory care criteria in [a] public place\u201D, has been changed and there\u2019s an addition in there after 182, after line 35, to say, new subclause (7), \u201CHowever, the constable must immediately release the person when the constable no longer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person may meet the compulsory care criteria.\u201D Then if they do that under new subclause (8), they must record the reasons for their suspicion of that and they must record their reasons for releasing them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis goes a little bit to the questions we had under the previous section, under whose belief is involved with persons making decisions about putting somebody under the Act. Whereas previously it appeared to be around police and health protocols, it\u2019s very clearly spelt out in this amendment that this is on the constable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question I had for Part 7 is whether the constable is the right person, and whether there needs to be any conferring or consultation with a health practitioner or others involved in that person. I know that it\u2019s in a public place, but it does seem to be quite a burden that\u2019s put on a constable who is not a clinical person.  My worry isn\u2019t that the constable won\u2019t release the person, because that could be exactly the right thing to do. My worry is that we\u2019re starting to conflate clinical decisions that should be made by clinicians on to police, who are in charge of restraint and not clinical decisions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s also two different test levels in here, where it says that the constable \u201Cno longer has reasonable grounds\u201D. So we\u2019ve got the reasonable grounds test, which is a well-established legal test, but then we also have \u201Crecord the reasons for their suspicion that the person may meet the compulsory care criteria\u201D. There are two different thresholds there, and I wonder if the Minister could please explain why that language is different in the subparts rather than being consistent. Are they two different thresholds?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022f2baa40590aeeeaa2c78193802e41e13\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f2baa40590aeeeaa2c78193802e41e13\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (11:10)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019d just point the member to the principles of the bill. First, less restrictive practice; and, also, bringing in the new decision-making capacity\u2014the acceptance that decision making can fluctuate and then applying less restrictive practice. This part of the bill points that out in the context of police.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u0022c4364d2f04ee12da6ff0e69b34532a7d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c4364d2f04ee12da6ff0e69b34532a7d\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (11:11)\u003C/span\u003E: The second part, under Part 8, where they have reasons for suspicion, is a lower threshold than having the reasonable grounds in Part 7\u2014it\u2019s inconsistent. So is the Minister saying\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222b1d5d210d4ab0f8c76319083f97e479\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Can you point to that clause? Sorry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e6f748bb6459b240b3f29b227d3ddb92\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY\u003C/span\u003E: This is in Amendment Paper 648, clause 182. Is it a lower threshold for suspecting that the person may meet the compulsory criteria? And then, is it a higher threshold being required in order for them to be released; and, if so, how does that accord with the principles of the bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u00226e997e365b20f4d81fd6e9c90bd59271\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226e997e365b20f4d81fd6e9c90bd59271\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (11:12)\u003C/span\u003E: No, but I would also expect police, where appropriate, to seek advice from DAOs, or duly authorised officers, to help inform their decisions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u002226df64977d670fa1702c7493a9ed3e82\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002226df64977d670fa1702c7493a9ed3e82\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I, too, want to speak to the Minister\u2019s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 648, starting with clause 182. I\u2019m just trying to get my head around the interactions between the Minister\u2019s amendment and the existing process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EEssentially, when we are looking at the amended clause 7, new clause 182(7) in the Minister\u2019s Amendment Paper states that the constable who no longer has reasonable grounds must immediately release the person. That\u2019s understandable; that\u2019s fair. But we also see the same wording in clause 182, subclause (3). My understanding of the process is a constable finds the person; detains the person; then the constable, in subclause (6), may detain that person for six hours, or however long it takes to get an assessment under subclause (2); then the medical health practitioner examines the person; and then the medical health practitioner determines that, if the person does not meet the criteria, the person must be released under subclause (3); and then subclause (7) is that the person must be released.  Can I just check: why does it need to mention that the person is released twice? Once is by the medical health practitioner\u2014but then that\u2019s also in the passive voice\u2014and the other one is by the constable. I\u2019m just trying to get a sense of why we need to do that twice. What is missing in the interpretation between the two? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy final question for clause 182 is around subclause (6), which is: why has six hours been the default selected for this part? Is it based on existing data of the maximum time it would take for the actions to be carried out, i.e., get access to some consultation or etc. from either an authorised person or a mental health practitioner?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022f8e9e8c8960e0344afa50c9d0b373e92\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006496\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f8e9e8c8960e0344afa50c9d0b373e92\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (11:14)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair, and I say respectfully to that member that I do enjoy, sometimes, his questioning when he poses the question and then goes through and actually follows through by answering the question, as well. I\u2019m not saying that flippantly; I think it actually helps the debate of the House, and it\u2019s better for clarification. I think he\u2019s quite rightly identified the two different parts, because one refers to police and one refers specifically to the practitioner.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u0022b8de65a00788763c0419ab125ca62023\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006497\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b8de65a00788763c0419ab125ca62023\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (11:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Just for clarity: that would only capture a situation where a mental health practitioner is authorised under the bill to restrain or hold on to somebody? We\u2019re not now conferring those powers of restraint by somehow having to release points?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u002255336c44bd2c8fb1b035b950dc6acb1d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006498\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002255336c44bd2c8fb1b035b950dc6acb1d\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (11:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I can confirm that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u0022f6d597bd0536a02373060e78f5e2c5ad\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f6d597bd0536a02373060e78f5e2c5ad\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (11:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I have a question on clause 184, which is the \u201CPower to sedate person when sedation urgently required\u201D. I just wonder if it would be helpful to have an amendment\u2014I haven\u2019t drafted it up, but the wording would be very simple\u2014where, under subclause (5), we could add the words \u201Cand police may not unreasonably withhold that assistance\u201D. Now, we\u2019ve seen that wording previously when a young person has asked the Director-General of Health for assistance to be transported and they want somebody to come with them, and the Director-General cannot unreasonably withhold that. The addition of these words would basically resolve the problem that we\u2019re seeing at the moment, where mental health practitioners are turning up to events that can endanger themselves or\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006500\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224028526c99f5c9643f6695e2bf4333e7\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Just checking that you\u2019re on clause 184?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006501\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221c7f140e716b7414bd60ef4ca22de933\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY\u003C/span\u003E: Clause 184, Subpart 5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006502\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022acd4c703034cb0a0de78d92e1a520d1d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Clause 184, Subpart 5. All right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022866587202f345fc379592e96689a2917\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014where health practitioners can turn up to events and they\u2019ve been called by families. It\u2019s high anxiety for everybody. They are aware they need to administer a sedative drug to be able to transport somebody, probably, to a secure unit. They\u2019ve called police, and time and time again police are saying, \u201CWe\u2019re not at the event yet; can you keep talking them to them? Can you keep trying to get them to come?\u201D As I\u2019ve said in my last contribution, it often leaves them with the distressing decision to travel unaccompanied in a potentially volatile or dangerous situation without police assistance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EChanging these words under subclause (5) just to have \u201C police may not unreasonably withhold that assistance\u201D means that there\u2019s an expectation that police will turn up where a clinician has decided that a sedative drug is needed\u2014but, also, it gives police the out that it\u2019s not unreasonably withheld, so if there was something else that was occupying their time and they were all tied up, they could actually use that and there should probably be a recording of that decision. This would be incredibly helpful, because this status that we\u2019re currently hearing from the front line of police not making a decision one way or other to turn up\u2014this would clearly require them to do so where they can, or to be explicit where they can\u2019t. That would give mental health workers more choices in situations where things can escalate really rapidly and where, currently, they\u2019re feeling very vulnerable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u002287c20107115abdb663c484ffe27d7257\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006505\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002287c20107115abdb663c484ffe27d7257\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (11:18)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019d like to thank that member for that proposal of an amendment. It\u2019s one that I would not support. I\u2019d reinforce, within that clause and subpart, that by having the requirement it would be the expectation that that would then be operationalised between Police and Health New Zealand in their new joint working procedure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db6b42bda06a70db93990981625a7f0c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Before I take the next call, just to note that this is about penalties and offences. There\u2019s a considerable amount of weight in this particular part, so having considered questions is a good thing for the process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u0022a3997c9240156923836f5fa450f7568c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006507\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a3997c9240156923836f5fa450f7568c\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (11:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019ll turn now to the offences under clause 190, which is about neglect or ill treatment of people. Again, recent events would say that this is something that may seem archaic, and yet it is all too often happening for us, not just in the abuse in care but very recent events, and we don\u2019t now know how systemic this is around the country. So my question for clauses 190 to 199 is: when we\u2019re talking about intentionality, is recklessness captured? What is the threshold? And if it isn\u2019t captured, should it be captured, so that we can make sure we are really safeguarding our most vulnerable people?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u002279c094ddaad0c60d62b9dce913090b75\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006508\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002279c094ddaad0c60d62b9dce913090b75\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to first seek clarification from you. A few days ago, we heard the Chairperson\u2019s guidance that the expectation is for us to have fulsome debates. As we\u2019re moving through this bill, we do look at the operational elements.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006509\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002216b3684b436faa044dab775703e4c682\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Is this a point of order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006510\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022faf57b34c3a3a428b6f8e7f78841e089\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, sorry. In that case, I will start with the point of order. Just if the Chair wouldn\u2019t mind providing clarification\u2014I do find it disruptive and concerning when the Government side is trying to shut down a debate for a very important part on offences. We haven\u2019t repeated questions while speaking to the Minister\u2019s amendments, and yet I just feel like it is actually inappropriate, based on the Chairperson\u2019s guidance, and I seek your clarification.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006511\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a71a4710067493b19a4786135576bd0c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, we are dealing with penalties and offences, which does have a considerable amount of weight to it. We are open to considered questions, because of the importance of this particular part as well, and I\u2019d like members to be aware of that. But also, it is possible to keep the question short as well so we can move through methodically.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006512\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022acd35b515d6f27a89d802ea6c8383e4c\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair; I appreciate that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006513\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy first question is on clause 184(2). This is the only time I see in this whole section where \u201Cparamedic\u201D is mentioned. However, we don\u2019t see \u201Cparamedic\u201D being mentioned in any other subsequent clauses, including the ability for a paramedic to call for police assistance, under subclause (4). Can I check with the Minister\u2014my first question is: does this mean that paramedics do not have the ability to do that, or is the ability for a paramedic to call for police assistance covered under other legislation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006514\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy second question is around the Minister\u2019s amendment to clause 187, \u201CPowers of nurse if urgent assessment required\u201D. Again, this to do with the fact that nurses must immediately release; that\u2019s perfectly clear. But what we don\u2019t see is, for example, similar insertions in clause 185 or clause 186. Can I assume that the Minister\u2019s insertion in clause 182, that medical examiners need to immediately release and the police need to immediately release, covers subsequent sections.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006515\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI note that the Minister said that I sometimes answer my own questions. If the Minister would just even like to nod, then I know that it\u2019s covered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006516\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002221f28e43e647467162eaa9a73e8500d5\u0022\u003EHon Matt Doocey\u003C/span\u003E: You\u2019re doing well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006517\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002298ff1bd6b33a05b12b43c8e6ed5e8abb\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Cool, that\u2019s helpful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI would like to move on now to the offences section. I want to start with clauses 190A to 190C. This is where a responsible practitioner commits an offence. I want to test two questions over here: based on what my colleague Ingrid Leary has asked regarding recklessness, are we looking at limited or strict liability here, being my first question? My second question is: it specifies an individual\u2014i.e., the responsible practitioner\u2014but what happens if there is an individual that is a part of a hospital system that is responsible but they\u2019re not the company that is responsible? So, normally, we do see two tiers when it comes to fines or when it comes to offences or with a fine attached to it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006519\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThose are my four questions for the Minister so far, and just to very quickly recap, I asked questions around paramedics, questions around the Minister\u2019s amendment to clause 187, and my two questions around clauses 190A to 190C.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022dcf56a13055d34d4e0f9aa0c94552bad\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006520\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dcf56a13055d34d4e0f9aa0c94552bad\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (11:24)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Look, some of the questions, quite rightfully, around offences and penalties around neglect are quite timely. As we\u2019ve stated, this bill meets 10 of the abuse in care recommendations. I would like to acknowledge the substantive work that the committee did on this part as well, which I think brings it up to a threshold that, actually, New Zealanders would expect as well. There are already regulation-making powers to create further offences, and, as we would expect under registration, they comply with the respective regulatory body for their workforce as well as the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u0022675d1affe451f62efd3780e60099ec18\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006521\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022675d1affe451f62efd3780e60099ec18\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (11:25)\u003C/span\u003E: I would like to look at quite a problematic clause, in my view, clause 187, \u201CPowers of nurse if urgent assessment required\u201D. What this does is it has some pretty sweeping powers that nurses can apply, and also are expected to apply, and there are problems around both of those in situations that are probably evolving very quickly, I imagine. So it\u2019s when someone\u2019s been brought to a hospital and the nurse is having to assess whether they should be under the Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006522\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe first question I have is that clause 187(1)(b)(i) states that \u201Cthere are reasonable grounds to suspect that the person may meet \u2026\u201D. Previously, that was that they believed that the person \u201Cmeets\u201D. So these words have been changed and given more sweeping powers to the nurse, and subclause (1A) opens the door even further by saying that \u201CIn forming their belief that a person may meet the compulsory care criteria, the nurse can seek the advice of an authorised person\u201D, in section 178. Section 178 basically just has an authorised person as being someone who is a kind of point of contact for the t\u0101ngata whaiora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006523\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat I see here is possible is that the first issue, really, is that a nurse who isn\u2019t aware of the circumstances is possibly going to put very heavy weighting on the authorised person. There don\u2019t seem to be safeguards around that, and we\u2019ve got the diminishment of the threshold through the word \u201Csuspect\u201D and \u201Cmay meet\u201D rather than the original words \u201Cbelieve\u201D and \u201Cmeets\u201D. I\u2019m not clear whether we actually saw that in select committee because sometimes we\u2019re told these things are technical changes. But I\u2019m sure, Mr Chair, you\u2019ll appreciate that that does open, quite broadly, the powers of the nurse.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006524\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other bit that\u2019s very problematic for me is then we have, in subclause (3), the words \u201CThe nurse may\u2014(a) detain the person where they are \u2026 or (b) take the person to some other place\u201D. This goes, again, to the real concerns that mental health staff and nurses have that they don\u2019t normally have, unless it\u2019s in the provisions of this bill, powers of restraint. And they don\u2019t want them, because their job is to provide care and support, and when they now have a duty to detain a person\u2014I mean, it\u2019s not a duty; it says \u201Cmay\u201D \u2014it\u2019s going to put them in a really difficult position where they\u2019re expected to do what\u2019s, essentially, a policing function.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006525\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve heard some first responders, for example, talk about wanting to wear stab-proof vests, and other unions have said to us that that\u2019s the last thing they want, that is not their job, that is not why they went into healthcare, and this really muddies the waters. So I\u2019m wondering if the Minister can please respond to both of those concerns.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022d65b978d047e8d3bb2f543524c047ff9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d65b978d047e8d3bb2f543524c047ff9\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (11:28)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. For nurses\u2019 powers under clause 187, the nurse does not decide if the person comes under the Act. I also refer the member to looking at the recommended change, more specifically under clause 182, and how this update is to align with that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006527\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI come back to the principles of the bill, around least restrictive practice as a principle, but also the requirement that the nurse will need to record and report the reasonable grounds, and for that reporting to be provided to the Director of Area Mental Health Services.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022f40d945c8c8f27f94d360f88ba5a13f6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006528\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f40d945c8c8f27f94d360f88ba5a13f6\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:28)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019m just noting that I am still on the offences section and I\u2019m waiting for the Minister\u2019s response regarding my two questions there, and also my questions on paramedics.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006529\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to ask just one more question around this because what we are seeing, I\u2019m assuming, is different severities between clauses 190A to 190C as well, where we\u2019re looking at, in 190C, the words \u201Cknowingly provide\u201D; in that case, we\u2019re looking from a mens rea perspective of intention, I\u2019m assuming\u2014I just want to double check with the Minister if that is the case\u2014whereas, potentially, clauses 190A and 190B, as per my colleague Ingrid Leary\u2019s question, could be around recklessness, which has a much lower threshold if you\u2019re looking at the hierarchy of mens rea.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006530\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBroadly, if we\u2019re looking at clause 193, clause 195, and clause 196\u2014these are the clauses on page 125 and 126\u2014others may have questions on the detail of those, but again, what we\u2019re seeing across those is the inclusion of \u201Can individual\u201D and \u201Cfor any other person\u201D. I just want to specify in that case that \u201Cany other person\u201D refers to a legal person but not necessarily an actual person, if that is the correct interpretation of that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006531\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy final question for this contribution is around infringement offences. While the other sections in terms of offences have a detailed amount of fines, what I\u2019m not seeing in this section\u2014and this is to do more around infringement notice\u2014is that there hasn\u2019t been an amount given for an infringement notice here. Is that intentional or is that covered under another Act? Those are my few questions for the time being.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022258c26c6bc32c68f747700ef1662861a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022258c26c6bc32c68f747700ef1662861a\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (11:31)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much. I mean, to answer that question specifically, we\u2019ve tiered penalties when offences are set by regulations. Just going back, in fairness, I think we did move on from, was it clause 184 around paramedics?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223ca9fd71dc17bf01dd9b8df1af047377\u0022\u003EDr Lawrence Xu-Nan\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. Paramedics, yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a26556134f8c0dc2afb3af02893fa05c\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY\u003C/span\u003E: First and foremost, that clause in the context is emergency as well. In practice, paramedics should request advice and assistance from the authorised person. That\u2019s covered under clause 178. Authorised persons can advise on steps under the Act and request police assistance if required. This is an important safeguard. It builds back to that primary principle of safeguarding.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u00229b097fb39326ddb52d642d8e2da7c5a3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006535\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229b097fb39326ddb52d642d8e2da7c5a3\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (11:32)\u003C/span\u003E: Thanks. I\u2019m a bit troubled by the Minister for Mental Health\u2019s answer to my question on clause 187 and what this means for nurses, because as I understand the clause, it means a person comes to hospital, they\u2019re not under the Act, they might be agitated, someone thinks they should be under the Act and they approach a nurse, and if he or she has grounds to suspect that they may meet the criteria and they can confer with somebody else who is not a clinician and they form that opinion, there\u2019s two really problematic bits. One is that the nurse must arrange for a mental health practitioner to examine the person, so that\u2019s a duty that they have to do. I get that that could be in the interests of the \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Etangata whaiora\u003C/span\u003E, but if we couple that with the Minister\u2019s response around \u201CThe nurse may detain the person\u201D or \u201Ctake the person\u201D, that\u2019s a huge burden on a nurse now to be detaining someone who isn\u2019t under the Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006536\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EMy question is, what power do they have to be able to use their discretion to detain the person? Because that is a fundamental restraint and power and infringement on another\u2019s human rights. Is this going to stray into the territory of some kind of citizen\u2019s arrest? Where is the authority for that detention that they would be exercising? Because although it says \u201Cmay,\u201D not \u201Cmust\u201D, there will be pressure on them to do it because of the application of subclause (2), which says, \u201Cthe nurse must arrange\u201D. The last thing they\u2019re wanting to do is see the person leave the vicinity of their room or their hospital, and yet they now have to detain that person, probably from an ethical perspective, or to be able to meet the obligations of subclause (2). Without the previous amendment that I suggested about the police being present unless not reasonably being able to be there, what kind of work burden does this put on nursing staff, and does it make their job more unsafe?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u00223a05b6c249e02b5ad3d97bf856af5a31\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006537\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223a05b6c249e02b5ad3d97bf856af5a31\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (11:34)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I suppose we are moving into an operational area as well, but there would be an expectation from the nurse to seek advice from the authorised officer. It is at times because it is publicly available or in the media when people leave environments and the ability to be detained or not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022dbc62b5037c746fd7e091d70556bdb91\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006538\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dbc62b5037c746fd7e091d70556bdb91\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:34)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Just seeking the Minister for Mental Health around some of the questions I had earlier regarding legality, some of the terminologies being used. I do appreciate the Minister\u2019s response to my question around infringement notice. My next question is around clause 200, \u201CUse of force\u201D, and it\u2019s just a simple clarification from the Minister that this particular one simply refers to \u201Ca person\u201D. Can I check, in that interpretation, is the person\u2014sorry, this is page 129, line 15, clause 200. In that case, does \u201Ca person\u201D have to be any of the named ones we had before\u2014a nurse, police, an authorised person, a medical or mental health practitioner, etc., etc.\u2014or can it be a person of the public? Can anyone do this? Because it doesn\u2019t specify. That\u2019s just my clarification for this section specifically.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u00225c98d680654010bc31e504a38d9c34d3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006539\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225c98d680654010bc31e504a38d9c34d3\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (11:36)\u003C/span\u003E: I turn to clause 195, \u201CFalse or misleading records\u201D. If this is captured somewhere else in the bill, it would be really useful to know it. Apologies, I haven\u2019t found it. But we had a situation in Dunedin where there were abuse in care records that were knowingly destroyed. As I read the bill and clause 195, I can see that there are fines for changing information or recording information misleadingly. I don\u2019t see a fine for destroying the information belonging to people that may have been captured under the bill. That has been absolutely devastating for abuse in care people down in our way who found the process of applying for redress and going through the apology system and all of that incredibly difficult because they couldn\u2019t access their own personal information. Somebody had destroyed it on the basis of bad legal advice, and there was some fallout about that, but I think it\u2019s incredibly important that we do ensure that destruction of records is explicitly mentioned. As I say, I apologise if I have missed it, but from my reading of the bill it doesn\u2019t seem to be explicit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u002282e11736655d6d773f2953c1f5eddd90\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002282e11736655d6d773f2953c1f5eddd90\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (11:37)\u003C/span\u003E: I think that\u2019s a fair question. We did traverse it slightly earlier in a different context, but the Act allows, through regulations, new definitions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022f6ea71c5783ae29268e86193cdd83441\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f6ea71c5783ae29268e86193cdd83441\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Chair. Thank you, Mr Chair. Just to seek your guidance\u2014and this may cover later sections\u2014that I\u2019m personally quite happy with where we\u2019re landing on Part 7 but noting there are some outstanding questions. I know the officials are also working incredibly hard and we very much appreciate the time spent here. If it\u2019s OK with you, Mr Chair, for the Minister to answer my questions in a subsequent section.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006542\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c22a85d4077f5b4e5d7b28550fc218ea\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Just to respond to the point of order, the Minister has indicated, because the information is still coming, that those questions will be addressed possibly in Part 8, if that\u2019s OK.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022809ae25f2f42270d7ad3243c22d3441a\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002238eb206d7d87d7ab57bb5145d72d0286\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Is that all right? Have you got another question? Have you got on under Part 7 still?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u0022ba513b7fa2512aa36011ff62efa49023\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006545\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ba513b7fa2512aa36011ff62efa49023\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (11:38)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, Part 7. Just based on what the Minister for Mental Health said about putting destruction of records into regulation, I\u2019d just ask the Minister if he\u2019d consider an amendment to make it a legislative matter, not a regulatory matter. It is of great importance, and if changing records can be in the legislation, I would imagine, for consistency, that destroying records should also be in legislation, not regulation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022bb11c5c63e2aa5a3488ae6e3e8f1b7c1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006546\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bb11c5c63e2aa5a3488ae6e3e8f1b7c1\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (11:38)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, no, I wouldn\u2019t support that, but I\u2019m happy with the new regulatory powers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006547\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022916b40fcaae9764ac842590b48fd5dbe\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendment to Part 7 set out on Amendment Paper 648 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006548\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006549\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 7 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006550\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022630265d83434bed43c2a431324c06cdd\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u002217251b106a5153e3f0a2e4f46b226643\u0022\u003EPart 8 Secondary legislation and miscellaneous provisions, and Schedule 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224a9d625098df7fd468de7ebea3ef697d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we now come to Part 8. This is the debate on clauses 202 to 221\u2014\u201CSecondary legislation and miscellaneous provisions\u201D\u2014and Schedule 2. The question is that Part 8 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022d6ea4a19b22496474ad91fdf8d439469\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006553\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d6ea4a19b22496474ad91fdf8d439469\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:39)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019ve been waiting seven parts for this particular part because regulations aren\u2019t my favourite. I want to start by looking at the regulations that are expected in clause 212, noting that, I believe\u2014oh, no, not for this particular bit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006554\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI just want to check some of this, particularly when we\u2019re looking at paragraphs\u00A0(ca) and (db), to do with prescribing fines, etc.\u2014particularly when we\u2019re looking at this whole area that has been listed. I\u2019m wondering how those regulations will manifest, and I want to focus on one particular part of it, which is clause 202(1)(eb), which is \u201Cprescribing infringement offences for breaches of the regulations and prescribing infringement fees for those offences\u201D. Again, this is something that I kind of alluded at the very beginning. Are those infringement notices, or do those have to be offences upon a conviction, etc.? The infringement fee is not very clear on whether it\u2019s a notice or an infringement or upon conviction. I believe I mentioned, on a previous Act, that the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee guidelines are that an infringement notice should be no more than $1,000; so $5,000 is quite high. I just want to check the Minister\u2019s thoughts on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006555\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do want to check one thing before I forget, and this is to do with clause 204, in terms of \u201CDirector-General may make guidelines and standards\u201D. Very early on in one of the previous parts, the Minister alluded to the fact that conversations around seclusion will be done as a part of guidelines by the Director-General, and I made a note to discuss, in clause\u00A0204 here, that there is actually nothing specifically on seclusion in clause 204. Can I just check if the Minister is happy that it falls under the existing paragraphs (a) and (b), under general guidelines, or are there going to be specific standards that the Minister expects when it comes to seclusion?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy final question is mainly just to do with the fact that what I\u2019m not seeing in clause\u00A0202\u2014because, again, this is quite new legislation. A lot of this will be done under secondary legislation. It is often prudent, with any sort of regulatory-making power, for there to be at least a review clause by the Minister that says the Minister can review secondary legislation at any time or must review legislation within five years or three years. I just want to check whether the Minister is already intending how that will be reviewed once those regulations have been established.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u00222bd34c3722bc01e06938d344f7db0a84\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006557\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222bd34c3722bc01e06938d344f7db0a84\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (11:43)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much. Just going back to the question of clause 200 and who can exercise the power, the first principle is that it\u2019s not a general power to use force. What I would also point out, if I remember rightly, and I\u2019ll be corrected if not, is that clause 200(2) references a number of sections. Within those sections are the prescribed people who can use that force, or the roles they would use. For example, use of force can be used under sections 181(2) and 186(1)\u2014any person, limited to the police, in such situations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ETo the question around forms, I suppose, at a high-level position to start off with, where do you start and where do you stop? There is probably a large number of forms in our health system, and, sadly, a large number of paper forms are still used as well. What I would refer the member to clause 205(2): \u201CIf the Director-General or the Director specifies a form, it must be used.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u0022b80b057850f3ce366199f55de77ae23a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006559\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b80b057850f3ce366199f55de77ae23a\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (11:44)\u003C/span\u003E: Thanks, Mr Chair. This section is a really useful section if we want to strengthen the operation of the bill. This is what was missing, I think, from the abuse in care. There were so many process lapses, so little record keeping, the destruction of records, and also, so few requirements on the State and those charged with the care of people to have processes in place to keep people safe. There\u2019s a really ideal opportunity here to provide strengthened safeguarding, which we would welcome.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do have some amendments on the Table, particularly around clauses 211 and 212. Clause 211 talks pretty vaguely about an annual report on the implementation of the Act. We\u2019ve heard the Minister for Mental Health say clearly that he recognises that reducing and, ultimately, eliminating seclusion will require planning, workforce development, service redesign, and so on. We think, if a report that promoted transparency and accountability around that was required to be published and it was required to be presented to the House, that would be a significant strength to this bill, in the absence of there being another way of ensuring that seclusion will be tailing out. The wording of my amendment would be quite specific, including an implementation plan for the elimination of seclusion. It would need to talk about the actions to reduce and eliminate the use of seclusion, workforce development and training, service and infrastructure requirements, measures to monitor and report on progress to eliminating seclusion, and expected time frames, and it would need to be presented to this House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf the Minister has the confidence that he appears to that New Zealand will move in this direction, and he\u2019s talking about a similar plan being available in 2027 but without those legislative teeth, our plea to the Minister would be: why not adopt this amendment and give that the legislative teeth that will provide the safeguarding and confidence to t\u0101ngata whaiora that we are going to move away from seclusion, even though it hasn\u2019t been sunsetted. I\u2019ve got a further amendment to speak to after this, Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f45333cd15d27a1dc19e07e975e451e1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Can I suggest to the member that she go through her amendments, to make sure they\u2019re all covered, because I\u2019d hate to close off before she finished her amendments. That might give the Minister a chance to come back. And can I suggest the same thing to Mr Xu-Nan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006563\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220a73aecad51d8611a6c46f5885e3f070\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. The second one would be in clause 211(d), which would be that within 12 months of the commencement of the Act, the Director-General would have to issue national workforce capability standards. That would be around ensuring that the workforce are trained in trauma-informed care, supported decision-making, de-escalation and alternatives to seclusion, cultural safety, including Te Tiriti o Waitangi and tikanga M\u0101ori, and disability-, accessibility-, and neurodiversity-affirming practice\u2014and that the Director-General would review the standards at least every three years and that Health New Zealand would take reasonable steps to maintain and implement compliance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006564\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is the kind of devil in the detail that\u2019s missing from the bill. This is the stuff that we need to do to get the culture shift, and we\u2019ve heard in the House that, with that culture shift and with the additional resourcing and training, those changes can happen. Having this reporting requirement would be a way of making that happen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also think that clause 212 should be amended so that the Director-General must actually review the Act and that the review should be around reducing and eliminating the use of seclusion, and also reviewing whether the Act is having disproportionate impacts on M\u0101ori, Pacific people, disabled people, young people, and other population groups. We\u2019ve heard that they are implicitly protected by the new provisions in this bill, compared to the status quo, but if we don\u2019t monitor that, how do we know that they actually are? If we\u2019re not going to explicitly protect them, let\u2019s at least monitor and evaluate so we can understand the impact on those vulnerable populations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn clause 212, I would replace \u201Cevery 5 years\u201D with \u201Cevery 5 years after completion of the first review\u201D, because we know that, although there might be the best intentions in the world to try and get seclusion eliminated, it sounds like, perhaps by the end of this decade, we are kicking the can down the road effectively by not sunsetting. Having those reviews is really important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006567\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019d also like clause 212A, to insert a requirement for a Government response to the statutory review, so that, when that happens, there is a formal response to each statutory review of the Act within six months. Again, this is just about strengthening parliamentary oversight and providing continuous improvement in the implementation and operation of the Act. I have questions on other parts too, Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00225daeff8eddb9edaf32dcb7088cd08767\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006568\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225daeff8eddb9edaf32dcb7088cd08767\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:49)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I do want to thank the Minister for Mental Health for responding to my previous questions, and I also want to thank the Minister for responding to my questions on clause 215, on the use of audiovisual links, previously. I appreciate that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006569\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI do want to move on to a further section, noting that others may have questions before that. I will just signal to you, Mr Chair, regarding my colleague Kahurangi Carter\u2019s amendment to Amendment Paper 646, that it\u2019s part of a complete package around the elimination of, or the sunset clause around, seclusion, and that\u2019s something we have discussed previously in Part 2, I believe, already. I won\u2019t be discussing the remainder of that particular amendment, because that\u2019s already been covered. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b4d9ac979cdd7ffd713e5e19de91ca4e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you for clarifying that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006571\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224b9f11026f17ad5e5a9a4deeee44e440\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: The question I have around clause 219, which is the \u201CRemoval from New Zealand\u201D. This is an interesting clause, and I appreciate that it is of sufficient significance that it is elevated to the Minister\u2014I\u2019m assuming the Minister for Mental Health. Can I just check, as it doesn\u2019t give any indication if that person would be a New Zealand citizen or not. I think it is, potentially, concerning if we are deporting or removing citizens. Or is this a temporary measure? I think that clarification is quite important. That\u2019s my only question. But I note that the Minister is clearly interested in the question and will get some advice on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u002221f41813aecd565169e6c06d09b2d378\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006572\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002221f41813aecd565169e6c06d09b2d378\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (11:51)\u003C/span\u003E:  Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and I thank those members for the contribution. I might just tie a few things that are connected off together around the member\u2019s amendments. There are several amendments relating to the annual reporting requirements, specifically around inserting clauses 211A and 211D from Ingrid Leary. I would not support them, because the bill already has mechanisms to enable the setting of standards and ensuring annual reporting on implementation of the legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006573\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAlso the member Ingrid Leary submitted amendments relating to the review of the Act, clause 212 and proposed new clause 212A. I would not support that, as there is already an annual report on implementation required under clause 211, and a five-yearly review required under clause 212. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006574\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere is a response I can actually give to tie two questions from the respective members\u2014one each around reporting on seclusion. Clause 209 provides the power to issue those guidelines which are secondary legislation. It also refers to clause 49, which sets out the requirements for use of seclusion and shows how it must be done in accordance with guidelines 99 subpart 3A.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u0022ce53330a5cbe0889797d2990571114f1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006575\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ce53330a5cbe0889797d2990571114f1\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (11:52)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019d just like to pick up on the point made by Lawrence Xu-Nan around the removal from New Zealand, because I think the situation he may be alluding to is the fear of foreign nationals living in this country where there could be a removal order used in a non-ethical way\u2014used to, basically, do an extra-judicial movement back to their own country. Certainly, as a member of the Independent Practitioners Association Council, I have had concerns about some of the uses of Interpol and other things by foreign States to try to get the foreign nationals back into their own countries.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EUnder this bill, in \u201CRemoval from New Zealand\u201D, the Minister must only be satisfied in having considered the advice of the director. It talks about the will and preferences of the person, their support network, the care they\u2019ll receive, and other matters the director considers relevant. But that director is going to be coming from a pretty clinical perspective, and all sorts of things can happen in the health system and, indeed, historically, has happened in the health system where, if men wanted to divorce their wives, often those women would end up in the asylums.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006577\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I\u2019m not suggesting that that would happen in this case, but I am suggesting that there can be an abuse of this, particularly if the information that is relied on is too narrow to make informed decisions around things that could have real impacts on the human rights of those people, including, potentially, having them go back into jurisdictions where we would not see that they would be safe or have access to a fair trial. I just wonder if an amendment to clause 219 could be made so that there can be another channel of advice or other channels that the Minister may deem relevant. It could be drafted quite broadly. For example, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade may have information\u2014maybe even very sensitive information\u2014that the director-general would not have access to, and without there being an assertive outreach to those other agencies, there might be information that the Minister doesn\u2019t know that they don\u2019t know. That is going to have an impact on that extra-judicial move away from New Zealand. I\u2019m just broadening it so that the Minister could have access to other forms of information, which would be appropriate, particularly in the event of foreign nationals or people who might have links to other countries. It would be another way to strengthen the safeguards in this bill for human rights. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022331d057306efa4dc78b287a4cb013dcf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006578\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022331d057306efa4dc78b287a4cb013dcf\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (11:55)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I think important questioning from both members around clause 219, \u201CRemoval from New Zealand\u201D. I think the first response is to member Lawrence Xu-Nan: it\u2019s not limited to any citizenship or visa status. I would put out, if I\u2019m correct with page 139, clause 219 subpart (1A): \u201CThe Director must advise the Minister on the following: (a) the will and preferences of the person; (b) the views of the person\u2019s support network; (c) the care that the person will receive once removed from New Zealand; (d) and any other matters that the Director considers relevant.\u201D I\u2019m sure you\u2019ll agree that the intent of this is more about managing a process in a safe way, where the preferences of the person and their family are a key focus. The provision has been used to enable people to return to their home countries to receive care, which I think is very important, in their own culture and closer to family.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00229890ae477fbbfb4d49dd1bea9a97908d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229890ae477fbbfb4d49dd1bea9a97908d\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:56)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. That is helpful, and I think that the important part\u2014and the Minister mentioned this before\u2014is regarding putting it back to the principles of this Act. But if it\u2019s not limited to citizenship, I think it does run into a very interesting but worth mentioning constitution thing, which is the removal of New Zealand citizens and the conversation that while there are New Zealand citizens, my understanding is they might be a citizen but may not have the required support network, even, for them to get the best care for their wellbeing. Would that be an accurate interpretation, Minister?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022187d8e230715bb71a1c8fd16e44684c8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022187d8e230715bb71a1c8fd16e44684c8\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (11:57)\u003C/span\u003E: Look, I understand the member\u2019s concerns\u2014and that\u2019s what we\u2019re doing here\u2014but I generally would point to clause 219, subclause (1A), which I think addresses the member\u2019s concerns.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022297bc572c27f45308dffb067ca3e7915\u0022 data-id=\u002209eb8fd7364e2ea93952f9283503f57f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022297bc572c27f45308dffb067ca3e7915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002209eb8fd7364e2ea93952f9283503f57f\u0022\u003EDr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National\u2014Ilam) (11:57)\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006582\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006583\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006584\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 42\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006586\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006587\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002274305d222c886e0afdcdee6f2be089be\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Part 8 set out on Amendment Paper 648 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006589\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 92\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 25; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006592\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 17\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006593\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228816fab4292d5a22ac2e4fb08bc87d71\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Kahurangi Carter\u2019s amendment to Part 8 set out on Amendment Paper 646 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Ingrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendment inserting clause 211A relating to a national implementation plan for elimination of seclusion be agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006597\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 42\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006599\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006600\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006601\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225f3da4899412f8fa96b4149333f49ca5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Ingrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendment inserting clause 211A relating to an annual implementation progress report be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006604\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006605\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 42\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006607\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006608\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bccbe5a5ee1bd1ec264d5ffced5d8241\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Ingrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendment inserting clause 211B is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Ingrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendment inserting clause 211D relating to national workforce capability standards be agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006612\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006613\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 42\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006614\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006615\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006617\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006618\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b023e48537c9d44765ebecec5f05dfe3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Ingrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 212 replacing subclause (1) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006619\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that Ingrid Leary\u2019s tabled amendment inserting clause 212A be agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006620\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=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006621\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EAyes 42\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006622\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006623\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003ENoes 67\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006624\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 8 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006627\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022093cfdc829e52b2d1a35e69d8d7dc140\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: We come now to Schedule 1. The question is that Schedule 1 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006628\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ESchedule 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006629\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002251210bae19df66e101a003aeac41c64a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: We come to Schedule 1A.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Minister\u2019s amendment to Schedule 1A set out on Amendment Paper 648 be agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006631\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006632\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 1A as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006633\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fd6c4bb9c54b7ce14a6abc48ed68fcb4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: We come now to Schedule 2. The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 648 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006634\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006635\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 2 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006636\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002278324b4ec9c7bc191679e7165458ab54\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006637\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b3407d9a03fac65110a2cbc3ccbe31a4\u0022\u003EClauses 1 and 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006638\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229e91711e7262fe91dbb718b548e125ea\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to our final debate, which is on clauses 1 and 2: \u201CTitle\u201D and \u201CCommencement\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u002239211c1f2a9f51d38c401e806dbc268b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006639\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002239211c1f2a9f51d38c401e806dbc268b\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (12:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I think it might also be wise to clarify for the committee that while we support the bill overall, we do not support the Minister\u2019s amendment on Amendment Paper 648 to change \u201CPae Ora (Healthy Futures)\u201D to \u201CHealthy Futures (Pae Ora)\u201D. That was a bill that we did not support and, therefore, I think that in the essence of consistency, we cannot support that part of the amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006640\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EOn the commencement date, the Minister for Mental Health, on his Amendment Paper 648, has changed or, more accurately, has pushed out the commencement date of this bill by a year, and so I think, if it\u2019s OK for the Minister just to give\u2014oh, wait. Let me finish, let me finish. If the Minister wouldn\u2019t mind just elucidating for the committee on why it has been pushed out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022dd997aa7087a76bb431bf069e3fcee85\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006641\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dd997aa7087a76bb431bf069e3fcee85\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (12:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Look, that\u2019s a very important question, and the quicker we can answer that, the quicker we get on to the third reading. I would point to the current legislation that we\u2019re repealing here. It dates back to 1992. We\u2019re now in 2026. This is a once-in-a-generation, 30-year repeal and replacement of the mental health Act. There are significant changes in the mental health Act that we are bringing into force today. It was always the intention that we would give the health system in New Zealand two years to respond to these changes, and that is why I\u2019m very confident that with this new commencement date, we send a very clear signal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006642\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EOn saying that, I do want to acknowledge Health New Zealand, from the board right down to our front-line workforce, who, even before this bill will receive Royal assent, have been actively working on the changes that we are proposing. But let\u2019s be very clear: the point of this bill is to ensure that we provide high-quality compulsory mental health care, and I think it\u2019s only right to ensure that we have the appropriate lead times, as was the original intent for this bill when it went through the select committee stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022f438769318fc2a990252a2279738a7c3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006643\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f438769318fc2a990252a2279738a7c3\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (12:07)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for that response, Minister. Just two quick questions on top of that, and one may have been partially answered. I wanted to check this in terms of clause 2(2), and this is specifically to do with Schedule 1 and some of the transitional measures, as well. In terms of some of the current concerns that we have about the system, does the Minister think that the transitional measures are sufficient for the commencement date to be pushed out by two years\u2014with that being my first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006644\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EMy second question is a very short one, and it\u2019s more of a curiosity. If this bill is being passed in 2026, can it still be called \u201Cthe Mental Health Act 2024.\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u00228cdfb66b8e81e90ed8ca937eabac369c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006645\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228cdfb66b8e81e90ed8ca937eabac369c\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (12:08)\u003C/span\u003E: Can I just correct that, and language is important, because we are here today\u2014and have been for four and a half hours\u2014debating the committee of the whole House stage, but the date has not been pushed back. It was always the intention to have a two-year commencement, quite rightly, because Health New Zealand is a big system, and I wanted to ensure that we give the very hard-working front-line mental health and addiction workforce\u2014it\u2019s my support for them to give them this lead time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u00226757fec2a912661a4d1d0345f175e009\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006646\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226757fec2a912661a4d1d0345f175e009\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (12:09)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m only planning to take one call on this title. I want to echo the Minister\u2019s accolades to our very hard-working mental health staff all over the country for the incredible work that they do under pretty difficult circumstances and, it\u2019s probably fair to say, through successive Government failures to enable them to work in up-to-date and modern facilities, which would make it easier for them to uphold the human rights of our tangata whaiora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHaving said that, I do wonder if we\u2019ve got the name of the bill right. I note that previously, the name of the Act was the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992, and given that we\u2019ve only done a number of fairly incremental changes, in my view\u2014we\u2019ve talked a lot about what we want to do and the direction of travel, but we haven\u2019t really legislated for that\u2014I do wonder if we should make the title really simple and just call it the \u201CMental Health (Compulsory Assessment) Act\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006648\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe reason I say that is because the Mental Health Bill makes it sound like this is a bill that is going to advance people\u2019s mental health, and I don\u2019t know that it does. Certainly, on this side of the House, what we are looking to do is recognise that mental health is a journey and that mental wellbeing is the destination, and that people cycle in and out. What we have, really, is a bill before us that is very much in the minutiae\u2014as it should be\u2014of when people can be held against their will and have their human rights restricted. So calling it the \u201CMental Health (Compulsory Assessment) Bill\u201D, in my view, would better encapsulate that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006649\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf it was a mental health bill, I would rather see more provisions in there that were around providing the environment where mental health staff could really lean into the mental wellbeing and recovery of \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Et\u0101ngata whaiora\u003C/span\u003E, including things like safeguarding for children the environments that children are expected to be kept in, and explicit safeguarding for their development in times of being kept against their will or under the bill; the same for our M\u0101ori \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Et\u0101ngata whaiora\u003C/span\u003E in culturally appropriate care settings, and with culturally appropriate care being delivered. That hasn\u2019t really been legislated for in this bill. There were opportunities to do that through the tabled amendments that we put on the Table, including provisions for people to give effect to Te Tiriti all the way through the various parts of the bill, rather than just having a kind of holistic overview in clause 5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006650\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAlternatively, I think we could call this the \u201CMental Health (Lost Opportunity) Bill\u201D. That sounds a little cynical, but that is based on the Amendment Paper that the Government brought to the House a couple of days ago, where we did manage to get some real safeguarding for mothers and babies. We know that perinatal mental health is extremely important. We have some of the worst statistics in the world when it comes to maternal suicides, and the involvement of mothers and being able to stay with their babies forms a huge part of their mental wellbeing. When we discussed this at select committee, we were very careful to choose words that would ensure that the safety of the baby was paramount and that the wellbeing and safety of the mothers and babies were paramount. And yet, at the eleventh hour, we had this change to the wording in the amendment. It just loosened all of that quite considerably because it suddenly said, in new clause 38A(1A)(a), \u201Cmust give priority to the safety and well-being of the baby; and (b) must make reasonable endeavours to consider\u201D. So it wasn\u2019t even a consideration, it was \u201Creasonable endeavours to consider\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006651\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt then also talked about the views of guardians, and we heard a nominal response to our questions about parenting orders and parenting arrangements\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006652\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c002bd95334fb5a4bd7677b0d6c6aba3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: I just wonder whether this is a wee way away from the title, and the third reading coming up might be the opportunity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022477bda9baaabfb119e0f3eef7f577999\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY\u003C/span\u003E: Sure, Mr Chair, but the point that I\u2019m making is that we really didn\u2019t have a chance to interrogate that. We were minded of this House, if we had had satisfactory answers to our questions on that amendment, to have voted in favour of the Government amendment. We couldn\u2019t satisfy ourselves that we could do that because we didn\u2019t get the opportunity to ask the questions to ensure that mothers would still be able to stay with their babies in the same way as had been intended. That is why I think we could call this the \u201CMental Health (Lost Opportunity) Bill\u201D because it looks like the amendment that we don\u2019t support is going to erode the one change\u2014the one change\u2014that we were able to make that had any significance, really, in the select committee stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022bc75528e1c0b0b44a0b4639ad1728da2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006654\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bc75528e1c0b0b44a0b4639ad1728da2\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (12:14)\u003C/span\u003E: Just a final comment from me to respond to the member, Lawrence Xu-Nan, with his very eagle eyes referencing the 2024 reference. I want to ensure him that I\u2019ve been assured that this will get updated in House processes and become \u201C2026\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006655\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EClause 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006656\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c1d91dd35837f057649131dd3f7e5460\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendment to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 648 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006657\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAmendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006658\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228158f75de9e0733331db332788661e98\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Kahurangi Carter\u2019s amendment to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 646 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006659\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 2 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006660\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill to be reported with amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006661\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHouse resumed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022775efe138a1c0d540e920cf005085689\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Mental Health Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the report be adopted\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006663\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006664\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EReport adopted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006665\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fa118e949d39684cc62f8540bb4f7903\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The Mental Health Bill is set down for third reading immediately.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006666\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f381aa0c900865f582208897b1e46aba\u0022\u003ELegislative Statement\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022711235ca421b2cc3acddb2a43a68b8a6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006667\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022711235ca421b2cc3acddb2a43a68b8a6\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (12:16)\u003C/span\u003E: I present a legislative statement on the Mental Health Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006668\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dc9e963231c4a33568aabb2aee810019\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House. It can be found on the Parliament website.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006669\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002266587a4612a53f88142436e967a05377\u0022\u003EThird Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022dbe26208f93538fab75fc4e7d4f485e2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006670\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dbe26208f93538fab75fc4e7d4f485e2\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (12:16)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Mental Health Bill be now read a third time\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006671\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is a privilege to stand here as New Zealand\u2019s first mental health Minister, today, at the final stage of this bill. This legislation represents a significant step forward, modernising a system that is more than 30 years old, and bringing it up to date with how we expect mental health care to be to be delivered in this country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006672\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill sits within the Government\u2019s broader commitment to improve the effectiveness of mental health and addiction services. It responds to long-standing calls for reform, and contributes to the Government\u2019s response to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions, ensuring our system is grounded in human rights, safety, and effective care. It also builds on the work already under way to strengthen our mental health system: improving access, growing the workforce, and strengthening crisis support by helping ensure people receive effective recovery-focused care when they need it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006673\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAt its core, this bill shifts us towards a more right space and recovery-focused approach, placing people at the centre of their care and supporting them to make decisions about their own support and recovery wherever possible. It provides a modern legislative framework for when compulsory care is needed as a last resort, while protecting the rights of people under compulsory care and ensuring care is therapeutic, delivered in the least restrictive way, and responsive to individual needs. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006674\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to acknowledge two areas where the bill introduces particularly important changes. First, on seclusion, the bill takes a much stronger approach to reducing, and, over time, eliminating the use of seclusion. It prohibits its use for children and young people, and strengthens safeguards and oversight to drive its reduction across the system as we work collectively towards eliminating this practice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006675\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESecond, on the use of electroconvulsive therapy, or ECT, I want to be clear that while ECT remains an important treatment option for some people, the bill lifts the threshold for its use and puts stronger safeguards in place to ensure it is only used in tightly controlled circumstances in line with best practice. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill has been the subject of extensive scrutiny by the Health Committee, which received hundreds of submissions and heard directly from people with lived experience: families, clinicians, advocates, and community organisations. As I\u2019ve said before, I want to acknowledge those who shared their experiences. Your input has directly strengthened this legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006677\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThrough the committee stage, a number of targeted amendments have been made to ensure the legislation is clear, workable, and provides strong safeguards in practice. These include clarifications to ensure powers and rights are clear for those working under the legislation, such as clarifying when police detention powers begin and end, strengthening requirements for recording and oversight, and refining provisions to ensure they are workable in practice, including those relating to the care of birthing parents and their newborns.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe changes also ensure that the Ministry of Health can require Health New Zealand to provide the information needed to support the ministry\u2019s regulatory monitoring and assurance role. These changes matter and ensure that the intent of the legislation can be delivered effectively on the ground. Ultimately, this will mean people receive care that is more respectful, more responsive, and more focused on supporting their recovery. It ensures people can access care when they need it, while putting stronger protections around how that care is delivered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006679\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhile the passing of this bill is a major milestone, I also want to acknowledge the significant amount of work that lies ahead for the sector to implement these changes. This is why the commencement date has been updated to ensure the sector has a full two-year lead-in period following enactment. This reflects feedback from the sector about the need to prepare for these changes and implement them safely.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006680\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is now a bill that is fit for purpose, well scrutinised, and ready to become law. The process has had integrity. People have been heard, concerns have been addressed, and the legislation has been improved as a result. The Mental Health Bill represents a modern, balanced, and more effective approach to compulsory mental health care in New Zealand. Today marks a significant milestone for our mental health system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo close, I want to acknowledge the many people that have contributed to the development of this legislation, particularly those with lived experience. I want to thank them and their families for helping to improve the system for others in the future. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006682\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002288582acd2ccb19950ea797985fabe4ce\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the motion be agreed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u002209c1a84b7c7e6dc23b66fbb2251fb9fe\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006683\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002209c1a84b7c7e6dc23b66fbb2251fb9fe\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (12:22)\u003C/span\u003E: It is ironic today that we are talking about updating mental health laws when the front page of the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EOtago Daily Times\u003C/span\u003E has shone a light on the Ombudsman\u2019s findings of some of the worst abuses of human rights he\u2019s ever encountered at Wakari Hospital, which is detaining people who have mental health issues and intellectual disabilities. I\u2019m not going to go into some of the abuses that they endured, but needless to say, it is just a stark example of why our laws need reforming but also why the legislative safeguards need to be in the reformed laws so that we never ever encounter that kind of abuse again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006684\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe hear that too often in this House. We have the abuse in State care, the abuse in faith-based care, the abuse in Wakari. We have this bill before us, which is certainly an improvement on the current mental health Act, but I know for many t\u0101ngata whaiora and people working in the sector, it does not go far enough, and it really does feel like a missed opportunity for us, given that it is unlikely to come back before this House, as the Minister has said, for a decade or perhaps 20 or 30 years. The reason I say that is because we still have the binary definitions of mental health competence in this bill that fly in the face of best practice internationally, which would suggest that better outcomes are reached if people are assessed on their competence on a decision-by-decision basis. Mental competence is a fluctuating experience. It is not a state or a label to be put on to a person. The application of the law as it will currently happen under this bill doesn\u2019t allow us to get up to speed with that international thinking.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006685\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other element is around the participation of \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Et\u0101ngata whaiora\u003C/span\u003E. A lot of noise has been made in the House about their increased participation, and, indeed, there are some avenues now for them to have more of a voice. But if we were really going to look at the evidence and take an evidence-based approach, I think it\u2019s worth putting on the record that the Health Committee saw no evidence that compulsory care orders work for the 6,000 people in our communities who currently live under them, and yet there is good evidence from other jurisdictions and studies conducted by people in New Zealand to show that those who participate voluntarily in their own mental health journey are far more likely to achieve states of wellbeing and to be in recovery. If we really wanted to make this a mental health bill, we missed the opportunity to think through how we could reduce the number of people on compulsory care orders and how we could skill up the sector and resource the sector to really be able to walk alongside our \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Et\u0101ngata whaiora\u003C/span\u003E and their families to enable wellbeing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006686\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EInstead, what we are often seeing is people cycling in and out of the system\u2014feeling well enough to be out in the community, sometimes well enough to work; an event happens or a crisis point is reached, for whatever reason, in their mental health, and they\u2019re back into the hospital system and back under the Act. We need to be more aspirational than that. We need to be looking at the evidence that tells us how people can achieve recovery longer. I fear that in looking and focusing our efforts on the compulsion elements of this bill, we missed the opportunity to look at recovery through participation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006687\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe also don\u2019t want to overstate the changes that have been made to seclusion, because media seem to be a little confused in saying that this bill will end seclusion. Let me state very clearly in this House: it will not end seclusion. It does signal a direction of travel, and there will be an opportunity for regulations to be made, but certainly the ending of seclusion needs to be led with a legislative commitment. The order of events would seem to make sense to me that when legislation requires something to be done, then resources are freed up and the sector is trained and things happen to enable the legislation, because people do not want to act unlawfully. Without that legislative commitment, I fear that we are simply kicking the can down the road, and with the best will in the world, if we also don\u2019t have legislative safeguards to then monitor how we are doing according to those performance plans of trying to implement an end to seclusion, how are we going to actually measure progress?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006688\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe reviews in place for seclusion are five-yearly. What we said in our dissenting opinion on the bill, although we\u2019re supporting the bill, is that we wanted seclusion to be sunsetted within five years. That felt like a reasonable amount of time. We heard a lot of really positive comments from the Minister about all the good moves that are happening currently in the sector to sunset seclusion and to have people trained up and be competent to do that. There are two really good examples in Auckland and Wellington where that has actually happened. Instead of being bold and sunsetting seclusion in five years and then providing the enablers through the legislation, it does feel like we\u2019ve kicked the can down the road. This bill won\u2019t come into effect for a year or two, and so it\u2019s going to be an even longer time. Again, what we don\u2019t have is the requirement to report on it, which could have been made available through some of the 40 or so amendments that we put on the Table.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006689\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other area of strengthening that would have been really valuable would be for vulnerable communities. I\u2019m thinking here about our under-18-year-olds. We heard lots of very powerful submissions about how damaging the current compulsory care orders and the current compulsion under the Act is for our young people, and for them to be accessing adult services. If they are to access adult services while we try to step up resourcing for child-friendly ones, we should at least have legislative safeguards to make sure that those places take into account that they\u2019re young. They need space to be able to move, they need sunlight, they need to feel that they\u2019re in a culturally appropriate setting for their own personal identity, and they need to be able to continue to develop as human beings as they cycle in and out of competence under the Act. We have not put any of those safeguards in, because there is a failure, I think, from the Government to recognise the need for equity in this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006690\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe same applies to the lip service paid to M\u0101ori. We have a clause 5 that doesn\u2019t really require application of Te Tiriti principles across different parts of the Act, and certainly no recognition that \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Et\u0101ngata whaiora\u003C/span\u003E M\u0101ori make up the vast numbers of those who are impacted under mental health compulsory orders, particularly in seclusion. If that\u2019s the case, why don\u2019t we give them the assurance that they have been considered and safeguarded? Why didn\u2019t we put those safeguards in?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006691\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s the same for our neurodivergent and disabled community. Time and time again, it is our disabled community who bear the biggest brunt of abuses to human rights, and yet they are expected to be scooped up in the general provisions of the bill rather than having explicit mention, including the ways that they present in the world, the ways that they communicate, and the assumptions that cannot be made about them when somebody is looking to put them under the powers of the Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006692\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere was a real opportunity to do that: not only to safeguard their human rights but to send them a message from this House that we do recognise the abuses that have happened, we do recognise their vulnerability, and we do recognise their need for safeguarding. Once again, we have failed that community and I find that quite heart-breaking actually.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006693\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other two areas that are interesting\u2014one is interesting; one is disappointing. The interesting one is that when it comes to children and young people, we welcome the fact that they cannot be kept in seclusion, but we did not hear why they would still be protected from other forms of restraint that could be as bad or worse than seclusion. The reason I raise that is that was the Minister\u2019s response to why we can\u2019t end seclusion for adults: that they could become more vulnerable with other forms of restraint. Now, the logic doesn\u2019t apply both ways and I have a real fear now that our young people, without these extra safeguards, may find themselves in other restraint situations such as with medication or physical restraints that will replace seclusion given that we haven\u2019t safeguarded them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006694\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, there\u2019s the Amendment Paper that was dropped on the Table. We had very little chance to scrutinise it. The Government had months and months to get those changes to us. They were hard-won changes to try and recognise mothers and babies and the need to keep them together unless there are safety issues for the child in particular. We had the wording down pat, it looked safe, the officials had advised us on it, and suddenly there was this Amendment Paper that seemed to undo that presumption and make it much more of a balancing act and involving the opinions of other people\u2014non-clinical opinions and opinions that are not about the safety of the child or the mother. We do support this bill, but we think it could have gone a lot further.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022d1ca3aa636eb99c5e47794cd4be1930d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006695\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d1ca3aa636eb99c5e47794cd4be1930d\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (12:32)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Green Party does support this bill, but as the previous speaker has alluded to, there are some serious concerns with this, which will hopefully see further improvements as this bill gets implemented. I do want to acknowledge the engagement from the Minister for Mental Health as part of the committee of the whole House stage; I want to acknowledge the members of the Health Committee; and of course my colleague Kahurangi Carter, who is our mental health spokesperson, in her role in all of this; but also, most importantly, acknowledging the communities, \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Et\u0101ngata whaiora\u003C/span\u003E, and everyone who submitted and shared their personal stories as we went through the process of this bill. We did have quite a robust discussion during the committee stages on all aspects of this bill. It is quite a substantial bill, with eight parts, and I think, considering a bill of this nature may not come to the House again in a while, it\u2019s important for us to be able to discuss each of these parts in detail.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006696\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think as a part of Part 1, we were looking at the overall purpose and principles. That is incredibly crucial, and I think the fundamental aspect of that\u2014with any purpose clause\u2014is whether they are an aspiration or they are binding. It\u2019s good to hear from the Minister that it is binding; this is something that could be challenged in a court of law if any of our system doesn\u2019t uphold that particular purpose. It\u2019s also heartening, as we go through the rest of the bill, for the Minister to keep drawing back to the principles of this bill. I think that\u2019s an important consistency that we would expect\u2014and we expect no less as this bill gets implemented.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006697\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do want to mention that there are different areas of disappointment for the Greens that we believe could have gone further\u2014reflecting submissions, both the voices from the community but also upon reflection of the most recent royal commission of inquiry around abuse in care and how we can do better as a country overall when it comes to upholding the rights of disabled people here in general and also our global obligation under international conventions around human rights.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006698\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EEven though we hear from the Minister that the principle of the bill is going with the least restrictive way, we are disappointed that the Government has not, and the Minister has not, accepted my colleague Kahurangi Carter\u2019s amendments around having community and voluntary care as the default and only using compulsory care as a final resort. The fact is that there is currently no specific commitment around the provision of that community care to ensure that there is wraparound support for the wellbeing of tangata whaiora. I think that is an area that we\u2019re hoping we can see improvements as we see in other parts of the health sector in terms of the community health sector, where we\u2019re looking at people wanting to have that home and community care as a starting point and move on to other parts of care only as required.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006699\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other thing that is worth noting in terms of Part 1\u2014which ostensibly could be the most important part because it sets that basis of how we are to understand the rest of this bill and particularly the operationalisation of this bill\u2014that I feel could potentially be a bit of a gap is around clause 8 of this bill regarding the meaning and also under what grounds assessment should not be taken. There are just a little bit of consistency issues when it comes to that and section 21 of the Human Rights Act where certain areas have not been considered. I think when we\u2019re looking at the further part in Part 8, and we\u2019re looking at removal from New Zealand, that during the committee stage we discussed what happens if, for example, for certain cultures and for certain regions unfortunately sex is still an important factor and maybe a considered factor, but that\u2019s not a ground for there to be prohibited grounds for compulsory assessment. I think there are some consistency issues there that will be interesting to see how they would develop.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006700\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMoving on to other parts of this bill, noting that the Minister had an Amendment Paper, in most cases we are happy with the minor updates that the Minister has made. But as we heard from the previous speaker, Ingrid Leary, new clause 38A that the Minister has made around the ability for a birthing parent to be entitled to have the baby remain with them is a bit of a concern and does seem like a move away from what the Health Committee has come to in terms of the point they\u2019re making, which is unfortunate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006701\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think I also want to acknowledge my colleague Kahurangi Carter and her Amendment Paper around the sunset clause for seclusion. Yes, although we\u2019re hearing from the Minister that there is a general moving away, there is no fixed deadline or requirement for there to be no seclusion here. As well as both in terms of seclusion, but also what we\u2019re seeing in clause 50 of this bill around electroconvulsive therapy, I do implore\u2014and it\u2019s good to hear from the Minister as a part of the response\u2014that we can do better in how we report on that and the level of detail that we can report. In the case of seclusion, we must have transparency around the hours that people are spending, particularly the consecutive hours that people are spending in seclusion, which the previous speaker has also alluded to as some of the more egregious findings most recently by the Ombudsman.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006702\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of other parts of the bill, I want to tie in a few of the parts, particularly in Part 4, when we\u2019re looking at the forensic compulsive care. I think that\u2019s an interesting interaction with something that we have seen just recently in the House around the debate on the declaration of inconsistency with PPOs and EPOs\u2014with public protection orders and extended protection orders\u2014and what that would mean in the context of the forensic compulsory care.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006703\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EParticularly, I am still a little bit concerned in terms of the response from the Minister on how some of that biometric data could potentially be used and stored. I think this is an area that has not had thorough consideration. As a member of the Justice Committee, I know that this is something that the Justice Committee actually comes across reasonably frequently. It\u2019s important for us to make sure that, across different agencies and different systems in our public sector, we do have that consistency on biometric data. We\u2019re obviously seeing some of the more concerning areas with biometric data use\u2014most recently within Immigration as well, particularly with The Migration Five\u2014so I think that is an important consideration to make.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006704\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFurther on in terms of the area we\u2019re looking at with the Mental Health Review Tribunal, it\u2019s also important to note that we did get reassurance from the Minister that the Mental Health Review Tribunal is able to not only actively initiate a review of specific cases or a care plan but also is able to undertake their own research. I think, most importantly, it is heartening to hear that the Minister has made that commitment that the decisions that the Mental Health Review Tribunal make are decisions; they\u2019re not recommendations. We expect there to be a binding nature to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006705\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, I think it\u2019s also important to discuss that we did also go through some of the offences and regulations. Again, all of these provide the overall package in this particular area of our health system where there hasn\u2019t been the level of accountability we would like to see, and, unfortunately, we have seen people falling through the cracks. Whether it\u2019s regulations or whether it\u2019s offences, it does provide that additional safety net. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006706\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to finish by saying that, fundamentally, it is important for us to ensure that t\u0101ngata whaiora have the safeguards that are based on allowing them to have dignity and to make sure that their wellbeing is front and centre. I do want to thank everyone in our health system for their ongoing mahi in this area.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022443f23de4cbd464f91833e6c466c98c0\u0022 data-id=\u0022f00342006f13c7695df7069dd36f2e8a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006707\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022443f23de4cbd464f91833e6c466c98c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f00342006f13c7695df7069dd36f2e8a\u0022\u003ETODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (12:42)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I rise on behalf of ACT to add our support to the Mental Health Bill. It\u2019s great that it has got cross-Parliament support to modernise this piece of really important legislation. As we\u2019ve already heard, this is being updated after over 30 years. It is rights based and recovery focused. It is a modernisation. It has almost also been through its own two-year parliamentary process, and I want to thank all of those in the mental health sector who took the time to submit on it, and also the Health Committee and MPs across the House who have engaged on it extensively in the last 24 hours. I will be commending it to the House. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d92a09db28c44070bbfdcc9f0e6f3cca\u0022 data-id=\u00229ff02471c9161337b170c8a8e60f3f43\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d92a09db28c44070bbfdcc9f0e6f3cca\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229ff02471c9161337b170c8a8e60f3f43\u0022\u003EJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) (12:43)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Mental Health Bill. These reforms in this bill will modernise the compulsory mental healthcare legislation. It is well overdue. The overhaul is absolutely necessary. It will place people at the centre of their care. It\u2019ll be respectful of their rights in terms of their care. I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b11bafcf5b5427480393ffeef4fe6e8\u0022 data-id=\u00223ee3066b7babe2acccba28f3444b3ce9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006709\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b11bafcf5b5427480393ffeef4fe6e8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223ee3066b7babe2acccba28f3444b3ce9\u0022\u003EORIINI KAIPARA (Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori\u2014T\u0101maki Makaurau) (12:43)\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EE te P\u012Bka, t\u0113n\u0101 koe.\u003C/span\u003E I want to acknowledge that we are, today, taking an important step, a step that many people, many wh\u0101nau, and many communities across Aotearoa have waited far too long to see. This bill repeals and replaces the Mental Health Act 1992. It responds to \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHe Ara Oranga\u003C/span\u003E, which found the old Act was out of date, overly reliant on coercion, and inconsistent with a modern human rights approach to mental health. For that reason, Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori supports this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006710\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESupport for this bill doesn\u2019t erase an important question: why did it take so long? This legislation was introduced in 2024, the select committee completed its work in April 2025, yet here we are debating its final stages under urgency, only months before an election. If mental health was truly a priority and if the lives of t\u0101ngata whaiora, of rangatahi, of wh\u0101nau and aiga, and of all New Zealanders were genuinely valued, then why was this bill not completed two years ago instead of today? Mental health worsens when one waits. Every delay matters when people are struggling to access support, when wh\u0101nau are carrying grief, and when communities are crying out for change.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006711\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFor M\u0101ori, those inequities are even more painful. In the last year alone, 630 lives were lost to suspected suicide in Aotearoa. A week ago, I attended the tangi of Preston Herewini, a young man with young babies and a wife, who is now widowed and bereft of the life that they dreamed of together. I stand here wondering what could have been done for Preston, for his wh\u0101nau, and for every single wh\u0101nau carrying immense grief and unanswered questions. \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EE ngau kino nei te mamae me te mau\u0101hara m\u014D r\u0101tou, Preston, e ng\u0101 huhu a mate. Kia whakawhet\u016Brangihia koutou e Matariki \u0101 k\u014D tonu nei.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006712\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThe anguish and resentment afflict me badly for those\u2014Preston\u2014who have passed on. May you soon be immortalised as stars by Matariki.\u003C/span\u003E] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006713\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EM\u0101ori continue to experience higher rates of mental distress, suicide, addiction, and unmet needs than non-M\u0101ori. These are not failures of our people. They are the consequences of colonisation, of poverty, of disconnection, and of repeated breaches of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That\u2019s why Te Tiriti matters. That\u2019s why Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori welcomes the inclusion of a Treaty clause in this bill. In fact, it is the very first bill, this term, that this Government has introduced and has chosen to include one. This is the only one. Before we celebrate, let us acknowledge the contradiction, because this Government removed Treaty provisions from corrections legislation, despite M\u0101ori being disproportionately represented in prisons. Yet here, where M\u0101ori, also disproportionately represented in poorer mental health outcomes, Te Tiriti is recognised. Where is the consistency?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006714\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETe Hiringa Mahara\u2019s latest road map makes clear that urgent action is still needed for M\u0101ori, for rangatahi, for rural communities and for those facing barriers to care. Young people continue to experience high levels of psychological distress, while M\u0101ori continue to experience significant unmet need. As the member for T\u0101maki Makaurau, I see these realities every single day. I see wh\u0101nau carrying the weight of housing insecurity, poverty, addiction, and disconnection. I see communities doing everything that they can to support one another while struggling to access culturally safe services. That is why equity must mean more than treating everyone the same. It means directing investment where the need is greatest, it means trusting M\u0101ori providers, it means funding kaupapa M\u0101ori solutions, and, yes, it means investing in M\u0101ori proportionate to the burden that M\u0101ori carry. That is not preferential treatment. That is fairness. That is honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006715\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EToday, we support this bill because it represents progress, but, tomorrow, we will continue to hold the Government to account for its implementation, because legislation alone does not save lives. Wh\u0101nau do. Communities do. Culture does. And Governments do, only when they match words with action and aroha. \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003ERuia te aroha kia pua mai ai ko te aroha\u2014\u003C/span\u003Ewhen kindness is sown, kindness is received.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022 data-id=\u0022db99e07bcc4e7005c52cdb8fe6fac047\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006716\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022db99e07bcc4e7005c52cdb8fe6fac047\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON (Green) (12:48)\u003C/span\u003E: T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Green Party, I stand to also offer our support towards this legislation, knowing that this is a significant shift and change to the way with which our mental health sector will be delivered into the future when it comes to compulsory assessments and treatment. I pay tribute to the select committee who sat and had rigorous debate, heard submissions from across the community, \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Et\u0101ngata whaiora\u003C/span\u003E, and officials of the Government who came and presented evidence and entered into a w\u0101nanga in terms of what we have today. But also I know that, today, in the committee of the whole House, this side of the House offered a tangible\u2014how would I say it?\u2014amendments that were quite reasonable. These amendments, we thought we could have progressed in a shared understanding of seeking the best for t\u0101ngata whaiora, for wh\u0101nau, and for communities, and particularly also for our kaimahi in the workforce.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006717\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to note one of those amendments from my colleague Kahurangi Carter, in terms of the solitary confinement, the seclusion, again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006718\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve heard in the House, through and through, our ongoing concerns around the need for a sunset clause. Knowing that we are on track, we have got a work plan, we are working in this space in order to try to find a way whereby we can provide safety of care and also a pathway to\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006719\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003E[Authorised reo M\u0101ori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006720\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u2014solitary confinement. We still remain concerned, because the seclusion was spoken to and has been recommended by the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission and also by the Mental Health Foundation and the Health Action Trust.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006722\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe absolutely tautoko the way in which we are putting whaiora in the centre of their care and having the \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003E[Authorised reo M\u0101ori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006724\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006725\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003Eand the hauora of the person in care at the centre of how we are trying to navigate them through the system. But, as was raised during the committee of the whole House, again, how do we connect wh\u0101nau into the care and keep them up to date with what is occurring when we have these collective groups that come together, and navigation for both wh\u0101nau and whaiora as they move through the system. We look forward to the way whereby we can support those who may have neurodivergence and other intellectual handicaps, whereby we can look at them and provide consistent protections with the disability convention and ensure their pathways are non-coercive, that wh\u0101nau are involved and centred, and that it is evidence based. That continues to be a theme that we share.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006726\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOf course, it\u2019s good that we\u2019ve seen some of the changes in the legislation that embrace and ensure that sexual orientation and gender identity cannot be used as a factor when determining someone\u2019s level of impaired mental health, and the stronger interpretations around the processes and the way that we\u2019re able to, through the committee of the whole House, go step by step in understanding where to from here\u2014what does the hui whaiora do, where does the wh\u0101nau sit, what is the definition of a mental health practitioner, and how can we keep our babies with patients as much as possible?\u2014taking t\u0101ngata whaiora - centred approach.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006727\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe do tautoko this legislation, but we do want to see stronger measures around equity of access and the way in which rural and urban populations are can receive the equity of care, as well as tangata whenua. While we do have Te Tiriti o Waitangi provisions within the legislation, there\u2019s always more work to be done. I pay tribute to the way that submitters came into the Health Committee and raised these issues. Knowing that by and large it is tangata whenua who are held in a compulsory nature, how do we take an inclusive approach; how do we support wh\u0101nau to understand what is happening and also, when they are released, their navigation back into community- or wh\u0101nau-based care?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006728\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThese are ongoing conversations, and it\u2019s about resourcing, ultimately. This legislation will only be as successful as how much resource and kaimahi and training is available to support the system to be able to deliver better health outcomes for t\u0101ngata whaiora and better health outcomes for our community.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022297bc572c27f45308dffb067ca3e7915\u0022 data-id=\u00222cd0c37a96f0d94d2b948e100d9f36de\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006729\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022297bc572c27f45308dffb067ca3e7915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222cd0c37a96f0d94d2b948e100d9f36de\u0022\u003EDr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National\u2014Ilam) (12:53)\u003C/span\u003E: I rise in support of the Mental Health Bill. We\u2019ve got support right across the House for this bill. It\u2019s modernising our mental health framework. Therefore, I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022 data-id=\u00220c5cae381d4d15a0f9d103d411b7c43d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006730\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220c5cae381d4d15a0f9d103d411b7c43d\u0022\u003EDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (12:53)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Labour supports this bill. It\u2019s a law, developed more than three decades ago, as has been discussed on several occasions, that no longer reflects society\u2019s more modern understanding of human rights, let alone mental health. This reform is long overdue. The bill establishes, as I said, a much more modern, rights-based framework. It recognises that mental health care in general, where possible, should be delivered with people, not done to them, and these are significant improvements. That is the principal reason as to why Labour will support this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006731\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHowever, at third reading, I just want to take a couple of minutes today to say that we also have to be honest about what this legislation alone can\u2019t do and can\u2019t achieve. The new law can create rights, and it does, and duties and safeguards, which it does, but it can\u2019t by itself provide the staffing, the facilities, the community services, the cultural capability, and all the time required to actually make those rights a reality. That concern has, I think, been raised not only by people on the side of the House but by mental health organisations and clinicians and advocates and people with lived experience, who submitted on this bill during the process. These are not reasons to delay this reform; they are reasons, ultimately, to properly resource it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006732\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want, also, to take the time to acknowledge everyone that works across the mental health and addiction system, be they psychiatrists, psychologists, nurses, social workers, occupational therapists, counsellors, care support workers, cultural workers, advocates, and all of those community providers and support staff who, quite frankly, don\u2019t get the recognition they deserve and work under really tough circumstances. They often work with people who are at their most vulnerable and experiencing the most frightening moments of their life, and they make considered decisions to make those lives better. A rights-based law must not simply place more responsibility on those very people who are doing that work, on those individual workers, while failing to address some of the conditions in which they actually do that work or are expected to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006733\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo the Government, that means that, whilst we\u2019re happy to support this bill, we acknowledge it is not the end of the road. This is the first step; the next step is that we want to hear and we want to see and we will keep asking questions and keep monitoring as to where a really good implementation plan lands. We welcome the improvements made through the Health Committee, and I\u2019m not going to go into the details. I think they have been well traversed, both through the committee of the whole House and through the contributions to date on the third reading. I do also just want to acknowledge that ending seclusion requires appropriate staffing, and it requires all the requisite therapeutic facilities, specialist training, and those alternative models of care if it\u2019s going to happen. Simply, the intentionality and the purpose within this bill, which will soon be legislation, isn\u2019t going to be enough to achieve that aim unless there\u2019s something a little bit more definitive behind it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006734\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill is better than the law it replaces\u2014excellent\u2014but passing it alone is not the end of the reform. As I\u2019ve said, it\u2019s just the beginning of the implementation phase, which we will be keeping a close eye on. Labour does support this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022 data-id=\u00225554bd6000efba12c750d06bbf9f2c91\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006735\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b618b847a57b4afb94b76eaea9e042a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225554bd6000efba12c750d06bbf9f2c91\u0022\u003EDr CARLOS CHEUNG (National\u2014Mt Roskill) (12:57)\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019ve all learnt from past mistakes in how compulsory mental health care has been handled. This bill modernises the system, strengthens safeguards, and ensures that we don\u2019t repeat those mistakes again. Most importantly, it balances care with dignity and support with human rights. It puts patients at the centre of decisions about their own care. By focusing on patients first, this bill will improve outcomes and enhance wellbeing. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006736\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002213a4b197a38ce6887496a784dddacd40\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the lunch break. The House will resume at 2 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006737\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterItalicsCentred\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 12.58 p.m. to 2 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006738\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b18c588135553a2d71a45835a8ff00be\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The House is resumed on the third reading of the Mental Health Bill. We\u2019re up to a split call, and I think it\u2019s Labour leading\u2014Georgie Dansey.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f988bc72b5e47b8856ba70e41dfbbaf\u0022 data-id=\u0022a605601114c51fec5befaf32c3f1e959\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006739\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f988bc72b5e47b8856ba70e41dfbbaf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a605601114c51fec5befaf32c3f1e959\u0022\u003EGEORGIE DANSEY (Labour) (14:00)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. It\u2019s good to take a call on the third reading of the Mental Health Bill. It was really interesting to hear through the committee of the whole House process the questions raised and the answers from the Minister for Mental Health. I wanted to speak to a few of those things today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006740\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe first one I wanted to mention was clause 42 on the decision making for compulsory care. There were questions from my colleagues around ensuring that the decision making for compulsory care was made by medically qualified professionals, and I really wanted to emphasise the importance of having qualified professionals in this space dealing with some\u2014sorry, \u201Cdealing\u201D is not a good word; supporting\u2014of our most vulnerable people in New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006741\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELast night, when I took a call on this bill, I spoke about my brother-in-law Nicky, who passed away 11 years ago while he was in compulsory care. The coroner found that Nicky\u2019s death was avoidable due to a number of mishaps which led to him taking his own life. The reason this is so important to me is to honour Nicky\u2019s life and our wh\u0101nau who still deal with that loss every single day; my kids, who will never meet their uncle. For him, when he was at the compulsory care facility, he left the facility on unescorted leave, and that was part of what led to him eventually taking his own life. The key thing there, where things fell apart, was that there weren\u2019t medical professionals in place to assess him to see that unescorted leave was not going to be appropriate for him. There was a point where the decisions were made by security guards. I respect security guards a huge amount\u2014they do very, very valuable work across our country\u2014but it\u2019s important that we have medically specialised professionals working with people in order to protect them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006742\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the other aspects of this that is important to me is the involvement of wh\u0101nau and family in decision making, and this bill goes some way in that direction. I think there is more work to do, but it goes some way to ensure that wh\u0101nau and family are included in the decision making around their loved ones in order to have a holistic approach. Going through the experience that I went through and that our family went through with Nicky, I met person after person after person after person who had their own story of devastating loss for people within the people in mental health system. It\u2019s those stories that empower me to stand and support this bill as a step towards better management in this space. It\u2019s not as far as we would have liked to see. There are many more changes we\u2019d like to see in this space to ensure that we are really respecting all human rights and the independence of individuals, but this a really good step. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006743\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second bit I wanted to talk about very briefly was the amendment to clause 38A in Amendment Paper 648 from the Minister, which substantially reverses the changes made by the Health Committee. This is regarding a parent being able to stay with their baby. I don\u2019t support the amendment and the changes, because I think it\u2019s paramount that, if safe, a child or a baby should always stay with their parent\u2014especially an infant. All the parents in the room understand that connection you have with your children, especially when they\u2019re babies. For a parent dealing with substantial mental health concerns and then, on top of that, potentially having their baby taken away\u2014I think we can do much better than that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006744\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWith those two points, I support this bill and commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002288978fb9592a4911a8e47eae04d164f3\u0022 data-id=\u00227f4ccfa1d0fdce06b658cda3301ff01b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006745\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002288978fb9592a4911a8e47eae04d164f3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227f4ccfa1d0fdce06b658cda3301ff01b\u0022\u003EDr VANESSA WEENINK (National\u2014Banks Peninsula) (14:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This Mental Health Bill intends to change substantially the culture and direction within mental health treatment and the compulsory care sector. The implementation of this bill will be the important element of it. Training and further workforce development, which we have led already, will be very vital. I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002242067e22c7a349218b3b868f58eda79d\u0022 data-id=\u002258d2f1719544d373971d285afa8b7a05\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006746\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002242067e22c7a349218b3b868f58eda79d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002258d2f1719544d373971d285afa8b7a05\u0022\u003ERACHEL BOYACK (Labour\u2014Nelson) (14:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Mental Health Bill. I just want to traverse some of the reasons Labour is supporting this bill, but I also just note some areas there\u2014and my colleagues have laid a lot of these points out very well already\u2014where we do have some specific concerns around some of the missed opportunities within this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006747\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s been traversed well today that the current Act from 1992 is very outdated and it no longer reflects modern human-rights standards. This bill is a significant improvement on the current Act, but, as I\u2019ve already said, there are some missed opportunities there. It falls short of some of the transformational reform that could have occurred through this bill. I think there are some letters here around how much further the Government could have gone to really make this a transformational approach.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006748\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere continue to be issues around implementation, workforce planning, and accountability. We in particular want to see stronger protections for M\u0101ori, for disabled people, for children and young people, and for other vulnerable groups affected by this particular bill but also affected in their daily lives by issues related to mental health. We think that the bill should contain a stronger commitment to ending seclusion. We do note that there have been some strengthened safeguards around the use of electroconvulsive therapy\u2014a complex, and controversial at times, treatment that occurs in mental health\u2014and we believe that, given that, there are some further protections that are warranted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006749\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI wanted to talk briefly about some concerns raised by my colleague Tracey McLellan when she put questions to the Minister for Mental Health in the committee of the whole House stage around the lack of an increase in the number of forensic beds in prisons. This is one of those missed opportunities that I see, as an electorate MP, when dealing with wh\u0101nau members of people who are in prison who have committed a crime but have a significant mental health need and who are unable to access a forensic bed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006750\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWith the growing prison population, what we are seeing is a growing number of people within prisons who are unable to access a forensic bed to receive the treatment that they need. There is one such constituent in my electorate of Nelson, and we\u2019re working very closely with the mother of this particular person, who has unfortunately had repeated time spent in prison. When he is unable to get access to the holistic care and support that he would get from a forensic bed, what it does is it makes his condition worse. He\u2019s, therefore, unable to access opportunities for rehabilitation or care within the prison system. The prison system is doing everything it can for this young man, but without access to proper mental health support, what will happen is, when he returns into the community, he may well return in a state where he\u2019s actually less well than when he first entered. There were some opportunities in this process for that to be recognised.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006751\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELabour\u2019s alternative view, which is outlined in the select committee report and through speeches given by my colleagues, was informed by evidence from t\u0101ngata whaiora and people with lived experience, their wh\u0101nau, clinicians, disability advocates, the Ombudsman, and other organisations with safeguarding and oversight responsibilities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006752\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat that clearly showed was the need for stronger safeguards, for better implementation, for greater accountability, and for a more participatory mental health system. We believe that the bill should be strengthened by giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi\u2014including explicit recognition of tikanga, hap\u016B and iwi\u2014by strengthening decision-making processes for people to make supported decisions; by moving even further towards voluntary participation wherever possible, where the therapeutic evidence supports this; by improving the treatment of advance mental health directives; by strengthening protections for disabled people, children, and young people, and other vulnerable groups; by requiring legislated implementation planning and workforce training; and by strengthening accountability and public reporting. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006753\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn particular, the bill has some changes around seclusion, and we are concerned around the fact that there\u2019s still retention of seclusion in limited circumstances. We support New Zealand\u2019s commitment to eliminate seclusion, but, as my colleague Ingrid Leary pointed out in an earlier contribution today, the Ombudsman continues to make scathing recommendations around the practice of seclusion and how much it harms those people who experience seclusion when they have high mental health needs. We believe that the legislation should include a commitment to ending seclusion within five years, that there needs to be a system-wide phase-out for that, and that this is one of those missed opportunities. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006754\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI mentioned the use of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) earlier, in the beginning of my speech. What is good is that the bill provides some additional safeguards for adults, including specialist oversight where statutory authorisation is required. It also provides some additional safeguards for people under 18, so it may only be used in rare and exceptional circumstances where two independent psychiatrists\u2014one with expertise in ECT and one who is a child and adolescent psychiatrist\u2014agree it is necessary to save a life or prevent serious harm, and the young person\u2019s care plan and any advanced mental health directive must also be considered. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006755\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt strengthens reporting requirements around the use of ECT and it creates an offence for failing to comply with the statutory ECT safeguards. As I said earlier, ECT is one of those treatments that has controversy, complexity, and concerns around it, and for good reason. Our view on this is that we do accept the evidence that ECT may, in rare and exceptional circumstances, be an appropriate treatment of last resort. We support the strengthened safeguards included in the bill, but we also consider that adults should receive greater protection where they have made an advance mental health directive refusing ECT and that should have greater consideration. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006756\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe remain concerned, as well, that the bill contains no legislative requirement for comprehensive implementation planning or workforce training and that, without sustained investment and training and accountability, there is a real risk that the bill\u2014which has a rights-based approach\u2014won\u2019t actually be fully realised in practice. That\u2019s the challenge: it\u2019s all very well for us to put everything that we have into legislation, but we actually need to see that true implementation. I come back to the comments I made earlier around the lack of increase in forensic beds. It\u2019s a very good example of where we\u2019ve got legislative change that is very, very good, and Labour will be supporting it, but we have circumstances where we\u2019re not actually seeing the same uptake in resource that can match that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006757\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EConsider a prisoner who may have very serious psychotic conditions where their behaviour leads them into a place of criminality and they are taken through a court process and ultimately end up in prison, which is a place that causes immense stress and harm for them and actually makes their situation worse. I think about a particular young man in my electorate whose family we have supported now for a long time. I think this is a missed opportunity for us to look at what he would need in a system in order to get that care so that, when he returns to the community\u2014because, ultimately, he will return to the community\u2014he returns to the community in a state where he is less unwell. He will never be 100 percent well\u2014that is the nature of his condition\u2014but when he is in a better place, he will not be in a heightened state of constant stress and will be in a better position, and he\u2019ll be better equipped to then face the world when he returns, because he will. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006758\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere are stories like this up and down the country. I do want to commend the Minister for the bill making its way through the House this far, and I thank all the officials for the work that they\u2019ve done. It is a very good improvement on what is a very outdated Act, but there are a number of missed opportunities, which I\u2019ve outlined, and Labour believes the Government could have gone further to ensure that the resources are there to properly implement and make the changes that we need so that people that are within the mental health system get the support they need to get well again so that they can continue to be thriving members of our society. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022200839810eb94155be7306bf21d350dd\u0022 data-id=\u0022fcd88a7ff83410a1caf23c43d5c43405\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006759\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022200839810eb94155be7306bf21d350dd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fcd88a7ff83410a1caf23c43d5c43405\u0022\u003ESAM UFFINDELL (National\u2014Tauranga) (14:15)\u003C/span\u003E: It was a privilege to chair the committee through the passage of this bill. I want to thank all submitters and members for their unanimous support across the House. The Government is committed to improving mental health outcomes for New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006760\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006761\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006762\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002257f71aee8e15f1940bd4ea2ff229126e\u0022\u003EPlain Language Act Repeal Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006763\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002203bc13f216a07ce902095f1dc1c5c5f1\u0022\u003EPostponement\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022 data-id=\u0022bcc5726e560f330f963fee8df834f307\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006764\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bcc5726e560f330f963fee8df834f307\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (14:16)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Government order of the day No. 20 for the second reading of the Plain Language Act Repeal Bill be postponed\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006765\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006766\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ef9ac189c21d10c29c1624677692cbb3\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Government order of the day No. 20 is postponed to the next sitting day.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006767\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e974ffb094b68911b60d19f9519017d3\u0022\u003EConstitution Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006768\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022be5afad783cef38f70f4698d89156b01\u0022\u003ELegislative Statement\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022 data-id=\u00227f2533a6d8477e3545ef6d95f5a0031d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006769\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227f2533a6d8477e3545ef6d95f5a0031d\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (14:16)\u003C/span\u003E: I present a legislative statement on the Constitution Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006770\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b6e0975cca38ae9bf1b7ff8fc47298f3\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006771\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ef28b815ccf76337f9a8ab10fc864197\u0022\u003ESecond Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022 data-id=\u002233080eeb1e19f465917b329af7bc7ec0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006772\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002233080eeb1e19f465917b329af7bc7ec0\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (14:17)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Constitution Amendment Bill be now read a second time\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006773\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill makes a small but important change to the Constitution Act to ensure that the post-election process is run smoothly. After the election, there\u2019s a small period of time where there are no members of Parliament, which continues until election results are finalised and the new MPs take up office. During this time, the Constitution Act provides an exception to the rule that Ministers must always be an MP, to ensure the caretaker executive Government can continue to act during the post-election period. This is critical to our constitutional arrangements and the smooth transition of power. Currently, this exception is limited to 28 days. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006774\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere are a few circumstances where the conclusion of an election will be delayed\u2014for example, an extreme weather event or a judicial recount. In these cases, the 28-day rule can expire before the new MPs formally take office, meaning Ministers can no longer hold their ministerial office, which can result in a constitutionally untenable position of the Governor-General being left without advisers. This happened in 2023, and while party leaders worked to find a stop-gap solution, I consider a constitutional setting should have clear and fit for purpose rules. Therefore, this bill removes the 28-day rule and replaces it with one that does not give rise to the possibility that ministerial tenure will expire before the post-election period. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006775\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe new rule will allow Ministers to continue to hold office until the election writ is returned with the names of the successful electorate MPs and list MPs who have been declared. It means that if there\u2019s a delay to the official vote count, incumbent Ministers remain in office until new MPs are appointed. I want to thank the Justice Committee for all their hard work on this, and I commend this bill to the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006776\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aee2da832207457d4c1dabc95f0d8f49\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u0022a08e4797a7b3c73485ae77d8049bc328\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006777\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a08e4797a7b3c73485ae77d8049bc328\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (14:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It\u2019s good to speak on this short but important bill. It is interesting that submitters weren\u2019t absolutely in favour of this, and, certainly, there were some opinions that thought that it was constitutionally problematic for members of the executive, at least in New Zealand, to not be at the same time members of Parliament. This bill, of course, is aimed to address the situation where, as a result of an election and whilst the results are being calculated, a member of the executive has lost their seat. This was in fact the Hon Nanaia Mahuta\u2019s situation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006778\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhilst the outgoing Labour Government was a caretaker Government in the true sense, the difficulty was that the Minister of Foreign Affairs wasn\u2019t able to hold that office because she was no longer a member of Parliament, having clearly lost her seat, and therefore not being whatever the appropriate term is\u2014there\u2019s a technical term for someone who looks like they\u2019ve won it but haven\u2019t yet been sworn in, but she didn\u2019t hold that position either. So she couldn\u2019t hold her portfolio under the Constitution Act, and I think it might have been Chris Hipkins who held it for about seven weeks, in that situation. That\u2019s a difficult situation because that new, essentially temporary, caretaker Minister doesn\u2019t have any knowledge of the portfolio, doesn\u2019t have the connections within the ministry, and certainly doesn\u2019t have the international connections that were relevant to that particular portfolio.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006779\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo this bill does address that, and I do want to address the main criticism, which is \u201CWell, that\u2019s very odd that you\u2019ve got someone who\u2019s a Minister of the Crown who\u2019s been voted out of an electorate or who has clearly not won a place on the party list.\u201D I don\u2019t think that\u2019s a massive problem. Certainly, in other jurisdictions, members of the executive aren\u2019t members of the legislature at all. The fact of the matter is that this is very much a bridging arrangement, so it\u2019s a very short period of time\u2014it\u2019s not until the next Government is formed; it\u2019s actually only until the final announcement is made and decisions are made as to which members are elected to Parliament. So it\u2019s actually a very short period of time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006780\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo for that reason, we\u2019re going to support this bill. It didn\u2019t take long at select committee, but I do want to say that any change to the Constitution Act deserve careful scrutiny and good advice, and the submitters were of the highest quality, and so we absolutely did do that with this bill. Unlike some other very short bills, it didn\u2019t get a cursory treatment; it got thorough treatment and careful consideration. So we will commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022bb9c42a62399d952fb20cbcc3bfe79d7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006781\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bb9c42a62399d952fb20cbcc3bfe79d7\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (14:22)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand also supports this bill, and as the previous speaker, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, has said, I just want to preface this by reaffirming the importance of the Constitution Act, but also in terms of our general constitutional arrangements here in Aotearoa New Zealand. This bill specifically addresses this continuity around the executive, but I think it\u2019s important for us to mention that as part of the submission process, we did get high-quality submitters who submitted on this particular bill\u2014people who are experts in this field.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006782\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhile the committee that considered this bill, the Justice Committee, are a very busy committee, they only had about 20 individual written submissions. It\u2019s important to highlight some of the processes through that select committee which also helped shape some of the questions that we have for the Minister in the upcoming committee stage, because while we support this bill, it\u2019s really important to have good engagement with the Minister and have certain positions of the Minister on record, which is separate from what we\u2019ve heard in the select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006783\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to address my first point, which is around our constitutional arrangements in general in terms of the executive but also the legislature. I think members of this House would clearly have experienced and know that, under our current system of MMP, introduced in the 1990s, when we get into a post-election period, we see a period of negotiation between different political parties to form a Government. Ostensibly, the only time under the MMP system that we had negotiations but also a majority was in 2020. The key there, then, is that there is this lull in the period between the election and a new Government being formed, which is where this bill comes in, and I\u2019ll come back to the 28 days in more detail.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006784\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMost of the submitters that we heard during the select committee stage did voice their support for this bill. We had 19 submissions from individuals and one from an organisation, but then we did have a few people who opposed this bill, quite a few; we had 15 oppose this bill and four in support of it. But I do want to address some of the concerns people had with regard to their opposition to this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006785\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think it is understandable that there is general concern from the New Zealand public, currently, even with bills that have been introduced and have the support of the whole House, about whether this would be abused by a future Government. I think it\u2019s important to note that the extension of 28 days is mainly to address a current anomaly in our constitutional arrangement, as opposed to any Government finding a way to extend their powers and be able to introduce certain things under a new Government. I think that\u2019s a really important placeholder\u2014more like a custodian role. The main reason for that is that it is absolutely crucial, under our current constitutional arrangements\u2014being part of the British Crown and having a monarchy\u2014that, ultimately, when we go through any bills in this House, we have Royal assent that goes through the Governor-General: the Governor-General must have advisers that do actually advise them on certain things. So without any Ministers, it\u2019s really difficult for the Governor-General to also be able to undertake their role. So in terms of this particular part, we don\u2019t see that being a huge concern.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006786\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think it\u2019s also important, as I did mention before, that we should really touch on the duration that we\u2019re looking at, which is 28 days. We did question during the committee stage as to whether 28 days is the most reasonable length of time when we\u2019re looking at the extension. This is to do with, specifically, aspects of sections 6 and 8 of the Constitution Act, which is clauses 4 and 5 of this particular bill. I think the 28 days is an important provision, potentially, to remove, mainly because of the fact that we have seen instances where, now, particularly under a more thriving MMP environment, sometimes the formation of a Government may take longer than that. So it is important for there to be a level of flexibility. So, again, as some of the advice that we received as part of the committee stage, we did consider this particular part. For example, as demonstrated in the 2023 general election, delays to the return of the writ can mean that new MPs take office more than 28 days after the election.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006787\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOther concerns that were raised by the submitters were around the commencement date, and this is bearing in mind that this was something that was considered a little while ago as well by the Justice Committee. At that stage, other bills were going through for things like the parliamentary term, things like the census, and also some of the electoral reforms. So with a whole swathe of electoral reform bills that were going through the Justice Committee\u2014and were in the public consciousness, rightfully\u2014some submitters questioned whether there should be a delay in the commencement of this particular part, just to anticipate other changes with some of the other legislation as well. The select committee was satisfied that the current commencement date, which is the day after Royal assent, is a reasonable one, mainly because this is an election year. I think it is important for us to complete this particular bill so it would be immediately applicable to the 2026 general election regardless of the outcome on 7 November.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006788\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the things that the Justice Committee did decide to alter is around clause 5\u2014this is section 8 amended\u2014and one of the reasons for that is because the exception to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary must always be an MP to mirror the rule for a Minister. A few of the submitters noted an issue with the drafting, because when we\u2019re looking at this particular rule, they noted that the wording of the bill is not specific about the circumstances under which a Parliamentary Under-Secretary ceases to be an MP, which could result in the rule applying if a Parliamentary Under-Secretary ceases to be an MP for some other reason\u2014they resign part way through a parliamentary term, for example. This is something that the committee did consider seriously and, as people would note in the amended version of the bill, the select committee has made some changes to ensure that there is clarification that Parliamentary Under-Secretaries are a part of this in clause 5 of this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006789\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFinally, I think it\u2019s important that\u2014as we kind of go into the progression of this bill through the committee of the whole House stage as well as through the third reading\u2014as I mentioned at the beginning of this speech, I think it\u2019s important to round up looking at the overall context that we\u2019re seeing here in our constitutional arrangement, that, with a thriving MMP system, we may potentially see more and more of this happening; that, actually, in a healthy democratic system, it is OK for a Government\u2014and maybe voters expect\u2014that members and the elected officials take their time to ensure that they form a Government that is democratic and considers the best outcomes for New Zealanders on the whole. We also would like to see this sort of cross-party consensus when it comes to things like automatic voter registration. But in this particular case, the Green Party does support the Constitution Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022443f23de4cbd464f91833e6c466c98c0\u0022 data-id=\u0022d8f2254983ae4bad08c2cd65b7c5cfa1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006790\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022443f23de4cbd464f91833e6c466c98c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d8f2254983ae4bad08c2cd65b7c5cfa1\u0022\u003ETODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (14:32)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Constitution Amendment Bill is supported across the House. It had a vigorous and in-depth select committee process and was well looked through. It\u2019s a very sensible change to make sure our democracy continues to run smoothly and I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f36277cb754947fa93977a31a33abd49\u0022 data-id=\u0022d16058d422d59a9e81ec0af2a7b0d7ac\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006791\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f36277cb754947fa93977a31a33abd49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d16058d422d59a9e81ec0af2a7b0d7ac\u0022\u003EHon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs) (14:32)\u003C/span\u003E: I rise on behalf New Zealand First to speak on the Constitution Amendment Bill. As has been traversed in the House, this is about common-sense practical solutions, which is exactly what New Zealand First stands for. It has been through a robust process. It is critical to deliver a stable Government moving forward after an election, so we commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006792\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ad6a5cfaa0d1ce584a721240701012fa\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The next call is a split call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u00222816b3139cbaea41a578c7115b4eb9a7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006793\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222816b3139cbaea41a578c7115b4eb9a7\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (14:33)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to take a call on the Constitution Amendment Bill. I do have a few points to make on this because it is an important constitutional change. It is really interesting that this is the second bill that we\u2019ve had through the House recently that has looked to make sure that we have sustainable government despite potential emergencies. The first one that we debated earlier in this urgency period was the Emergency Management Bill (No 2) that looked at the continuity of Parliament if there was an emergency situation and the Parliament buildings were not able to be used, and so that\u2019s progressing through the House and passed its second reading. This bill also mentions that one thing that may delay the return of the writ is a weather event or an emergency situation. That is very interesting and probably, slightly, a sign of the times.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006794\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAs other members have said, we support this bill. I mean, I do support this bill, and I do think there was probably a greater opportunity to think about continuity of Government through an MMP lens, because this bill essentially maintains the existing executive through to the return of the writ, and so, when the next Parliament\u2014I think we\u2019re in the 54\u003Csup\u003Eth\u003C/sup\u003E\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006795\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221c17b665015a4b5782d411795acbdc88\u0022\u003EHon Member: \u003C/span\u003E54th.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c6e9982fa13acc060551d3ccdcee8082\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s the 54th Parliament now, so if this bill passes, then the 55th Parliament would be when this current executive would officially end, and so they would retain their warrants as Ministers, and indeed, the change from the Justice Committee is under-secretaries as well with this particular change, and the current situation, as we know, is 28 days.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006797\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe did have a situation last election where we did have a Minister who wasn\u2019t returned to Parliament, and I understand that that created some problems in terms of continuity of Government. I wasn\u2019t part of the Justice Committee when they considered this, regretfully, because it is a really interesting matter, and as colleagues have said, any change to our Constitution Act should be considered in depth. But one of the things that I think would have been quite interesting to look at\u2014and possibly might be a bit of a point against those who oppose the bill\u2014is just to look at where we have elections in New Zealand. It is very, very rare that our three-yearly election will be on the last possible weekend that that election would be due to take place. Generally, it is some time before that. This year we will have a slightly later election, but I don\u2019t believe it\u2019s the last possible election date. If people are concerned about there being no democratic mandate for people to retain their warrant until the writ is returned, I think that\u2019s probably not 100 percent accurate, because we do generally give a mandate to people to be elected for three years or until the next election, and generally, that\u2019s slightly under three years. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006798\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do think in kind of a related point, which I do think is worth considering, is because we are having this election in November, which is a little bit later than we\u2019ve had elections in other years, it does mean that the date for the next election can be pushed out slightly too. I think we\u2019re kind of nearing into slightly dangerous territory with the commencement of Christmas starting quite early in New Zealand. Often we have Christmas parties in November, and people are off for the end of the year, and I don\u2019t think it would be a positive move in our democracy to have elections any closer to Christmas, so just something to keep in mind there. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006799\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is a small change. I think a broader change that would have allowed greater continuity of Government would have been, possibly, the maintenance of warrants until the new executive was sworn in. That possibly may have been less popular with submitters in the sense that I understand there were some concerns around democratic mandate, but that would have probably given the most amount of continuity. But of course, that has to be balanced with the fact that we don\u2019t obviously want a situation\u2014and it is possible under a proportional system to have a situation where a Government, for whatever reason, can\u2019t be formed. We had discussions around that last election. Would there need to be a second election if a Government couldn\u2019t be formed? I don\u2019t think anyone in the House would want that at all, so hopefully there\u2019s a clear result in the change of Government at the election so that doesn\u2019t need to happen. This is important. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006800\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI mean, the other thing that happens is Ministers are able to maintain not only their warrant, but their terms and conditions as well so they\u2019re able to be paid as Ministers up to the return of the writ, and then their notice period kicks in. I imagine, if those people had stood for election and not been returned, then they would also have the three months\u2019 notice. In terms of those individuals, that seems perfectly fine. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006801\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other last point I wanted to make\u2014I won\u2019t use all the time for no reason\u2014is the other jurisdictions do have appointed executives. We had that situation in the United States. We had a situation in Canada where we had the current Prime Minister, who was elected in their most recent election, actually became Prime Minister prior to the election taking place, and apparently that was a situation that could have happened in New Zealand up to a certain point where there was a change in our Constitution Act. So that\u2019s another really interesting point, that democracies that we value, that are very close to New Zealand, like Canada, has had a very different situation in relation to the maintenance of executive power. Obviously, other countries like the United States have appointees that are appointed on the basis of skill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006802\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is important to have this continuity, and I think, reflecting on the way that New Zealand Governments have acted during the caretaker period, that no matter who has been in Government, it\u2019s generally been extremely respectful of the more limited role that caretaker Governments do have during the election period. This will, I think, strengthen that slightly. It\u2019s not a huge massive change, but hopefully, as I said at the beginning of my speech, because we are living in uncertain times, it does give that extra level of certainty while still making sure that the return of the writ is the final day in which the previous administration can maintain that executive power, which, as we know in New Zealand\u2014because we just have a single House\u2014is quite extensive. I won\u2019t take any longer, but Labour does support this bill and look forward to its passage through the House today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006803\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226130dd18ee20e675db7b5ba9230214d1\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: Just as we get our sequence sorted out, I\u2019m going to take a split call from the Green Party, and just to note the next call will go to the National Party, which is a full 10-minute call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022 data-id=\u0022197f3a7c3719349d571ad3d67ab129cc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006804\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022197f3a7c3719349d571ad3d67ab129cc\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON (Green) (14:40)\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EE mihi atu ana ki a t\u0101tou i t\u0113nei, t\u014D t\u0101tou R\u0101horoi noho a te K\u0101wanatanga. T\u0113n\u0101 t\u0101tou.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006805\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EGreetings to all of us on this, our Saturday sitting of the Government. Greetings to us all.\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006806\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOn behalf of the Green Party, I stand to support this piece of legislation. As we\u2019ve heard and look forward to the committee of the whole House, this is a technical change to improve but also to provide continuity of K\u0101wanatanga in a time of transition at the time of elections.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006807\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I want to recognise the submitters that provided feedback, of which there were 20 individual written submissions, as well as 19 of them being from individuals and one from an organisation, and noting that there were concerns, as mentioned previously, around allowing the K\u0101wanatanga to stay in power longer than necessary. We know that these types of contingencies are needed and that the 28-day rule could be prejudicial to providing certainty for those things that we need to do in a caretaker Government, as the transition might occur once the declaration of list MPs as well as electorate MPs is made, continuing on to the time of the writ.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006808\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe submitters who did provide comment on this legislation\u2014and knowing that this is an improvement piece of legislation; there is no objection from within the House on it. But they did bring forth broader issues and concerns in the way with which we could make improvements to our constitutional arrangements and the way that Parliament configures itself: for example, reflecting this Act to bring forth Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Treaty of Waitangi, within legislation more appropriately; examining\u2014which we\u2019re having discussions, of course, around\u2014a four-year parliamentary term; and strengthening enrolment settings for the Electoral Act to facilitate participation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006809\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoting and thanking those members of the community who did participate, because this is a unique piece of legislation, one that helps us in providing stability in times of change but also the need for us to still have a process whereby community, wh\u0101nau, and organisational voice can come forward. These are the things that are important in the way that we make decisions and inform lawmaking. That doesn\u2019t happen all the time, as we\u2019ve seen previously in other pieces of legislation, where they come through very quickly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006810\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOn balance, this small change will make a big difference. The way with which we might think of the 28-day rule is something that has been there for a long time. It\u2019s important that we reflect the times but also provide the ability for Government to be formed, for decisions to be made, and then for the writ to proceed. On behalf of the Green Party, we tautoko this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f0d31505882949b1a768aad60863fba9\u0022 data-id=\u00227352464c994ab8b5bbb99732bc5bb489\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006811\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f0d31505882949b1a768aad60863fba9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227352464c994ab8b5bbb99732bc5bb489\u0022\u003EJOSEPH MOONEY (National\u2014Southland) (14:43)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the Constitution Amendment Bill, which is to address the risk of a potential gap in the continuity of executive Government following an election. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022739b3bbed7fe4186aa30494700144b3a\u0022 data-id=\u0022a720c750ad0f3ee700a2fda13f7e1c0d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006812\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022739b3bbed7fe4186aa30494700144b3a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a720c750ad0f3ee700a2fda13f7e1c0d\u0022\u003EPAULO GARCIA (National\u2014New Lynn) (14:43)\u003C/span\u003E: The Constitution Amendment Bill is an important change to ensure continuity at election time. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006813\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d24ce6097c9078e2084f382c17e6278c\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The next call is a split call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f988bc72b5e47b8856ba70e41dfbbaf\u0022 data-id=\u0022fdb9c7bff17c699a5da9b28f5368fa08\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f988bc72b5e47b8856ba70e41dfbbaf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fdb9c7bff17c699a5da9b28f5368fa08\u0022\u003EGEORGIE DANSEY (Labour) (14:43)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. It\u2019s good to speak on the Constitution Amendment Bill. It\u2019s really interesting to look at the detail of this and that the Constitution Act, as it is currently, only allows the Minister to continue for 28 days after they cease to be an MP. This bill will ensure that when there are delays in forming the next Government in the future, there is no risk to the continuity of Government. We all support a streamlined approach, and this will, indeed, streamline moving into the next Government more so than we have in our current legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006815\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EInterestingly, thinking about a caretaker Government and what a caretaker Government might do\u2014as we saw in the previous election, that ministerial portfolio of our foreign affairs Minister was passed on to another Minister. I mean, it sounds like, OK, fine, that\u2019s quite simple, but, actually, when you think about the detail, that\u2019s not really that simple. The kind of administration and effort that goes into swearing in another Minister, even into a caretaking Government, is quite considerable, but also understanding the portfolio. The previous Minister has just had a bunch of time in that portfolio and has a deep knowledge\u2014well, you\u2019d hope would have a very deep knowledge\u2014of that portfolio, and passing it on to someone else for a couple of weeks or however long isn\u2019t that efficient. Also, the connections with stakeholders and the Public Service and ministries is an important aspect of that, and a person having to get their head around a whole portfolio to be in there as a caretaker for a couple of weeks before it goes to the next Government is not streamlined as we would have liked.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006816\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI saw, connected to this bill, in the previous Government, Chris Hipkins had to be sworn in again as Prime Minister before the National Government came in. That\u2019s another sort of administrative aspect that isn\u2019t necessary and won\u2019t be necessary under this bill by extending it past the 28 days.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006817\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI listened to the other speakers and concerns from submitters\u2014I didn\u2019t sit on the select committee\u2014around giving more power to a departing Government. I think that\u2019s a good thing for us to look at: is this going to give undue power to the Government that is departing? But looking at the legislation and the precedent of a caretaker Government and the respectfulness that parties of all stripes have shown in the past, it feels like that won\u2019t be the case and instead that continuation is going to be the priority. With that, Labour supports this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002288978fb9592a4911a8e47eae04d164f3\u0022 data-id=\u0022e421a59fc1fe54107af411fafc6da39a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006818\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002288978fb9592a4911a8e47eae04d164f3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e421a59fc1fe54107af411fafc6da39a\u0022\u003EDr VANESSA WEENINK (National\u2014Banks Peninsula) (14:47)\u003C/span\u003E: I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002242067e22c7a349218b3b868f58eda79d\u0022 data-id=\u0022925e358a842a3fbad50ae1df6cdd372d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006819\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002242067e22c7a349218b3b868f58eda79d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022925e358a842a3fbad50ae1df6cdd372d\u0022\u003ERACHEL BOYACK (Labour\u2014Nelson) (14:47)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It\u2019s a pleasure to take a call on the Constitution Amendment Bill. As previous speakers have noted, what this does is ensure there\u2019s continuity of Government following an election and following a potential change of Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006820\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAt the moment, the Constitution Act provides that a Minister can continue as a Minister for 28 days after they cease to be an MP. However, if there are delays after that and a Minister hasn\u2019t been returned as an MP, we have a situation whereby they cannot be sworn in again and continue to be a Minister. This specifically relates to the return of the writ. If the writ is delayed for any reason, if we have some type of crisis, some type of weather event, some type of pandemic\u2014we\u2019ve had these situations in the past, not, thankfully, around election time, but they have occurred and disrupted the ability of State organisations to do their job. There is that risk that if the writ is not returned, we have a situation where a Minister cannot continue to act as a Minister past that 28 days.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006821\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s worth just noting what happened last time, which was that former Minister Nanaia Mahuta was not returned as an MP, but she was only able to stay as a Minister for 28 days. What happened after that was that the new Government on the other side had not yet been formed, and so while that was actually unrelated to the return of the writ, it did mean that she could no longer operate as a Minister after that 28 days. If that delay hadn\u2019t been caused due to formation of Government but had been delayed due to some type of emergency that caused a delay in the return of the writ, then that would have been a problem in terms of continuity of Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006822\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s interesting to think about what could happen when we have the change of Government in November. We could end up with a few Ministers who may end up being affected by a clause like this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006823\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d52c571cdb246f6abf50a39de1a66f7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223552e17304713ecae787eca0f2cf336d\u0022\u003EGlen Bennett\u003C/span\u003E: Really?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006824\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002242067e22c7a349218b3b868f58eda79d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022148b84056467b7ffecc8d2fb57a1bb2b\u0022\u003ERACHEL BOYACK\u003C/span\u003E: There could be a few. I mean, we could end up in a situation where the Minister of Finance may not be able to continue operating as the Minister of Finance after 28 days. We could end up with the person sponsoring the bill today, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, not being able to continue in his duties after 28 days. Mr Bishop, if Mr Bishop loses his seat and he doesn\u2019t get back in on the list\u2014because if people like Carlos Cheung or Vanessa Weenink win their seats, what that does is it means we end up with no list MPs in the National Party. We could have a situation where there are no list MPs in the National Party. Then what happens? We have no Minister of Finance, we have no Mr Bishop, we have no Minister of Justice. Do we even have a Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006825\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f7aa88bde30ee806770048c28b31fa29\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: I don\u2019t have a crystal ball, I can\u2019t tell you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006826\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002242067e22c7a349218b3b868f58eda79d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022efa028332368edf451e3f3c77bd7173e\u0022\u003ERACHEL BOYACK\u003C/span\u003E: So there\u2019s some very real risk for the National Party here, as we approach this Government. It could also affect the ACT Party, given that we could end up losing a few ACT Party MPs. Yeah, so we might end up in a bit of a strange situation where, you know, we don\u2019t have a Minister of Finance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006827\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f6c5b1a97f24773a8aaeb3a8e3b0e7b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f60a71fcbea31159dd0ce1507cca4e98\u0022\u003EJamie Arbuckle\u003C/span\u003E: A lot more NZ First MPs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006828\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002242067e22c7a349218b3b868f58eda79d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229e90b0927f4215c6045c425c9d0b5622\u0022\u003ERACHEL BOYACK\u003C/span\u003E: Goodness me\u2014oh, NZ First. I think they might be getting a few more MPs, potentially. That\u2019s sort of how things are looking. So I think they\u2019re going to pinch some off National and ACT, potentially, at this election. So we\u2019ll see, we\u2019ll see. \u201CMinister Arbuckle\u201D, that could be a\u2014Minister Arbuckle could get sworn in for a few days. There we go.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006829\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThis is an important bill though, because the continuity of Government is important. It\u2019s important that the bills are paid. It\u2019s important that if there is some type of emergency like a pandemic, like a war, that we end up entering into\u2014any of these types of things\u2014that we actually do have a Government that\u2019s able to provide that stability when a change of Government is happening. We look forward to the change of Government on 7 November, and Labour commends this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022 data-id=\u0022bc31c102a928a1935f90934c9cf0e928\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006830\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bc31c102a928a1935f90934c9cf0e928\u0022\u003ETOM RUTHERFORD (National\u2014Bay of Plenty) (14:51)\u003C/span\u003E: I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d52c571cdb246f6abf50a39de1a66f7\u0022 data-id=\u0022bc28be59501fc4bcfcb1881927a06265\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d52c571cdb246f6abf50a39de1a66f7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bc28be59501fc4bcfcb1881927a06265\u0022\u003EGLEN BENNETT (Labour) (14:51)\u003C/span\u003E: Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity. In reflecting and listening to the contributions this afternoon, I looked at the two pieces of legislation that are being discussed. One is the Constitution Act of 1986, and the other is the Electoral Act of 1993. Both the pieces of legislation are Acts that predate MMP, which is 30-years-old this year. Was it 13 October, I think, 1996 was the first MMP election? And so things have changed since then. It is a different time, and in terms of the process of election night and the process of course of counting the votes, and then of course the party vote and trying to figure out and understand what the make up of the new Parliament looks like, it is quite different to what it was in 1986 or what it was in 1993, when it was a far simpler but, I think, a less diverse political system. Therefore, it is good that we bring this piece of legislation to the House this afternoon, to look at what we do and if it is fit for purpose, and we\u2019ll be discussing it in the committee of the whole House stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006832\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs I was thinking about why we need to do this, one: of course MMP has changed the landscape of what the Parliament looks like, and how long it takes to form a Government or a coalition Government. The second part for me was around looking at models around the world and how different it is. Of course, the Westminster system is very binary, and many of us\u2014well, probably all of us in this House\u2014might remember the morning after the night before of an election. You get that phone call from some random number saying, \u201CHello, congratulations, you\u2019ve been elected. We\u2019ve just booked a flight for you at 6.30 tomorrow morning. Please be ready to fly to Wellington.\u201D So suddenly you\u2019re on this flight the next day to Wellington and it\u2019s all sort of a, you know, possum in the headlights kind of thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006833\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhereas, you look at jurisdictions around the world\u2014an example would be the United States, where they have their elections generally, or depending what cycle it is, but an example is the start of November. So an election is held for a member of Congress at the start of November, but then they don\u2019t actually get sworn in. There\u2019s not actually the transition until the start of January of the next year. So it makes it clearer, and there\u2019s obviously time to make those changes, to put those things in place. We don\u2019t have that here. It is, as I say, one night you win and then 48 hours later, or less, you\u2019re actually down here in Parliament preparing to be sworn in and take up your office. What your area of the office may be.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006834\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe look forward to the committee stage and having some good robust discussion, making sure that this is small and simple and it is the right thing to do. But obviously, as members of the Opposition, our job is to scrutinise and to ensure that the public feel confident that we have done due process to make sure that when it comes out the other end, this piece of legislation, when it\u2019s enacted, is effective and will do what it says on the biscuit tin. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006835\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006836\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a second time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006837\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cc67939279d28e9af36dc7cf95373a41\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The Constitution Amendment Bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Constitution Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006838\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022532a47f72136f04908bd2523d54e4715\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006839\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d64a8709d44341457faf5d2da50c623b\u0022\u003EClause 1 Title\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006840\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d530b60c27a7e19c5bcaf89f8bc8f3c4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the House is in committee on the Constitution Amendment Bill. We start with the debate on clause 1, \u201CTitle\u201D. The question is that clause 1 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u0022319f9b5c1d290fd9b75b59336cdd0ad6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006841\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022319f9b5c1d290fd9b75b59336cdd0ad6\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (14:55)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. This is probably the\u2014I have a few questions which I\u2019ll ask, kind of in good faith. They\u2019re not trick questions; just to elucidate some answers from the Minister to, I think, probably clarify the intention of the legislation and its constitutional purpose. So just with the title, I understand from Standing Orders that sometimes when you have an overall question around the bill this might be an appropriate place to raise it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006842\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWe did have some concerns around this bill, in terms of the fact that after enacting this the executive, rather than ending 28 days after the election, could continue indefinitely until the return of the writ. So I just wondered if the Minister could perhaps assure the public that there are other checks and balances in place that mean that despite this bill, there is a opportunity for there to be regular elections and other constitutional checks that ensure that democracy continues. That is certainly my understanding, but I think, given the tenor of some of the submissions\u2014as I understand, to the select committee\u2014it might be good to have that clarification made by the Minister. So in terms of the fact that there was a singular date of ending, previously, in the Constitution Act, and now that there isn\u2019t a definite date, although there\u2019s a trigger point for that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022f5f376f35dc964df7c8667c558929704\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006843\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f5f376f35dc964df7c8667c558929704\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (14:57)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Just also on the title, and I think this is something that we have seen with some of the other titles that are brought in front of the House, where on a bill that has the kind of content which, literally, has constitutional significance, like the Constitution Act, often they could create confusions between what the public perceives as the Constitution Act and now the Constitution Amendment Act. I just want to check with the Minister if any consideration was given on how that could be clearer. Obviously, we\u2019ve seen multiple Acts or bills that go through the House that have the inclusion of a bracket, which makes it a little bit more, I guess, visible to the general public and those who are interested, that it\u2019s referring to a specific thing as opposed to without such additional identifiers as a bracket.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006844\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe other thing that I also want to check with the Minister, and I\u2019m assuming this is going to be, hopefully, just a miniature update, noting that we\u2019re no longer in 2025. So whether this will be automatically updated to reflect that it is 2026? So those are my two questions to start with, and I\u2019m noting that my colleague, Camilla Belich and her questions are quite pertinent. I do have questions around that, but I\u2019ll leave it to a later clause.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022 data-id=\u0022b7901ee773a65fa1e902315b45f76982\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006845\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b7901ee773a65fa1e902315b45f76982\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (14:58)\u003C/span\u003E: In relation to the first question, which I couldn\u2019t connect with the title but nevertheless I will endeavour to answer it. All this bill does is, rather than 28 days after the election being the trigger point, it is when the writ is returned. Now, that might be 29 days or 30 days, but it doesn\u2019t change the overall checks and balances in our system at all. They remain as strong or as weak as they were before the bill and are not changed by the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006846\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn terms of Mr Xu-Nan\u2019s comments, I struggled to make any sense of them. So maybe he might elucidate it again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006847\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bacd12ca3789b22fce923d00bc0849d4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Taking up that invitation, Lawrence Xu-Nan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00228e0bbe053fe8f7ca497faa72806c6572\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006848\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228e0bbe053fe8f7ca497faa72806c6572\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (14:59)\u003C/span\u003E: Absolutely. I was hoping that\u2014you know what? If we had the Plain Language Act Repeal Bill, then maybe that would have been a little bit clearer. So my question is: is the title sufficiently different enough from \u201CConstitution Act\u201D for it to be made clear? My second question is: will 2025 be updated to 2026?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022 data-id=\u0022b4a8d21274350f72d4d972c201ab88cb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006849\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b4a8d21274350f72d4d972c201ab88cb\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (15:00)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, in relation to the second point, I imagine it will. In regard to the first element of it, I think the Constitution Amendment Bill says what it means, which is that we\u2019re amending the Constitution Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006850\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EClause 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006851\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c2f20fc9fcd488b051254b6a5a8e2cae\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006852\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022cc41ccd6c5ec32582be81e806f87fb7d\u0022\u003EClause 2 Commencement\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006853\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d087d206894c821e298c658dc6e52176\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: We come now to the debate on clause 2, \u201CCommencement\u201D. The question is that clause 2 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022d2e47f8bea39e1f7331ccbcda17ae451\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006854\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d2e47f8bea39e1f7331ccbcda17ae451\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (15:00)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Noting that the commencement is the day after Royal assent, I want to check: originally, this bill was reported back to the House, I believe, at the end of last year, or even the beginning of this year. It\u2019s been a little while ago, which is why, I think, that Steve said 2025 and not 2026, because we were supposed to pass this last year. Despite the fact that it\u2019s the day after Royal assent, is there sufficient time for elements of this bill to take effect?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022 data-id=\u00223ef6800f27eca5b1ec19dfea11e5ee88\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006855\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223ef6800f27eca5b1ec19dfea11e5ee88\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (15:01)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022df013981b26766f23278b772a25547c3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022df013981b26766f23278b772a25547c3\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (15:01)\u003C/span\u003E: Can I just check from you if the Minister is also taking directions from the Government side in his response?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006857\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229d7f2051de1eac2cc094b167460ffcbf\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, I think the Minister is experienced enough, probably, to be his own man in the chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006858\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EClause 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006859\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002288727fbc07bd28af29698683c116ba1d\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006860\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u002292902f85b3aae23adb8e84db0b0b346b\u0022\u003EClause 3 Principal Act\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006861\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e08498541b9a83304107564f4412f22b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019re coming now to the debate on clause 3, the \u201CPrincipal Act\u201D. The question is that clause 3 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006862\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EClause 3 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006863\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c38508c6733d27bb9d5f78bb219a4d00\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006864\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u00220abd914f474b5b3059ec3ee6edc92acb\u0022\u003EClause 4 Section 6 amended (Ministers of Crown to be members of Parliament)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006865\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c69b2b1b83fdd8c691431f134ab3574e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: We come now to clause 4, the debate on \u201CSection 6 amended (Ministers of Crown to be members of Parliament)\u201D. The question is that clause 4 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u0022c1dffeb00e47d3e13ccc0f7587cd879a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006866\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c1dffeb00e47d3e13ccc0f7587cd879a\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (15:02)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. This is probably one of the more substantive clauses of this bill, and enacts, essentially, the purpose of it. I did check back to the Electoral Act and the sections of the Constitution Act that they\u2019re amending, and it appears to me that they look like they\u2019re in order. Hopefully, my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan has also checked, and he will raise any questions that he has on that at the time. I mean, we are here in urgency discussing a bill\u2014even though it is minor\u2014of constitutional significance, and so it would be appreciated if the Minister could engage with answering what are serious questions and not ask to simply delay it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006867\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere is a change in this bill which means that, rather than 28 days after an election, the executive can continue\u2014as I read it, and please correct me if I\u2019m wrong, Minister\u2014indefinitely until the return of the writ. Some assurances around that, I think, is a legitimate question to ask, which we didn\u2019t hear a response to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006868\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other questions I have in relation to this bill: if you read the cover note on it, which I know is not part of the bill, it talks about recounts and electorate seats. I did have a bit of a think about how this worked, and my understanding\u2014I\u2019d appreciate, if this is not correct, that this could be clarified\u2014is that the relevance of electoral candidate recounts in relation to the list, which is listed here and there\u2019s a definition of \u201Clist candidate\u201D in new section 6(3), inserted by clause 4, the relevance of the recounts is that, if there is a recount in an electorate seat, the list cannot be determined until the recount has been completed. And so, even though the cover note talks about recounts in electorates\u2014it\u2019s obviously the common area to have a recount when you have an electorate vote, whereas the list is obviously over the entire country, and it\u2019s a little bit more difficult to do a full recount of every single booth in the entire country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006869\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe relevance of the electorate seats is that, if there is a recount, then the list can\u2019t be finalised, and the list being finalised is, as I understand, the trigger for the final writ to then be issued and the members of Parliament to be determined. I\u2019d appreciate some confirmation that that is correct, because when you read the cover note and the bill, it isn\u2019t as clear as it could be, but I think, probably, that that is the place to do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006870\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do have another question which I might just raise now, which is around whether the Minister thought to consider any advice around caretaker principles at all during that period of time. Obviously, we are talking about a period of time where there has been a general election and prior to a new executive being sworn in. By its nature, that would lend itself to being a caretaker period. That is, I understand, governed by the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ECabinet Manual\u003C/span\u003E, but, obviously, if there was going to be any legislative change to that or a re-assertion or a codification of that need for the caretaker principles to be in place during that period of time\u2014whether the Minister considered that that might be something to include in this bill so that it was clear the manner in which the executive continued in office, because that is the subject of this bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022 data-id=\u0022748eea987e8dfa152c825f07e8de0123\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006871\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022748eea987e8dfa152c825f07e8de0123\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) (15:06)\u003C/span\u003E: In answer to the last question, no, I didn\u2019t consider changing or legislating differently for the rules in relation to the caretaker period, because the bill doesn\u2019t change it in any way. It does, yes, potentially prolong that period for a number of days if there is a very unusual and unexpected event that delays the announcement of the writ or the declaration of the writ, but, I think, as a country with the potential question marks over the 1984 election and behaviour following that, since that period, there has been no real issues that I can recall from caretaker Governments acting in a way that was at all controversial. I think this country has a good system in place and a good understanding, and so I didn\u2019t give any serious thought to changing that in any way, shape, or form in relation to this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006872\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAs regards the first point, why it\u2019s linked to the declaration of the listing fees: yes, that is the final piece of the jigsaw before the writ can be declared, because the outcome of an electorate seat going one way or the other will have implications for the list, because it\u2019s the overall percentage of the votes that are determined by the listing, so the interaction between electorate seats and list MPs is the final piece of the jigsaw.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u002203af916a144a251266b9fc4b49e6e095\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006873\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002203af916a144a251266b9fc4b49e6e095\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (15:07)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019ve got a couple of questions for the Minister on clause 4, as well. I think one of the first questions is something that we were seeing addressed earlier, but if the Minister wouldn\u2019t mind providing further elucidation. The submitters were worried about the kind of decisions that the caretaker Government Ministers would be able to make. It was alluded to in the report that this is something that is currently covered under \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ECabinet Manual\u003C/span\u003E, but if the Minister wouldn\u2019t mind just highlighting what are some of the, I guess, limitations that a caretaker Government is able to make in terms of making such decisions. I think that would be helpful to have on record but, also, for the public and for those who are submitting on this to be reassured by those limitations. That would be my first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006874\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFollowing on from what my colleague Camilla Belich mentioned in terms of the list candidates, I think one of the things I want to check with the Minister and, again, I\u2019m not our electoral reform spokesperson, but I\u2019m interested to know what happens in the event of a by-election. We have an example from the 2023 election, particularly with the Port Waikato seat, where a by-election was triggered roughly around the same time as a general election. If someone who was in place at the time who then wasn\u2019t elected and ceased to be an MP, how would they be captured under this particular clause, if at all?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006875\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy final question for this contribution is around the changes to clause 4, subclause (1), this replacement section 6(2)(b). Currently the wording is, I believe, \u201Cuntil the expiration of the 28\u003Csup\u003Eth\u003C/sup\u003E day after the day on which the person ceases to be a member of Parliament\u201D. Now, I know that a lot of things we\u2019re doing are also precautionary in nature, but I do want to check, except for a few examples, as mentioned, and that, to my knowledge, hasn\u2019t happened recently.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006876\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo the question I wanted to ask\u2014which hasn\u2019t been tested recently\u2014is if it\u2019s until \u201Cthe close of the day after the day on which the Electoral Commission declares,\u201D what then happens in those 24 hours, or potentially longer, from when the Electoral Commission declares until the next day? How does having that extra 24 hours work in this case with regard to our now having declared elected list candidates, but the people are still in their custodial ministerial positions for another 24 hours? According to how it\u2019s written, there might be additional considerations that I\u2019m not aware of, but I wanted to check with the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006877\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just wanted to check. I know that a lot of these sections might seem quite small, but it would be good to get engagement from the Minister. But if the Minister is still seeking advice, we will be able to just cover some of that in future parts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u002254820832fcef61de6d733f78fb077619\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006878\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002254820832fcef61de6d733f78fb077619\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (15:11)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I do have a question that could sit into the next clause, which is what I was considering waiting for, but seeing as the Minister of Justice is getting advice, I\u2019ll ask it here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006879\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWe do have an issue in New Zealand where, during the period of time between elections, we don\u2019t actually\u2014as I understand it\u2014have a Speaker. A Speaker, obviously, has control of the Parliament Buildings and they have quite a lot of jurisdiction in relation to that, and so I wanted to ask the Minister whether he had considered including the Speaker\u2014I\u2019m assuming they\u2019re excluded as they\u2019re not a member of the executive\u2014in some of these provisions in order to ensure that continuity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022 data-id=\u0022220cbb6c1f074d8e282d9ea56e2fc8ae\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006880\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022220cbb6c1f074d8e282d9ea56e2fc8ae\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (15:11)\u003C/span\u003E: No, I didn\u2019t.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006881\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EClause 4 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006882\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022edd9784235a3c244aa31e7e58514cd62\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006883\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ccc6193e4f7d561556312a0c53a0fa55\u0022\u003EClause 5 Section 8 amended (Appointment of Parliamentary Under-Secretaries)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006884\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226a9ff3ee901970406bd8fb9c230337b5\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: We come now to clause 5. This is the debate on clause 5, \u201CSection 8 amended (Appointment of Parliamentary Under-Secretaries)\u201D. The question is that clause 5 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u002239654fa700ddff0f7e22ca68a2ca8ff2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006885\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002239654fa700ddff0f7e22ca68a2ca8ff2\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (15:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I understand that this is the last bill in urgency, but it would be good to have some constructive engagement. I know that the Minister of Justice has the officials here, and I want to acknowledge the officials, who are here on their weekend. It may be Tuesday here for us, in Parliament, but for the rest of the world, it\u2019s Saturday. I know that they have a lot of knowledge in this area, and so I\u2019m sure that if the Minister wishes to get some advice, he will be able to do that and it will be very good advice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006886\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo the questions I have in relation to clause 5, firstly, this was substantively changed by the Justice Committee, and I wanted to ask the Minister whether he agreed with the changes in relation to Parliamentary Under-Secretaries. I have a genuine question. I haven\u2019t had time to check it prior to now, but I understand that a Parliamentary Under-Secretary isn\u2019t a member of the executive, and I want to just clarify that, because that seems to bring other people into it, which is why I was going to ask about the Speaker in this question, as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006887\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other question I had is this. We seem to have a situation here where a list candidate is defined in section 3(1) of the Electoral Act, but this is included in this bill, both in new section 6(3) in clause 4, which we\u2019ve just concluded our debate on, but also in new section 8(40 in clause 5. I just wanted know whether, from a drafting perspective, it is necessary to have those two, essentially, identical provisions, which are only referring back to the exact preceding provision in the reference to a list candidate. But it is, in fact, the same definition.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022c50100986663e2ad0f892c8b2a86dbe7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006888\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c50100986663e2ad0f892c8b2a86dbe7\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (15:13)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I just also note, like my colleague Camilla Belich has said, that while this is a bill that we all agree on and it is a reasonably small bill, it does have quite an important role and it holds constitutional significance. We\u2019ve asked quite a few questions on the last clause and we\u2019ve heard very little from the Minister of Justice regarding engagement. But I can see that the officials are, obviously, here and are providing additional information for the Minister, and so if the Minister wouldn\u2019t mind responding to our questions, that would be appreciated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EFor clause 5, I wanted to check with the Minister in terms of what the Justice Committee has agreed to update in this new section 8(3)(a) in clause 5, which is around a Parliamentary Under-Secretary continuing to hold office during the period \u201Cbeginning on the day that they must vacate office as a member of Parliament\u201D under various parts of the Electoral Act. This does, I guess, in some ways tie in to what Camilla Belich mentioned previously regarding the Parliamentary Under-Secretary being in this weird, limbo role between being both in the executive and not in the executive. I wanted to know why that particular provision doesn\u2019t apply, for example, to Ministers of the Crown. For example, do Ministers of the Crown also then have to do that, beginning on the day that they must vacate office as a member of Parliament, under those particular sections. So if the Minister wouldn\u2019t mind, do let us know what the difference is between Ministers of the Crown and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022 data-id=\u00224c5195e8fe0b743a0312ac61419c76e5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006890\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224c5195e8fe0b743a0312ac61419c76e5\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (15:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. In answer to Ms Belich\u2019s question around whether I agree with the amendment which includes Parliamentary Under-Secretaries, yes, I do, and the Government does. It hadn\u2019t been included in the Constitution Act originally, and it\u2019s not an earth-shattering change. Ultimately, it was the Ministers and the executive that were concerned about to ensure that we have Ministers after the 28 days, if there is an issue. But it doesn\u2019t hurt to have Parliamentary Under-Secretaries, as well, and so we\u2019re including them in order to be consistent across the way that the arrangements are in place. So, yes, it wasn\u2019t included; yes, the Justice Committee considered it and recommended it; and, yes, the Government of the day agrees with it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006891\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn terms of the question around whether or not the drafting refers back to the clause before, my advice is that the Parliamentary Counsel Office\u2014which is the part of the Government that drafts these bills\u2014has said that it was necessary for clarity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00221de9d9ce7fc077fb015dccbacd5b2ba6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006892\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221de9d9ce7fc077fb015dccbacd5b2ba6\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (15:17)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to check with the Minister of Justice whether the Minister also has the response to what we\u2019ve asked, or, particularly, to what I\u2019ve asked in terms of\u2014let alone that there are still questions outstanding from the previous clause. But in terms of this particular clause\u2014specifically, new section 8(3)(a) in clause 5\u2014I ask whether that particular provision applies only to Parliamentary Under-Secretaries, or should it also be applicable to Ministers of the Crown.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ENoting that the Minister is just seeking some additional advice, I do want to check this with the Minister, as well, as a part of this is around the purpose this bill in the sense that it is mainly so that the Governor-General is able to have advisers. From what the Minister said before, which was that it was nice to have Parliamentary Under-Secretaries as part of this, I\u2019m just also checking that Parliamentary Under-Secretaries also, in some ways\u2014maybe via a Minister\u2014also advise the Governor-General.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022 data-id=\u002259e74532e2611c66076a20060f623697\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006894\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002259e74532e2611c66076a20060f623697\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (15:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Just returning to the initial question around new section 8(3) in clause 5, about whether what applies to Parliamentary Under-Secretaries also applies to Ministers: yes, it does. That\u2019s in new section 6(2)(b) in clause 4(1), which is the relevant one there. My advice is that they deal with the same issues.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006895\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 5 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006896\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill to be reported without amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006897\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHouse resumed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006898\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224465fe62dfb9da4a45f7ec0929250a91\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Constitution Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the report be adopted\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006899\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006900\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EReport adopted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006901\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221eda622879054969cf75a1a252c98124\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: The Constitution Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006902\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00224c1767ed40deace4e7dc01c34e9c6ed6\u0022\u003ELegislative Statement\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022 data-id=\u00227ca15513bdb37d5d47fdf998d6acc898\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006903\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227ca15513bdb37d5d47fdf998d6acc898\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (15:19)\u003C/span\u003E: I present a legislative statement on the Constitution Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006904\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f982fcbd7a53e3b8e1c93a6b78e1b302\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono)\u003C/span\u003E: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006905\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022184665b851a0c0d8299c4d7ea2430278\u0022\u003EThird Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022 data-id=\u00220b5905148e45d6540ab110af0ee4b2a5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006906\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220b5905148e45d6540ab110af0ee4b2a5\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (15:19)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Constitution Amendment Bill be now read a third time\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006907\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to acknowledge the support across the House for this legislation after a long period of urgency where Parliament has been very busy for a very extended period of time until late in the evening, with the support of many people across this building. I want to acknowledge the hard efforts of everybody across the House and in the various rooms and back rooms and corridors and all over the place, including security\u2014thank you very much for this extended period, which we\u2019re now coming to the end of. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006908\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill, as we\u2019ve just heard, is a simple bill that addresses a little issue that has come up in previous elections whereby\u2014after we\u2019ve had an election, and we\u2019re waiting for the final results and what\u2019s called the writ being declared, which has the final results of who are the new MPs in the new Government or the new Parliament\u2014there is a period of time, after 28 days, where MPs are no longer MPs. If you can\u2019t be a Minister or if you\u2019re not an MP, we\u2019ve got a problem, and so this legislation does away with that 28-day rule and has as a trigger point the declaration of the writ. It\u2019s something that everybody across the Parliament agrees with; it changes our settings, and it is just a small detail that we decided is worth getting corrected. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006909\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt sits within the context of a parliamentary system that has, throughout its history, managed the transition of power between Governments in our democracy very effectively. This is a small way in which this Government is fixing the basics when it comes to our democratic system so that we can build a future together.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u00222cb6d5601dd036022451400fd491073d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222cb6d5601dd036022451400fd491073d\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (15:22)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It\u2019s a pleasure to take a call on this Constitution Amendment Bill\u2014as the Minister said, the last bill that we\u2019re debating now in this rather long period of urgency, but an important bill. Any amendments to our constitution are important. Of course, in New Zealand, we have the Constitution Act, but we also have an unwritten constitution, so anything that stipulates how our constitutional conventions are to occur is of probably increased importance, because this bill will form a part of our constitution as it stands, as an unwritten constitution.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006911\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think any bill that challenges our democracy does deserve scrutiny. I do know that there are checks and balances in place to ensure that when you have bad faith actors in Government\u2014which hopefully we never will have\u2014these types of provisions aren\u2019t utilised in a way that would seek to defeat the purposes of our democracy. I\u2019m sure that will never happen in New Zealand, but certainly when we are considering these bills, it\u2019s important to scrutinise them and to ensure that those kinds of things wouldn\u2019t happen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006912\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill does do an important thing; it does change the 28-day rule for members of the executive\u2014so Ministers and MPs, and in fact the Prime Minister, the leader of our country. Instead of that ending 28 days after an election, it ends with the return of the writ. I think a check and balance on that, which would have been good to hear articulated by the Minister, is that this will only come into effect when there is an election, because the writ will only be able to be returned when there is an election. We would hope that this doesn\u2019t impact\u2014and I\u2019m sure that it won\u2019t\u2014the regularity of our elections, and the good faith, as I mentioned earlier, that we have generally had in New Zealand in relation to the caretaker provisions when there has been an election to ensure the smooth transition of Government, and also the utmost respect that the democratic vote is given to determine the executive. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006913\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOf course, that\u2019s not as clear-cut as it is in some jurisdictions, because we have an election and then it\u2019s up to those of us lucky enough to be in a position to earn a seat in this House to try to negotiate the confidence of the House. That confidence of the House can take a period of time, and that does mean that there does need to be different conversations. It is, I suppose, sobering to reflect on\u2014I think my colleague Glen Bennett said it was 30 years from the introduction of MMP. I don\u2019t believe, personally, that that has fully matured as much as it possibly could have in terms of the different repercussions that you do have in an MMP election. I\u2019m sure that we will continue to see that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006914\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOf course, with the last election, we did have a period of time that was protracted\u2014probably more from earning the confidence of the House. The coalition negotiations took a period of time, and we did have a longer caretaker period, which meant that the 28-day rule had to be extended. I understand that that was on the request of the incoming Prime Minister\u2014so, of course, a lot of good faith there and a lot of intention to make sure that this is done properly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI did want to just echo the comments that we\u2019re obviously in a situation of urgency where we\u2019ve just given speeches on the second reading and obviously had scrutiny in the committee of the whole House stage. I won\u2019t repeat all of those points again, but I did want to just add a little kind of quirky political point. My good friend and former colleague Grant Robertson did write a book, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EAnything Could Happen\u003C/span\u003E, and in that book, he noted a really interesting point around these caretaker provisions, which was that he, prior to coming into Parliament, had been a diplomat, and he had kind of always thought about the position of being Minister of Foreign Affairs. He had, I don\u2019t think, ever been Minister of Foreign Affairs, obviously being the Minister of Finance, which is a very senior and important position within Government. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006916\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut, because of this 28-day rule being in place, he was sworn in to be the Minister of Foreign Affairs for a very short period of time, and this was significant for him to note it in his very good book \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EAnything Could Happen\u003C/span\u003E. Maybe in future editions, he can reflect on the fact that that situation is unlikely to happen again due to the passage of this Constitution Amendment Bill, which I commend to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022465b4dad327763c6f0877530e6ec6a47\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006917\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022465b4dad327763c6f0877530e6ec6a47\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (15:27)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Hopefully this is the last time I need to get up during this urgency. I have lost track of how many\u2014I have genuinely lost track. I hope that members of this House also take comfort in knowing that this is the last time that they hear my voice for at least two weeks.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006918\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe are kind of on the final stretch of this particular urgency by the Government. I do want to express\u2014because the Minister has sort of opened the scope into just having a broader expression of thanks to everyone who works in Parliament, as well as all of our officials during this period, for providing advice and continuously providing services. That includes, obviously, the Chamber Officers, the Office of the Clerk, those at Copperfield\u2019s, security, officials who have to work very late into the night, and also translators who are, unfortunately, a very small team who may not have the same flexibility as some of the others to be able to do things in shifts. Indeed, even MPs have that flexibility and ability. We do want to thank all of you for this period.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006919\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf you\u2019ll indulge me, Mr Speaker, I do want to reiterate the fact that during this urgency period, we have seen 21 bills being discussed in various forms across 34 stages\u2014which some would some is an achievement, and some would say, is it really the best use of Parliament time, but also is this the most democratic? But, you know what, if the Government have KPIs they want to tick off, then KPIs are KPIs. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006920\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust on this bill\u2014as we have mentioned in the second reading\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006921\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227d19573a8ba4d8283b17374978c8ea2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b05664d708f90bf4b47f0c863f893a92\u0022\u003EGrant McCallum\u003C/span\u003E: Commend the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006922\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228f4e5e5114c2719277b64790b4f98b04\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014it is something that is\u2014members on the Government side are saying just to commend the bill, but I think I physically\u2014physically\u2014cannot finish a speech that is shorter than 10 minutes. I will say that the exception that I have given, as people in this House would know, is for the valedictory speech of the Hon Judith Collins. I did shorten my speech, and I made a special mention of that, and that\u2019s just in recognition of her years of service. If anyone who has been around for more than two decades would like to suddenly announce that they are retiring, I will shorten my speech.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006923\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn terms of the Constitution Amendment Bill here\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006924\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221b7a370575ba4864153e7dfc60a8387a\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Is that an invitation for anyone in the House at the moment?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b36fe37f06561cbac1a31c049dab53c8\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014I do want to say that, with this bill, it is an important change, as we have discussed both in the second reading but also in the committee stage. I think the first thing is to highlight that, as we\u2019re discussing this reasonably short five-clause bill and we go through clause by clause as opposed to part by part, that it is good to hear from the Minister of Justice the reassurance that, despite the fact that this bill was supposed to come back into the House at end of last year, that we are seeing that even though after Royal assent that the nature of this bill does lend itself to be implemented quite quickly. Also, it\u2019s very assuring to hear from the Minister that as well that the title of this bill will be updated to 2026 to reflect the fact that we\u2019re no longer in 2025.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006926\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOnce we get into the substance of our clause 4 and 5 of the bill, it is worth noting that the previous speaker, Camilla Belich, has already mentioned the constitutional importance of this. We would have liked to see a little bit more engagement from the Minister, in terms of some of the questions and also some of the context that this could come up. Again, even if you look at the departmental report, it\u2019s a very short departmental report, and there is not a lot of information in there. So if a constitutional situation or issue does come up, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E then becomes the default of how we are able to have that clarity from the ministerial statement. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006927\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere are a few things that I think it\u2019s important for us to address on some of the conversations that we did have here. I think the first one is around the 28 days and the important part around the removal of that\u2014we have discussed the event of force majeure, which, potentially, would affect the way that elections could be conducted. I do want to correct something I said in the second reading, which is around, I guess, Government arrangement, which is more to do with election and the return of the writs. In those cases, the way that the existing legislation in section 6 of the Constitution Act is really triggered around the day after the 28\u003Csup\u003Eth\u003C/sup\u003E day, whereas now it could be actually earlier than that because it has now opened this ability to be a little bit more flexible. So the clarification that I was trying to seek from the Minister is around what then happens between when the Electoral Commission declares and the day after, and how would that interact with this new change.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006928\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think, more importantly, one of the things that I asked the Minister, and this is a genuine concern was raised by the submitters, was around what kind of decision-making powers would those caretaker roles and caretaker Ministers would have during this. As we see in the department report, it just simply says, \u201CLook, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ECabinet Manual\u003C/span\u003E does address this.\u201D But then, when we asked the Minister to potentially elucidate some of that, we didn\u2019t actually get a clarification. I did have a look at the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ECabinet Manual\u003C/span\u003E on this. This is to do with particularly paragraph 6.31 onwards of the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ECabinet Manual\u003C/span\u003E, around some of the expectations for the Ministers during this caretaker process. It\u2019s important to note that in the earlier section of the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ECabinet Manual\u003C/span\u003E it does say that the Ministers have the full power of the Minister\u2014I believe that is around paragraph 6.21, which where it says \u201Cthe incumbent government is still the lawful executive authority, with all the powers and responsibilities that go with executive office.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006929\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think one of the things that is worth mentioning\u2014I think this is something that my colleague Camilla Belich alluded to in the committee stage\u2014is while the Ministers do have the executive power, without a Parliament, without a Speaker, that we may not see potentially bills being introduced as a part of that caretaker arrangement. I think that\u2019s an important reminder for people and for those who had concerns on this section, that while they have all of the powers, the ability to make law falls on this House here, as opposed to the Ministers and the executive. So that interaction between the executive and the legislature remain. I think that\u2019s an important reminder.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006930\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESome of the other things that we did ask as a part of this is how would that list be finalised, and I think that\u2019s something that, again, this side of the House has asked the Minister around that kind of clarity during the committee stage. It\u2019s unfortunate that I didn\u2019t get a response from the Minister. I\u2019m hoping that presumably that means it\u2019s not applicable, which is fine, or potentially outside the scope. But what would happen if we see\u2014we talked about the fact that other disruptions we see could be a recount or a judicial review, etc., but what happens in the event of a by-election; would that be captured under this scenario as well, or is that something that is completely different?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006931\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the final considerations that we did discuss as a part of this bill is around clause 5, section 8 amended, around the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, as we alluded to in our second reading, that this is something that the select committee did change to provide more clarity in terms of the role of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in this sort of arrangement. Actually, I do want to also take this opportunity to acknowledge the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, both current and previous Parliamentary Under-Secretaries\u2014of which Jan Logie, one of our previous Green Party MPs, was one\u2014in terms of the fact that Parliamentary Under-Secretaries do an incredibly important role, but, unlike Ministers, a lot of the work that they do often doesn\u2019t get the same kind of acknowledgment. So I do want to acknowledge that, when we have the opportunity to do so.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006932\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust to finish off, we did get confirmation from the Minister that it is important for the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to be captured as a part of this. So with that, the Green Party does support the Constitution Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006933\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002248a5909753a730e4ceb94d0e8c9810f1\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b064dd56673f4c1cb11c1242823abb92\u0022 data-id=\u002235d92cc68fe9b47816599c2ae8a75fc2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006934\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b064dd56673f4c1cb11c1242823abb92\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002235d92cc68fe9b47816599c2ae8a75fc2\u0022\u003ELAURA McCLURE (ACT) (15:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. He cut that short by three seconds\u2014Lawrence, I\u2019m a little bit disappointed. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f36277cb754947fa93977a31a33abd49\u0022 data-id=\u00223ca947dc3f09f1c45677b8bddce26e25\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f36277cb754947fa93977a31a33abd49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223ca947dc3f09f1c45677b8bddce26e25\u0022\u003EHon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs) (15:37)\u003C/span\u003E: I think it\u2019s fitting that we finish this very long Tuesday with a bill that we all have consensus on in the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006936\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI would like to point out the irony that the gentleman who wanted to acknowledge the hard work of all of the people that worked to make this House run, then protracted this by a further 10 minutes rather than allowing them to go home early. I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006937\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002287e6c0d5274234d5cd4bd24b036737a3\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Um\u2014sorry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006938\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022455cb861953ee6e7f51c8dffffec5bbe\u0022\u003EH\u016Bhana Lyndon\u003C/span\u003E: H\u016Bhana.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006939\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228e9b9a3365655d6afc06e080f1ebb672\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Mari\u2014sorry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006940\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ca8d9772c4633417f8fcc3ea5977280e\u0022\u003EH\u016Bhana Lyndon\u003C/span\u003E: H\u016Bhana!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006941\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228c0f4dd3d39a4020616ffd93e2ccf585\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: H\u016Bhana Lyndon. Sorry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022 data-id=\u002227345610397dc5b48291c134ba997985\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006942\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002227345610397dc5b48291c134ba997985\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON (Green) (15:38)\u003C/span\u003E: T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006943\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228734d9187ea73dd0698c53f89cc076fc\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s my lack of sleep, not yours.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006944\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002230a49ee2b37a6b6f9bbd07d40cd2d975\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON\u003C/span\u003E: No, that\u2019s all right. You know, it\u2019s been a long weekend.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006945\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225de260ec924fd3a35c4419dcfdc82a9f\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Five minutes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006946\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223bb897ab8d624eca84bc4356dec862f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c3437fdafd48870844f93271030f5467\u0022\u003EH\u016AHANA LYNDON\u003C/span\u003E: Again, giving thanks and praise to our kaimahi that are here with us as we complete this round of urgency. It is good that we\u2019re at this point where we have the Constitution Amendment Bill, where we do have consensus within the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006947\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe role and function of K\u0101wanatanga in providing stability for decision making and for officials and Government departments is essential no matter what happens between election time and when the writ is finally passed. So on behalf of the Green Party, we tautoko. Kia ora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022 data-id=\u0022fad188b76a4f00af4f71cf136aa43b9d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006948\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fad188b76a4f00af4f71cf136aa43b9d\u0022\u003ETOM RUTHERFORD (National\u2014Bay of Plenty) (15:38)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr, Speaker I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002242067e22c7a349218b3b868f58eda79d\u0022 data-id=\u0022c460924ef282d5ea76cc84bbf44b6e10\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006949\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002242067e22c7a349218b3b868f58eda79d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c460924ef282d5ea76cc84bbf44b6e10\u0022\u003ERACHEL BOYACK (Labour\u2014Nelson) (15:39)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, the Labour Party is supporting this bill. It is an important bill in terms of the coalition\u2014sorry, the continuity of Government. The coalition\u2014we could talk about the coalition and the end of the coalition on 7 November; there will, certainly be a new coalition. Our intention is for that to be led by this side of the House following 7 November.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006950\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is an important bill because that continuity of Government is important. We had a unique situation last time where we ended up with Ministers who were unable to retain their ministerial warrants because of the time it took for a Government to be formed. That then has potential implications, in case there may be some type of emergency, there may be some type of scenario where it\u2019s important that you have a Government able to make decisions on behalf of New Zealanders. It is, at the end of the day, the highest jurisdiction in the land in terms of being able to make decisions and ensure that the bills get paid and ensure that the people are governed well. This is a pragmatic bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006951\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe did have some questions and, unfortunately, we didn\u2019t have all of that engagement with the Minister at the committee of the whole House stage. Some of my colleagues do still have questions that have been somewhat unanswered, and there are probably some elements of this that still need some attention. It\u2019s been raised in the House this afternoon about the role of the Speaker and what happens in that regard in this scenario.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006952\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe in the Labour Party think it\u2019s good that this bill has passed in time for the upcoming election. We are very much looking forward to the upcoming election and what we will have from a change of Government, and that, actually, it will be a Labour-led coalition that is forming a Government in that time frame, following the election on 7 November. We very much look forward to that. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022739b3bbed7fe4186aa30494700144b3a\u0022 data-id=\u0022df560e549fa28138537d6533533365b2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006953\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022739b3bbed7fe4186aa30494700144b3a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022df560e549fa28138537d6533533365b2\u0022\u003EPAULO GARCIA (National\u2014New Lynn) (15:41)\u003C/span\u003E: I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006954\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225204c6e5c6efcb91620efdd6cf99f71a\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Georgie Dansey\u2014five minutes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f988bc72b5e47b8856ba70e41dfbbaf\u0022 data-id=\u0022f6a91990e5c58fccf7afd024d2bd5800\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006955\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f988bc72b5e47b8856ba70e41dfbbaf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f6a91990e5c58fccf7afd024d2bd5800\u0022\u003EGEORGIE DANSEY (Labour) (15:41)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Oh, you almost gave me 10\u2014I was getting excited. Hey, firstly, I would like to thank all of the staff and the mahi that you have done throughout this week. I\u2019m always blown away at how hard all of the kaimahi in this place work, so thank you all so much. Someone just did this at me, and I love it. How hard you all work for us in Parliament\u2014I hope you have a very nice, well-deserved sleep after this, as I do for all of the members.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006956\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think that this is quite a nice bill to finish on, actually, because of the support from around the House. It\u2019s always nice when we can agree on something. I think this is a very logical bill that makes sense to everyone. Other speakers have spoken to the good faith that departing Governments have waiting for the incoming Government, and that that moves across political stripes. I think that\u2019s something to celebrate here, in a place where often we don\u2019t agree. We have not agreed on many bills that we have debated across urgency, so it is nice to finish on this one and to be able to continue to add some continuity, as much as we can, into Parliament. We debate a lot of regulatory standards bills, I\u2019ve noticed, and that continuity and trying to smooth things out is something where we can usually find common ground, and this is another example of that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006957\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs previous speakers have alluded to, I look forward to the smooth transition of the current Government moving out as Labour moves in on 7 November. It is with that I will finish. Have a wonderful sleep, everybody.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022 data-id=\u0022dedf89aae11fbf99bcb942253abe48b6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006958\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dedf89aae11fbf99bcb942253abe48b6\u0022\u003ESUZE REDMAYNE (National\u2014Rangit\u012Bkei) (15:43)\u003C/span\u003E: With great pleasure, I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d52c571cdb246f6abf50a39de1a66f7\u0022 data-id=\u0022e1c7dc8dca5620eb8509585700767136\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d52c571cdb246f6abf50a39de1a66f7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e1c7dc8dca5620eb8509585700767136\u0022\u003EGLEN BENNETT (Labour) (15:43)\u003C/span\u003E: It is with great pleasure that I would like to contribute to this debate and share some thoughts and reflections as we close. In my second reading contribution, I, obviously, made reference to the 30 years since MMP. Part of the reason this debate has been happening today and it\u2019s been through select committee and through the proper process was around the previous election in 2023. It\u2019s kind of interesting that 30 years on from 1996, we are debating a piece of legislation because of how MMP changed the system. But what is also interesting is that 1996 was the year that the Hon Nanaia Mahuta was first elected to this House. So it is sort of a 30-year process, and here we are today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006960\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy only few comments I want make are that that has changed the landscape of the Parliament and of timing, not only of coalition Government negotiations but also, obviously, of the counting of the vote. I was looking through, and we had the 1996 election, the 1999 election, the 2002 election, 2005, 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, 2023, until we come to this place. They\u2019ve all had different variations in terms of the make-up, the timing of negotiations of a Government, but also the timing that it\u2019s taken, actually, for the writ be released and for us to know what the outcome is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006961\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy other point I want to make is that, obviously, clause 5 is around the Parliamentary Under-Secretaries. Again, this legislation is changing the legislation that was the Constitution Act 1986, which was that piece of legislation\u2014fun fact; listen up, write this down\u2014when, obviously, Parliamentary Under-Secretaries were first introduced into Parliament and were part of it, so 40 years ago since we\u2019ve had our Parliamentary Under-Secretaries. Obviously, clause 5 was very important to have in this bill to make sure that they were recognised, because they do do heavy lifting\u2014it\u2019s been acknowledged. Often smaller parties, but often the larger parties also have under-secretaries who are often workhorses for the Minister in the main portfolio.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006962\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe are here. We are supporting this legislation. I\u2019m glad that that we\u2019ve got to where we\u2019ve got to this week. I don\u2019t think we needed to be here this long, but, hey, we\u2019re here\u2014well, a few of us are here, because most of our colleagues are out campaigning and hoping to win on 7 November. \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EKia ora koutou\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022df3e6766443b46819410ad4fedf34077\u0022 data-id=\u0022e4dc0b7d7380e2908e40b5d9c8f8588d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006963\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df3e6766443b46819410ad4fedf34077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e4dc0b7d7380e2908e40b5d9c8f8588d\u0022\u003ESTUART SMITH (National\u2014Kaik\u014Dura) (15:46)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It has been a long week\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006964\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002215669656f9fdd5aced34c5394157e5d2\u0022\u003EHon Members: \u003C/span\u003EA long day.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006965\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df3e6766443b46819410ad4fedf34077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002262d61019dc02e457a1e5d07e63b30497\u0022\u003ESTUART SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014since we moved urgency on Tuesday afternoon\u2014well, it is a long day; that is right\u2014so much so that some people are hallucinating on the other side of the of the House. But it is a nice way to end it, on a constitutional bill, small but very vital and important for the running of our country. I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006966\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006967\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006968\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ae467f16dec2b9d2f10be25989fffbe8\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Just before I adjourn the House, thank you, members, for being here. There have been a lot of thankyous\u2014obviously, the staff that have kept this place going while we\u2019ve come and gone. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EApplause\u003C/span\u003E] There\u2019s another group as well: the families of members that are here, who I know are sitting, waiting, hoping that this moment arrives and you\u2019ll be home tonight to either pick up the kids, take them out for dinner, or perhaps both. Thirdly, another group I think we should acknowledge is that on these seats here and out the back has been a group of public servants, much vilified, but they have been here. I was driving home last night up Molesworth Street, and there was a big group of health officials moving up, and they were walking back this morning when I came back down here. So just a little bit of acknowledgment\u2014there\u2019s a lot of people it takes to keep this going. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EApplause\u003C/span\u003E] For the rest of you, I hope you can all get home tonight and enjoy whatever might be on, starting at 5 past 7 tonight. The House stands adjourned until 9 a.m. on\u2014sorry, no, it\u2019s not. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006969\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EThe House adjourned at 3.48 p.m. (Saturday)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026063045f597636d7b5e8d30006970\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsTerm\u0022\u003EThis early draft is automatically published - it is not yet complete and reviewed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n  \u003C/body\u003E\n\u003C/html\u003E"