"\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000000\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00222b387a026db10c2cad6b2e7b30b9377d\u0022\u003ETuesday, 28 July 2026\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000001\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000002\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00227536a07a782869650e35464332b693e6\u0022\u003EStart of Sitting Day\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ea8b40b3ff02caeb752080cee3977051\u0022\u003EKarakia/Prayers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022 data-id=\u0022c7a97d006748ef4562c3d8990a754271\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c7a97d006748ef4562c3d8990a754271\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a38b567597e48bbad3937a5d9afd8789\u0022\u003EPresentation\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022af3e27d17c7fadb374b09d8e83434e40\u0022\u003EPetitions\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002242856b64118a9552e4739f1a4ba18da3\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Five petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220a013261e0df66b2ab4934d6a4ee29ed\u0022\u003ECLERK (14:01): \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003EPetition of Hannah McKeich requesting that the House make childcare screening mandatory for parents before scheduled surgery or in cases of emergency hospitalisation\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003Epetition of Pegasus Residents Group requesting that the House urge the Government to ensure that the proposal to redevelop the Pegasus Golf Course is not progressed through the fast-track approvals process\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003Epetition of Andreas Fox requesting that the House amend the definition of rape in the Crimes Act 1961 so that rape does not require the perpetrator to have a penis\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003Epetition of Sheryl Tristram requesting that the House suspend the provisions of section 23(4) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, where they relate to persons charged with offences against children\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003Epetition of Tracey McLeod requesting that the House investigate funding for the Rotorua Lakes sewerage schemes and the Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes strategy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222c4b34b506488db59436af20ac8a8ba9\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002250d6101753e7c54ff7d3c5f364bedd00\u0022\u003EPapers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022526e864e56d7db2be833da19026872d7\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Ministers have delivered four papers for presentation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a54df27d017aa82e5963fc0ee5cc8ab0\u0022\u003ECLERK (14:02): \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003EStatements of performance expectations for:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003Ethe Classification Office\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003ECrown Regional Holdings Ltd, and\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003Ethe Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003EGovernment response to the report of the Petitions Committee on the petitions of Animates NZ, Suzanne Cook, and Raewyn Harrison.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228965dda92a84321aa9ce110df9727d2c\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Those papers are published under the authority of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a753d98e25cab7e19b13817448f70eeb\u0022\u003ESelect Committee Reports\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022446403a6704a0e9547d3132149086b52\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Six select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220a4d84c0480a8a510c7ec44348c1b80e\u0022\u003ECLERK (14:02): \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003EReport of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the review briefing on the 2024/25 annual review of the Real Estate Agents Authority\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003Ereport of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Commerce (Commerce Commission Reform) Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003Ereport of the Health Committee on the briefing on the pharmacy sector\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003Ereport of the M\u0101ori Affairs Committee on the Ng\u0101ti Ruapani mai Waikaremoana Claims Settlement Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL1\u0022\u003Ereports of the Petitions Committee on the:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003Epetition of Bharat Bhushan, and the\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItemSL2\u0022\u003Epetition of Philip Naniov.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002257a9f99f331b5ddbd9986f3a8123578e\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The bills are set down for second reading, and the briefings are set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002245c13a8cf0b8f296005ad262a7468e9b\u0022\u003EOral Questions to Ministers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002283241ddbfa5adabe2799bcb028a3374c\u0022\u003EFinance\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00222bb3f0300f2a54f546a365e50394a62a\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 1\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c96149a439844ecfa86967f9caf5f50d\u0022 data-id=\u00229b1fa9b8219fdc3a54acadaef87df54e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c96149a439844ecfa86967f9caf5f50d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229b1fa9b8219fdc3a54acadaef87df54e\u0022\u003EKATIE NIMON (National\u2014Napier) (14:03)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Finance\u003C/span\u003E: What recent reports has she seen on Government support for working families?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022 data-id=\u00229cef96945deec3883c2b9c2882c4de6e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229cef96945deec3883c2b9c2882c4de6e\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:03)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve seen the latest FamilyBoost figures, which show the improvements the Government made last year are helping more working families. Last year, with the support of the ACT, New Zealand First, and Labour parties, the Government legislated to increase the FamilyBoost rebate to 40\u00A0percent, lifted the maximum payment to $120 a week, and expanded eligibility ensuring more working families receive meaningful help with the cost of childcare. I can report that more than 97,500 families have now received a FamilyBoost payment to help with the cost of early childhood education.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c96149a439844ecfa86967f9caf5f50d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f4d2f63181b2abcd1d7913d565cd84df\u0022\u003EKatie Nimon\u003C/span\u003E: What impact have the changes made last year had for families?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a188c3e77e41eeb887d975e99e3bf61f\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: The results are very encouraging. Compared with the March quarter before the changes came in place, more than 8,300 additional families are now receiving FamilyBoost; that is an increase of 15\u00A0percent. The average FamilyBoost payment has also increased by around 70\u00A0percent\u2014from approximately $353 to approximately $599 per family. That means more working parents are getting more meaningful help with one of the biggest costs young families face.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c96149a439844ecfa86967f9caf5f50d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d2858d2a86b9e1176ecc038ac01220d3\u0022\u003EKatie Nimon\u003C/span\u003E: Who is benefitting from the expanded FamilyBoost scheme?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002249b2b8ac17e282d4cbb7341f067b2d32\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: The latest figures show more hard-working Kiwi families are receiving higher levels of support with their early childhood education fees. Since the changes took effect last July, more than 6,500 families have received the maximum FamilyBoost payment of $120 a week, and across the three completed quarters since the expansion, an average of more than 12,300 families each quarter have also received at least $75 a week toward their childcare costs. Those figures show the changes are not only reaching more working families but are also providing more meaningful help with the cost of early childhood education. Again, I want to acknowledge the support of parties across this House, including the Labour Party, for that legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c96149a439844ecfa86967f9caf5f50d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229263e9b47fcefd8ab2ad5456e969c30b\u0022\u003EKatie Nimon\u003C/span\u003E: What message does she have for families who may be eligible for FamilyBoost?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002254ad2f3eeada678f63572e79a8c13509\u0022\u003EHon NICOLA WILLIS\u003C/span\u003E: My message is simple: if you think you may be eligible, I encourage you to register through Inland Revenue. Around 115,000 families have already registered, and more than 97,500 have received a payment, but we believe there are still eligible families who have not yet claimed. Registration only takes a few minutes, and families have up to four years to make a claim. It is the case that some families will not be eligible, due to their household income or because they are not paying high early childhood education fees. Regardless, FamilyBoost is practical support that helps parents balance work and family life while easing pressure on household budgets, and we want every eligible family to receive the support they are entitled to. Despite the barracking from the other side throughout this question, I\u2019m sure members across the House agree with that goal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f0b955d2f43e3218ff54c43c6ab44de9\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That last comment is completely unnecessary and should not be repeated by other Ministers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002267e8b8a402268f585839867303b24663\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022262c4e484a68f98e41188a25ee19ffbb\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022 data-id=\u0022ed2b0c93b213e84bae28fe14d21f8e69\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ed2b0c93b213e84bae28fe14d21f8e69\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: 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=\u0022389dd58125a9c0c1615ff920a77bb594\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022389dd58125a9c0c1615ff920a77bb594\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, and particularly the fact that rents are the lowest they\u2019ve been in 25 years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224931aff84fb9da19df18cc923b8bbe67\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by his statement, just last week, \u201CWe are focused on lowering the cost of living for New Zealand.\u201D; if so, does lowering the cost of living mean any prices actually get lower?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c2c24fb57a52984bec4ea434680447b1\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, again, I\u2019d stack our record up against the member\u2019s record any day of the week. He drove inflation to a 32-year high at 7.3 percent, and he kept inflation outside the band for a remarkable 11 quarters. It\u2019s a particular and special skill that he had doing exactly that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002270139c47d9e43faebe540994eb0c9ef5\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by his statement last week, \u201CFalling prices lead to less spending. That leads to businesses not investing, and as a result, the economy shrinks.\u201D; if he does stand by that, why didn\u2019t he tell New Zealanders when he promised them lower prices that, actually, it was going to result in less investment and a shrinking economy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a1f743ae7dfb9c6b37e9a08bff8d16a9\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Last week, I spent a lot of time invested in educating the member on economics, and I was highlighting to him the perils of something called deflation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002203d9d56a85d0683397ee2ff473f35c6c\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: So does he think lower prices are a bad thing?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022384e4f39da14367546f8032b64278319\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: I think inflation within a band of 1 to 3 percent is a very good thing. I don\u2019t think sitting at 7.3 percent is a very good thing at all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002245c01695efe0431d378864f122ddece4\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: So does he think lower prices are a bad thing?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229878936372a800b9d8cc0cf993fa0c39\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: No, I think lower prices inside the inflation band is a good thing. I think decreasing prices of deflation is a bad thing, as all economists around the world would highlight.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224f53036c3da33d85a809702571ce8837\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: So does he think that prices rising within the inflationary band are lower prices?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bca2c66fcc460f6fc95a0dd8236a7a56\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, coming off the back of 7.3 percent and a 32-year high\u2014let\u2019s go through some numbers, shall we? Because we actually have rents the lowest they have been in 25 years\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022160aeb4329205dfe4a332932e7a94c47\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, Prime Minister. That\u2019s adding absolutely nothing to the information that your leader is trying to seek from the Prime Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022196aa9e4af21c812c55eac2b9c55fd06\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Perhaps there wouldn\u2019t be such a reaction if the Prime Minister was actually answering the question that I\u2019d asked him.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229c7a7e1ed6a2d1b56c8a60eec0e43555\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Don\u2019t take that too much further, because, quite frankly, if there\u2019s so much noise coming out of a person, as was the case, there\u2019s no way they\u2019re listening for an answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fce5a92d7ef77a2e1574ee1a34cfd29f\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c33031d1b4169f667a3bcc20d325cf85\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, no, it\u2019s over. I\u2019d suggest\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224a973b17042c604d835bfa5219bfad46\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Further point of order, Mr Speaker. If the majority of the Prime Minister\u2019s answers are attacking the previous Government, there is going to be a reaction to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222e341442a5e23d29ad4ecdc9607e736c\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, that\u2019s not right. I\u2019ve been listening very carefully. You\u2019ll recall that I did call out the finance Minister for her final comment. The fact that a Prime Minister answering refers to a previous inflation rate is not an attack; it\u2019s a fact. Do you have a question?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002250e8ba633a424bb5a9990210d7222e08\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Sure. Does he still think that falling prices will lead to less spending, as he told the House last week?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f7492629ee01bc5c38dbb8a379b290ae\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: The point I was telling the House last week was what the member\u2019s been advocating for is something called deflation. That is where we have decreasing prices that then lead to less spending\u2014deferred spending\u2014which is very dangerous in an economy. Business incomes fall, the economy shrinks, and people lose their jobs. People lose their jobs in a deflationary environment, and they lost their jobs under him in a high-inflation environment as 7.3 percent and a 32-year high outside the band for almost three years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dbb5282c865bac565640a45612ef406e\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E] So how does it\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022813040306b23783332a4f859cd90c50c\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Wait. Some of your own side are terribly excited about this question. They just need to listen, so they can hear it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a6d2ad5cc6f3b972aeef8a015c51aad4\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: How does a Kiwi family paying less for a block of butter shrink the economy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227adfe36bc90407a95edfc8735b8847c7\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m talking about deflation. That\u2019s what the member, in the way he phrased his questions last week, was talking about. I\u2019m saying if you have deflation, if you have high inflation, not good. We want inflation within a sensible band of 1 percent to 3 percent. But I just say to the member, he has no credibility, he has no policies, he has no ideas to actually deal with inflation at all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223d9013a097307c71002313d18f874fa1\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, no. Thank you, Prime Minister; that\u2019s enough of that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f8ca21b16cc50ac08548b93a146fdf2\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: So does he want grocery prices to drop?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e3a4ebf22acf712929e7ed6fe2d80e53\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: I want inflation within a band of 1 percent to 3\u00A0percent. That\u2019s why we\u2019ve focused the Reserve Bank of New Zealand on a single pace of inflation. The member can\u2019t even keep inflation in a band. It caused huge amounts of suffering for New Zealanders. High inflation, high interest rates, shrinking economy, and people lost their jobs because of a Labour-Green Government and economic mismanagement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002246bf76ed2456604b19229914d49b7cd5\u0022\u003EHon Nicola Willis\u003C/span\u003E: Supplementary question?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229356a7827cc2432b02f076586ab623af\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, remember the rules about the use of supplementary questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ab149c34191d128a49804e18e441435d\u0022\u003EHon Nicola Willis\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches to monetary policy which would see the mandate of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand widened beyond inflation, or to see the target band for inflation increased, which would allow for higher price increases across the economy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224b8eb7de6b738134c628ca1cd5dc3b79\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: That is the point I\u2019m trying to make, is that you want inflation in the band. The band is there for a reason: low to moderate inflation and 1\u00A0percent to 3\u00A0percent. But the member\u2019s party has proposed lifting the midpoint of the band to 2.5 percent. You want more inflation. You want life to be more expensive for New Zealanders\u2014that\u2019s not right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221eee191991284f59b9f8bb4ea78cbd10\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ad945be50a2022e8eb8e315a4cda3fc7\u0022\u003ERt Hon Chris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister\u2019s statement is actually incorrect. He can\u2019t make up policy on behalf of the Opposition which isn\u2019t true.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022adc084e3fef699a187c97b187b566981\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That is quite right. There is a remedy for you in that circumstance, but I would counsel the Government to talk about its own performance, rather than attacking the Opposition. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E] No, hang on! Whoa! Does the Hon Dr Megan Woods have something to say?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229de8038cf6d7dfc3ea169fce9732d39d\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Always has.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b2643efd017ac5c265e4f260fc73c0b0\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well that would be par for the course.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c9a6ea68683d02679a333b3db9c78888\u0022\u003EHon David Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Prime Minister agree that most reasonable people would think lower prices means lower than they would be with the runaway inflation that we inherited; given most people know that, is it not cynical and disingenuous to keep pretending otherwise?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226d2dead9910949f0417a6ba464392700\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, you can play semantics as much as you like, but I just say to the other side, if you want to help New Zealanders, get on board and support the rates cap. Get on board and support oil and gas.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225379eeea2abf392fb07a3bcfe7df21fd\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I just made it clear the Government cannot use supplementaries to attack the Opposition. The question was fine. The answer strayed right into that territory, and it shouldn\u2019t.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f64f565924292ed67e907638fde5aa69\u0022\u003ETransport\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ba7bbe8106a73979d245653a7776a2c0\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 3\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b52eff5aa2a94fcc88903b73d0443de3\u0022 data-id=\u002215e131eafac150cf21659d71929881cb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b52eff5aa2a94fcc88903b73d0443de3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002215e131eafac150cf21659d71929881cb\u0022\u003ENANCY LU (National) (14:13)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Transport\u003C/span\u003E: What recent announcements has he made on transport?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u002270fcee0349c6c9bcff79511f0d4046ce\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002270fcee0349c6c9bcff79511f0d4046ce\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (14:13)\u003C/span\u003E: It was fantastic to be at Glen Innes train station last Friday to mark the opening of the new pedestrian overbridge there. It\u2019s a step forward in replacing level crossings to unlock the benefit of City Rail Link. The level-crossing work started in September last year after the Government and the council brought forward $200 million each in funding to unlock these important projects. We do need to sort the level crossings out in order to take advantage of City Rail Link, which is opening, I\u2019m advised\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226f22630cd738c34f643fc3068601c6c6\u0022\u003EHon Dr Deborah Russell\u003C/span\u003E: And in West Auckland.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002299c977ce2fb0b8c28206e78ae1c82aa7\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014soon.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022de8a483bb0d8d5530454fd80a4dceb92\u0022\u003EHon Dr Deborah Russell\u003C/span\u003E: You\u2019ve left West Auckland out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bbe117ff74479906f64bc26af70b461a\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, including West Auckland. It would be nice if you\u2019d put some money in towards it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b52eff5aa2a94fcc88903b73d0443de3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228392c41cd370dc27e6d1ad69cd7dbeda\u0022\u003ENancy Lu\u003C/span\u003E: What further recent announcements has he made on rapid transit transport in Auckland?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002231e8843f55993ecefa7124c9549d9ebe\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: It was also good, last Friday, to turn the first sod alongside local MP Simeon Brown and Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown on the final stage of the Eastern Busway, which is a project that Aucklanders will know has taken a long time to get to this point. But we are now at the final stage of the final 500-metre section of the busway, delivering transport choice for Kiwis in East Auckland. When it\u2019s fully open in 2027, it will connect Botany, Pakuranga, and Panmure, giving people a reliable 40-minute trip from Botany to the city centre. We expect public transport usage on the busway to grow significantly from around 3,500 trips per day to 24,000 by 2048. Combined with City Rail Link, it will deliver more people into jobs, education, and other opportunities, and make it easier for people to get around the great city of Auckland.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b52eff5aa2a94fcc88903b73d0443de3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022511ffc0d6135cf093b85d6310c42ea97\u0022\u003ENancy Lu\u003C/span\u003E: What recent announcements has he made on further progress on the roads of national significance?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022491b51080ce8e6d6edcff1f2d4e8ab1f\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Succinctly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221a699c45693f303ee0dddc5c940b38da\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Yesterday, I announced the opening of the new State Highway 29/Takitimu Drive Toll Road flyover bridge, which is an important milestone on the Takitimu North Link Stage 1 road of national significance. It\u2019s part of a major interchange being built at State Highway 29/Takitimu Drive Toll Road between Tauriko and the Tauranga CBD. Overall construction on the stage 1 project is now well advanced\u2014it\u2019s into its fifth year\u2014and earthworks on the road\u2019s 10 major structures are nearing completion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b52eff5aa2a94fcc88903b73d0443de3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227c5183934b6a28727956115f321ee222\u0022\u003ENancy Lu\u003C/span\u003E: What further progress does he expect to be made on transport projects across New Zealand in the coming weeks?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002297f615856874e4e80043636bc3a4bad0\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: There is a massive transport investment pipeline happening right now, and it will continue to happen under this Government. I can advise the House that new level-crossing replacements at Te Mahia and Takanini will be completed in the next month. On the weekend, the newest railway stations in Drury and Paer\u0101t\u0101 will open, putting South Auckland and Franklin\u2019s fast-growing communities on the rapid transit map, just in time for City Rail Link. Westgate Station will open in August and make sure that the popular Western Express bus service, WX1, continues. There\u2019s lots happening and much more to do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022370bcb984e5bb1d52fa0f2ce3ef9810b\u0022\u003EResources\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022118f9462c737cb255c3dd9f03dce0e2d\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 4\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d92a09db28c44070bbfdcc9f0e6f3cca\u0022 data-id=\u0022bb6d87a8813778cae5d20462cb4c8d6a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d92a09db28c44070bbfdcc9f0e6f3cca\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bb6d87a8813778cae5d20462cb4c8d6a\u0022\u003EJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) (14:16)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister for Resources\u003C/span\u003E: What reports, if any, has he seen about the minerals sector?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022 data-id=\u0022d782b67cd295a353408b6fee5013e04f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d782b67cd295a353408b6fee5013e04f\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources) (14:16)\u003C/span\u003E: I was delighted to take part in the Quarry NZ conference last week. However, prior to going there I was invited\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220b60f3de86f94cdcba16d6caa82b94e5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228cc46ac8a6b3e6615432b5cf9b2f837c\u0022\u003EHon Damien O\u0027Connor\u003C/span\u003E: Catch a limo?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002265b66152b308d0f7b18049ecfc08a6af\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014as a guest, as an advocate\u2014and it\u2019s sad that there are random voices from the other side of the House, stigmatising the extractive sector, especially when that individual was born and bred on the West Coast. I would say, however, I had the pleasure of holding a 17-kilogram bar of gold\u2014$3.8 million\u2014and I was told that up to $12 billion worth of earnings has been developed, i.e., gold, and it continues to represent a great factor of positivity in our rural, regional economies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d92a09db28c44070bbfdcc9f0e6f3cca\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229b2e75862c6f4049046dcb7b155f5d3e\u0022\u003EJenny Marcroft\u003C/span\u003E: What more can he tell us regarding the quarrying industry?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002285805bada67a79bde3983eb5371f412d\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: The least of which I can say is up to nine projects were listed in the fast-track legislation to ensure that quarries are not trapped in some closed loop of anti-development. We need quarries; they are necessary for the infrastructure outcomes. They have been undermined; they have been weakened by the weaponisation of wildlife and the ideological overreach that now features in much of our environmental law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d92a09db28c44070bbfdcc9f0e6f3cca\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224f42214986da1d5c37d3bb5841e9b9d8\u0022\u003EJenny Marcroft\u003C/span\u003E: How do minerals contribute to the economy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c8d3e2a56bda37e1c8e90a1ae368df67\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: This could be a very long answer. The reality\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b61351ab5359cafebf2052b34dbd54c0\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, it won\u2019t be.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022666f09296488c3646e3c38061a132149\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: The reality is that in certain regions, the minerals extractive sector is growing. Whether it be critical minerals down on the West Coast; whether it be the antimony and the gold; whether it be the jobs located at Waih\u012B, in the area between Coromandel and Tauranga, we should not allow these tropes and myths to spread, because there are many Kiwis employed, either digging coal, digging gold, and we do not want apocryphal stories of mating frogs to undermine that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d92a09db28c44070bbfdcc9f0e6f3cca\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f40c5e5990c01f81f99ffccc86e63993\u0022\u003EJenny Marcroft\u003C/span\u003E: Why do we need minerals?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022280f8ad76c31a3678f5a40fcd6b25093\u0022\u003EHon Willie Jackson\u003C/span\u003E: What a tough question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223bf9c3c8a39cd172d0e13096a3a703fc\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: In the event that we worry about mineral properties not being available\u2014one good outcome will be to improve the concentration of Willie Jackson who spends all of his time on his cellphone made out of critical mineral properties.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002274711c85c8767ec976768cceac742b86\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, no. Right, we\u2019ll move on to question 5\u2014Dr Ayesha Verrall.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ca293ab91072e5f129d62d00a93e83b2\u0022\u003EHealth\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ba9761b04021fef1fc9f6b10bee1cac9\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 5\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022 data-id=\u002212b8d3401381ff679744483832228551\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002212b8d3401381ff679744483832228551\u0022\u003EHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (14:19)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Health\u003C/span\u003E: What was the total number of fulltime-equivalent vacant nursing positions in Health NZ in each quarter from July 2024 to December 2025, and has the number of vacancies increased, decreased, or stayed the same over that period?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022 data-id=\u0022494c60a1a7f932db646dfee2a3e42d32\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022494c60a1a7f932db646dfee2a3e42d32\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:19)\u003C/span\u003E I refer the member to written parliamentary question No. 12715 (2026), which answers the member\u2019s question and indeed shows the number of fulltime-equivalent (FTE) vacant nursing positions in Health New Zealand has reduced by 45 percent between 2023 and 2025. This Government has been focused on increasing the number of Health New Zealand\u2019s front-line health staff, particularly nurses. That\u2019s why since coming to Government, more than 2,100 additional nurses have joined the healthcare system. I also note that Health New Zealand\u2019s nursing vacancy rate has reduced significantly, from 9.5 percent in September 2023 to 4.7 percent in December 2025. Voluntary turnover has also reduced, falling from 13.3 percent in September 2023 to 8.4 percent in December 2025. At the same time, nursing vacancies have reduced across the system, both vacancy and turnover rates are substantially lower than they were in 2023. I\u2019m further advised that Health New Zealand is currently advertising for 1,422 nurse FTEs, with a further 297 currently at interview stage, 154 at reference checking stage, and 235 offers under active consideration by candidates. There is still more work to be done and that remains our focus.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221ea78023ab963a07d91fb6c93a7a6e7f\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002208861c29005b1bee58cd7f240e980fda\u0022\u003EHon Nicola Willis\u003C/span\u003E: Oh!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002236fe6c6823d32bb5c13ef6c2fc19d941\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall, without commentary from anyone else.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e73dae6598471418d47bcc44c1b8c1ee\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: That was a question on notice, Mr Speaker. I\u2019d refer you to Speaker\u2019s ruling 202/1. The Minister had time to prepare an answer with the assistance of officials, and yet he chose to give an answer that referred to a different time period from the one specified in my question. See, my question asked from July 2024 through to 2025, and the Minister answered beginning in 2023.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220a7083cbfd3aed93c6bf6605d9907afe\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, look, I appreciate the member\u2019s not satisfied with the answer, but the Minister took one minute and 12 seconds to give the House an answer\u2014a very, very long answer\u2014with an extensive number of statistics inside that, which could well have answered the period that was concerned.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223fa5d23d62cbeffbffcf9207af086ef5\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order. Sir, I\u2019m concerned that the length of the answer now qualifies to meet Speakers\u2019 rulings. My colleague pointed out Speaker\u2019s ruling 202/1, which makes it very clear that when a question is on notice, there is an expectation that it be answered. Obviously, that expectation is not applicable to supplementaries. The Minister referred to a written parliamentary question, which was a different question. He has deliberately used a different time frame. It\u2019s not so much the content that was after that, because, ultimately, if he is choosing to give an answer that relates to a different time frame, all of that information is irrelevant.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225274961512651cb13606d85d22dc0a7c\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Look, I think the point is I was not suggesting for one minute that long answers are good things\u2014quite the opposite. What I was suggesting is that there was so much information in there, I was unable to pick up the point that was being made by the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall. And further, though, I\u2019d point out that while I don\u2019t have it at my fingertips\u2014I probably should\u2014Ministers are required to address questions, not necessarily answer from the way that those asking it would prefer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224cb7bd80ad22fdfc7825eadb7e55d29a\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to that point of order, Sir?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fa0ca9c5145192d91bc6cdf13b680b50\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, that\u2019s a ruling.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f91cc36fd052208f2108a5ec8ae4fdfc\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: OK, point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022852c8603f139ae5f79a2cf307694933d\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m referring to a ruling. So if you want to speak to that, that\u2019s fine.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222d8453d48b7701ddcae819ca7cd68a08\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Well, Speaker\u2019s ruling 202/1\u2014I\u2019d be interested in which one you\u2019re referring to so that we are specifically aware\u2014but it does state that the expectation on primary questions is much higher than that of supplementaries. If it is the case that Ministers can choose a different time frame than what is quite clearly outlined in the primary to subvert answering a question, that is a serious breach of the expectations that this House has long had.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022da7b8c12097b4b1a729eb9f409f8fb1a\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, you leave me in a position of having to consider this matter offline because I\u2019m not going to go into that sort of exercise right here, right now. Do you have another supplementary?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022806a773f7c51d96177314b6dac423d4b\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: Why, after substantial progress in reducing vacancies in 2023 and early 2024, did progress stall when the Government started its turn-around plan?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d4147e49b748fe603779373f35c62841\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: The number of vacancies at Health New Zealand, as I said, has decreased significantly. There will always be variation between month and month, but ultimately, as I said in my primary answer, Health New Zealand is actively recruiting for 1,422 FTEs\u2014we currently advertising for, a further 297 currently at interview stage, 154 at reference checking stage, and 235 offers under active consideration by candidates.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e92c4d014577d74469bbc05998873f58\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, point of order, Mr Speaker. We\u2019re in a very difficult situation now as a result of where we landed following the points of order on the primary question, because it\u2019s enabled the Minister to totally misdirect to things that have happened at some point in the past\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221c42e7f2e98378fc8462c8ad49a54e0c\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, hang on\u2014hang on. What is your point of order? That\u2019s an\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e6acb0ddf373cb97bb63478713dde4fc\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: Well, my point of order\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dae71d0e639b6dc34f30e04d5269879a\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, that\u2019s an assumption, that you are free to make but not one that the House has to accept.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022990106f3d258c7a623962f5b9ed02ba5\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the Minister in his answers refers to different time periods from the one which the question is related to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226b99476d584f47b19420b8154e6947dc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227a3723f401c81edc9aa2023d24c88bc2\u0022\u003EHon Nicola Willis\u003C/span\u003E: You\u2019re not allowed to talk about when you were in office.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222015a95729237c4af005ea9dc792f91e\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, just a minute. Ask your supplementary again so I can\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223a97003d31466a4adca99a26209aa698\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s my first supplementary: why, after substantial progress in reducing vacancies in 2023 and early 2024, did progress stall when the Government started its turn-around plan?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cb284efdc64eb05d09d5b6c1d70a2787\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: As I said, the number of vacancies will always increase or decrease from month to month. However, as I said in my answer to the primary question, Health New Zealand is currently advertising for 1,422 nursing full-time equivalents (FTEs), a further 297 are currently at interview stage, 154 are at reference checking stage, and 235 offers are under active consideration. It might surprise the members, but you actually have to advertise for a job to fill a vacancy, you have to interview for a job to fill a vacancy, you have to provide offers to people to fill a job for a vacancy. Those are all of the things we\u2019re doing to fill vacancies in nursing roles to strengthen our workforce at Health New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002219da201578bff3f734ee0fe88242d332\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: Why do nurses describe it as taking \u201Cmonths and months and months\u201D to get approval to recruit to roles that are already funded when that approval used to take a week or two before his turn-around plan?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d603368bf7040dd6e8fe4bafe0139aff\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m not sure if the member remembers that her Government, when she was in office, restructured the entire health system to create a mega-bureaucracy rather than focusing on outcomes and front-line services. We\u2019re turning that around. I also, to answer the question, have set a very clear expectation to the board of Health New Zealand that recruitment time frames need to be sped up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d07ad6532aa20e7645f55f1b35508fac\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: If the Minister is so concerned about bureaucracy, why doesn\u2019t he remove the requirement for regional approval to fill an already funded vacancy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022635509e279152a60907d2b350de770f5\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: Regional approval is not required for those vacancies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fded9bd6fc24a647c4bddcfce81bceac\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: Is it correct that by holding approximately 1,300 nursing vacancies open over two years, Health New Zealand is saving over $200 million, more than half its deficit?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220411970ce4456e871b61733b3529e1a2\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the member is conflating issues. In the previous annual report, there was funding set aside for settlements which took place in the next financial year. That\u2019s what the money was set aside for: for settlements which had not yet been agreed. But as I said in answer to the primary question, Health New Zealand is currently advertising for 1,422 nursing FTEs, currently interviewing 297; 154 are at a reference checking stage, and 235 offers are under active consideration by candidates. It might surprise members opposite, but all of those stages are needed so you can fill vacancies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022512978d26a02ccf401cb0d618791625d\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Is it a fact that there are 4,000-plus more nurses now than when that questioner was last Minister?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022054b80d0947ea51497ba81b96f20c4ad\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the answer is there are significantly more nurses working for Health New Zealand today: about 2,100 additional nurses working at Health New Zealand, 900 additional doctors working at Health New Zealand. We\u2019re focusing on putting patients first, restoring the health targets, increasing front-line workforces to deliver for New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e968c1334f0a40bfbd05d661e979ba38\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cc2426811a5dbda68786f0ee50b551b6\u0022\u003EHon Willie Jackson\u003C/span\u003E: Ask another question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f55abafdebd1258c4798ba20a232946\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, no one else is asking a question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022db2ea575110f43e6b325fc2758d0d15b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002275324a029a5c4deffe0e89a15186554d\u0022\u003EHon Dr Ayesha Verrall\u003C/span\u003E: Is it fair that Wellington had an average 394 fulltime-equivalent nursing roles vacant over this period, more than double any other district?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229c2d99764e1a08d963cf42486f1234b7\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: Well, as I said, we\u2019re focused on improving and strengthening the front line, as we\u2019re doing. We are advertising currently for 1,422\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223a55876f9a889235820b64334e793ae7\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Say it again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276109ca9c1c74181a1e2734802d7f46f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ed36f25e0bcf7bb18a77288de533d69d\u0022\u003EHon SIMEON BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014nursing FTE\u20141,422 nursing FTE\u2014a further 297 are currently at the interview stage, 154 at the reference checking stage, and 235 offers are under active consideration by candidates. All of those stages are required to fill the vacancies across the country, and we are very much focused on improving the front line.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002269476f7a96eeb30830f48dae97bdbca3\u0022\u003EJustice\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00224c8a9721c28e3aee8f910a13d969b951\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 6\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022 data-id=\u0022f77a5f1dd07084960b8fb357af328eb3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f77a5f1dd07084960b8fb357af328eb3\u0022\u003ETOM RUTHERFORD (National\u2014Bay of Plenty) (14:30)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Justice\u003C/span\u003E: What measures has the Government taken to reduce the number of victims of crime? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022 data-id=\u0022e22a4b39d08b82426363f4eaa9129613\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e22a4b39d08b82426363f4eaa9129613\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (14:30)\u003C/span\u003E: Reducing the number of victims of crime has been this Government\u2019s priority from day one. The first step we took was to restore real consequences for crime, and we\u2019ve introduced tougher sentencing laws, restored the three-strikes regime after it was scrapped by the previous administration, and taken action towards addressing serious youth offending and retail crime. Alongside that, we\u2019ve ended the culture of excuses that we also inherited\u2014in particular, we\u2019ve stopped funding cultural reports that were designed to increase sentencing discounts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b57dafe55852ddffedde28a64de437b0\u0022\u003ETom Rutherford\u003C/span\u003E: How many victims of violent crime are there in New Zealand today compared to when the Government took office?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226983603702c67a8c59302ca3f3f3f7ce\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH\u003C/span\u003E: The most recent New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey estimates that there are 46,000 fewer New Zealanders who are victims of assault, robbery, or sexual assault compared with when we took office. Estimates will move around, of course, but there has been a substantial reduction in the number of victims, and that indicates we\u2019re heading in the right direction. Of course, there are still far too many victims of crime, and that is what motivates this Government every day to continue the effort to restore law and order in this country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220d36d7c13253fa3ca049e5bbeae035b3\u0022\u003ETom Rutherford\u003C/span\u003E: How are the Government\u2019s actions helping to reduce the number of victims of sexual offending?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022421cb57be0312dd5c5f3e1c12dc1b2d5\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Our Government is determined to reduce the number of victims of sexual offending, which is why we\u2019ve made changes to the law to prevent sex offenders being granted permanent name suppression unless the victim agrees. A big part of our sentencing reform is about restoring real consequences for the victims of sexual offending, and we\u2019ve also made stalking an illegal and jailable offence after it was raised by victims\u2019 advocates and survivors over a long period of time. Acts of stalking can be a precursor to more serious crime. There\u2019s much more to do in this space, and many parties are talking about that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222b65943ea3a8d857dec751d713db002e\u0022\u003ETom Rutherford\u003C/span\u003E: Should there be real consequences for sexual offending?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bbcd4052a6e273a5aadaf9abe4f8ca45\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, indeed, there should. Sexual offending cases are traumatic for the victims, they can be difficult to prove, and if the consequence for a successful conviction is a very light sentence, then society, in this Government\u2019s view, is not clearly denouncing the act. That is why we have restricted the ability of judges to heavily discount sentences and why we are disappointed that parties across the other side of the House have not supported us in that measure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e10f5397929ba00a8c65d8c13b1c80f6\u0022\u003EDisability Issues\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00226ea7dcfda8533fa869600a6b35182802\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 7\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022154727523a59431ab210aea1cf707272\u0022 data-id=\u0022faec28d764cd9a0f11576f0984031a46\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022154727523a59431ab210aea1cf707272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022faec28d764cd9a0f11576f0984031a46\u0022\u003EHon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (14:32)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister for Disability Issues\u003C/span\u003E: Does she stand by her statement that \u201COur Government is focused on improving the lives of the nearly one in six disabled New Zealanders\u201D; if so, does she agree with disability organisations saying that disabled people are falling further behind under this Government? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u0022fa29630ca9a0d6a5314fc6b84d9dc492\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fa29630ca9a0d6a5314fc6b84d9dc492\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues) (14:33)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I stand by my statement. Our Government is focused on improving the lives of the nearly one in six New Zealanders who is disabled. I\u2019m proud of the work we have under way to improve outcomes for disabled people, which includes launching the New Zealand Disability Strategy, which focuses on outcomes in employment, justice, housing, education, and health; the New Zealand Sign Language plan; Access Activator, where community develops accessibility solutions; the Autism New Zealand pilot funding for early identification for preschoolers; the investment to get a hundred young people into high-performance wheelchairs; and oneinsix.nz, which we\u2019ve been promoting to businesses to support more disabled people into work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022154727523a59431ab210aea1cf707272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b7c21a88349adb7d2291ef30ec19daf5\u0022\u003EHon Priyanca Radhakrishnan\u003C/span\u003E: What does she say to the 82 percent of disabled households that have experienced food insecurity in the last year, and who are struggling even more now that white bread costs 67 percent more, mince is up 28 percent, and milk is up 26 percent under her Government\u2019s watch?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022caa283d5ee91f4888a90e31272ee3516\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, we acknowledge, as we have on many occasions in this House, that many New Zealanders are doing it tough right now, which is why our focus on responsible economic management matters when the world is volatile and unpredictable. That\u2019s why we are fixing the basics in the economy and repairing the economic damage done since COVID. We will continue this work to support more New Zealanders who are experiencing tough times.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022154727523a59431ab210aea1cf707272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e31ef3a8eaf8b45b01743c3a21af87bc\u0022\u003EHon Priyanca Radhakrishnan\u003C/span\u003E: How can she say, as the Minister responsible for advocating for disabled people, that removing K\u0101inga Ora\u2019s target for more accessible homes and scrapping My Home My Choice\u2014a work programme aimed at providing disabled people with choice and control over how and where they live\u2014has improved the lives of disabled people?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222778d09f025cf4e03c0ce4ff3f7e793a\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, housing is one of the five areas in the disability strategy, and, obviously, there is a turnaround plan with K\u0101inga Ora, but it does not mean, in terms of the change with the universal target, that we are not delivering full universal design homes. Since 2019, K\u0101inga Ora has built 1,464 homes to its full universal design standard. We also need to take into consideration that many houses that are occupied by New Zealanders are in the private market, so we also need to ensure that there is greater accessible housing in the private sector and also in the many thousands of community housing places that are in place. As I said, housing is one of the five areas in the disability strategy, and, as we know, there is more work to do to improve housing for disabled New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022154727523a59431ab210aea1cf707272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022477ef8ea233ac67a2b2eb2c15a01b233\u0022\u003EHon Priyanca Radhakrishnan\u003C/span\u003E: How does she justify the reduction to the Total Mobility scheme when disabled people have said that it will force them to cut down their travel by choosing between getting to work, the supermarket, or doctors appointments?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022af5861a91255605d67bc49b179b5f129\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, in terms of the Total Mobility scheme, which is the responsibility of the Minister of Transport, one of the areas that we have focused on is ensuring that fares remain lower than they were in 2022, but members opposite tend to forget that what is really important is that disabled people have a service they can rely on. Because of the level of unaffordability, we had providers around the country that were threatening to withdraw from the scheme entirely. That was not going to be a solution that was going to be viable, which is why we have worked on ensuring that the Total Mobility system is sustainable and affordable and is meeting the needs of disabled New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022154727523a59431ab210aea1cf707272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b02868d0d0f67360eccc94b3d0052923\u0022\u003EHon Priyanca Radhakrishnan\u003C/span\u003E: How can she say that her Government is committed to improving the lives of disabled people when decisions they have made have increased food, transport, and housing costs for disabled people?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225f49401e339846d3ba1d8fd56d3d0726\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, that member conveniently forgets the economic times we are in. As I\u2019ve said, our Government is focused on the cost of living pressures that people are facing. But what the member fails to acknowledge is that you can\u2019t just spend, spend, spend, and accept that things are sustainable, so we have to look at ensuring that programmes are sustainable over time. As I said, with Total Mobility, some regional councils were threatening to come out of it completely. How was that going to work for disabled people? We want to ensure that what is funded is sustainable and delivered over time, because disabled people want services that they can rely on and count on, not just now but in the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022154727523a59431ab210aea1cf707272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227336a2499cadd2a6ce8dc7e92c0add10\u0022\u003EHon Priyanca Radhakrishnan\u003C/span\u003E: Who should New Zealanders believe, the Minister who claims that she is improving the lives of disabled people, or disabled people, who have said that they are exhausted and that her Government is making life harder for them?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002231c5fdaefb6672d83159197cd14bf2a3\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the unfortunate reality is that in many areas, disabled people are worse off than the general population, which is why we are focused on initiatives like oneinsix.nz to support more disabled New Zealanders into employment, because they are disproportionately represented in our unemployment figures. What we do know is there is a much larger number of disabled people who want to be in work. That\u2019s what our Government is focused on: improving outcomes so that they can be more independent and lead the lives they choose to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e0735f97b4b8a14602da672e721818b4\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00223df524438de7c23d5168cb20df1ea768\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 8\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022 data-id=\u0022faf3b14907a8ea4f417cc5ff06a02d9b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022faf3b14907a8ea4f417cc5ff06a02d9b\u0022\u003ECHL\u00D6E SWARBRICK (Co-Leader\u2014Green) (14:38)\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000188\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=\u0022b0e0046c12459d03d9d44ab403b3d34c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b0e0046c12459d03d9d44ab403b3d34c\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:38)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002211cb920a952a8ee2a8237c5728fa9404\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: When he agrees with the Greens by saying New Zealand needs \u201Csensible, common-sense rules in place\u201D for artificial intelligence (AI) data centres, does he think that those rules should be in place before any more of those AI data centres are consented?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002204328c8e352491f1884b3664f62f0f0e\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I think the issue I have, now that you heard my public remarks this week, is that turning off investors and investment before it arrives in New Zealand isn\u2019t a good thing. It\u2019s an approach we saw with the banning of oil and gas and mining, and we don\u2019t want to send a message out that we\u2019re closed for business. Our data centres today are about 0.6 percent of our electricity and we\u2019ve got three data centres coming on stream in the next 12 months. It doesn\u2019t preclude the fact that I still think we need some sensible, common-sense rules, but I\u2019d just say to the member that a moratorium for 12 months is absolutely the wrong message.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bc2670853ecbfa4a00819a74cced6b78\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Prime Minister understand that, if his Government plans to allow the consenting of more AI data centres before these common-sense environmental and energy and water regulations are in place, those new regulations will not apply to those already consented AI data centres?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b93cd663ec1bb923a5bc6ffff222cb99\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, my point is that we just need to take a step back and actually think about what sensible rules we put about the investment\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b3410b728cb84eb295c253e2648ca0c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002295b7d1baa447610e3f60f26454699475\u0022\u003EScott Willis\u003C/span\u003E: How about a one-year moratorium? That\u2019d be nice step back.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221dcda63fd96f8361488cb8b6070f530e\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: There\u2019s no need for a moratorium. There is absolutely no need for a moratorium. It is classic Greens policy to turn off investment and investors before they\u2019ve even shown up in New Zealand. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a57c41165a2801d8026d7e12d4a32cf5\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Just wait for your own side to settle a little bit. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022922a9449e1e00e4660398d65d6619113\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: Was the Prime Minister briefed on Invest New Zealand\u2019s goal for $35\u00A0billion of new investment in AI data centres before the report was published earlier this month?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228fc92eeb1ece980d6c4dee6097ac3943\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Make no mistake: we want to attract a lot of data centres to New Zealand. We have a data centre competitive advantage. We have a cool climate, we have abundant renewable energy, and we have political stability, and that is a good thing for big data centre investments. Of course we\u2019ll put some common-sense rules around all that, but, if you look out into the future over the next 10 years, there is a quadrupling of our need for data centres, and it\u2019s a critical part of modern life and a modern economy. We take on board the point\u2014we\u2019ll have some critical common-sense rules\u2014but we\u2019re going to go out and build data centres, and we are going to attract investment to this great country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221e9bc14df7aaa087d1ffbbc7a716d281\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Prime Minister tell us, when he first heard that policy, did it remind him of a policy from somewhere else in the world?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022592ad123c5e592f3559bde739b0a0c63\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for his question, but it most reminded me actually of the banning of oil and gas and the unintended consequences that took place when the previous Government\u2014Labour, Greens, and New Zealand First\u2014banned it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d7af0503a356b4d99b092673b6932504\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. The Prime Minister didn\u2019t get the question properly. Can I repeat it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002287a6f43189784339a7ff6a92b1bfb16a\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: You\u2019re asking me to put myself in a very dangerous position by agreeing with the member. If the member wants to use another supplementary, he can, but we\u2019ll take Chl\u00F6e Swarbrick in the meantime.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ff35228109a50723fbfcb0f7f3bb4e99\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: How does the Prime Minister reconcile his comment, in answer to me just then, that we have \u201Cabundant renewable energy\u201D in this country with the comments that his Government has been making over the last 2\u00BD years that we have a serious dry-year problem, to the extent that the Government wants to funnel in excess of a billion dollars into new fossil fuel production?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ae6f33f802fe2fb3dd4a96ae51e3535c\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Both can be true. I mean, let\u2019s be clear: we have a renewables boom up and running in this country. That\u2019s fantastic. We\u2019ve built more in two years than in the previous eight years. Things like Resource Management Act reform, fast-track legislation\u2014excellent. Lots of people from inside New Zealand and outside New Zealand wanting to invest in renewables\u2014fantastic. But the other reality is that we need to de-risk the dry-year risk. That means doing a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import facility. It means co-investing with potential gas investment in this country. It means having a strategic coal reserve behind Huntly, a strategic diesel reserve up in Whang\u0101rei. It\u2019s an \u201Cand, and, and\u201D policy. And isn\u2019t it fantastic that, since we announced our investment in thermal firming energies and the things that we want to do, since the beginning of the year we\u2019ve seen wholesale electricity prices, in the forward curves, go from $200 down to $120. Of course, that welcomes more investment into New Zealand to come out and build the data centres.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226e23804e06b84b07fcec1991f66057e1\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Prime Minister, when you first heard the so-called \u201Ccommon-sense\u201D one-year moratorium, did you not recognise it as being the same policy emanating from Donald Trump\u2019s United States?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022997656f75855f94f475af96e5bfb2cd9\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I\u2019m quite focused on making sure we advance New Zealand\u2019s interests. I\u2019m less interested in Donald Trump and the US.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229340db0d6051493982fc3db81fee975a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022739fb3f24d3ab028cc4224043db056c6\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Prime Minister guarantee that New Zealanders\u2019 power bills will not increase as a result of the consenting of new AI data centres, as has been experienced in many other jurisdictions around the world?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ea1ea2b0878c61300825010e90c7e46b\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the fantastic thing is that, since we announced the LNG import facility, the forward prices have done from $200 down to $120. At one point, they were at $800 in 2024 because of the failed Labour-Greens energy strategy and policy. The fact that we\u2019ve a very competitive global wholesale electricity price means we\u2019re attracting more data centre investment, and that\u2019s great.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224f3964305177c277a37667e4a4d6c429\u0022\u003EHon David Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: Is it credible to promise a moratorium on data centres for a whole year if a person is not prepared to forego their benefits for even one day?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002239c27f951106a54176bc75f8de3cf2a3\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it\u2019s a proposition you\u2019re asking. I\u2019m not sure that he\u2019s got responsibility for what individuals might do in their personal circumstances.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022511c25b7e16070e318845eb1940634c6\u0022\u003EHon David Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: No, no, it\u2019s a point about how society\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002256eaa9ae319924625deb9dfef6990429\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I didn\u2019t pick it up that way. Question No. 9\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dabf568f6e3e83ee3b03776de6508db9\u0022\u003EHon Dr Megan Woods\u003C/span\u003E: You\u2019re all having to explain yourselves a lot today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002270184ec99792dc4a27a04fe132fd7258\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Oh don\u2019t start asking questions to the member, for goodness\u2019 sake. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, question No. 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f29560e888e700c7be1052f53a45ba63\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022faaa948f48261fa7385066dc7e58ebe1\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 9\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022 data-id=\u00223385a456138c2923c3e165f9dd9c097d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223385a456138c2923c3e165f9dd9c097d\u0022\u003EDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader\u2014Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori) (14:45)\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=\u00225090e22d62e5e95c4a62e6c58c083865\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225090e22d62e5e95c4a62e6c58c083865\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:45)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e29eb4b81e54ba4c1858b75e5d8f84f1\u0022\u003EDebbie Ngarewa-Packer\u003C/span\u003E: Why did the Prime Minister choose Federated Farmers\u2019 public campaign for the repeal of Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe agreements over the views of iwi who negotiated in good faith?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022432b3b89b0152453f2d21713ea0c1c33\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: We covered this last week, but the key messages are that it\u2019s important that any agreement struck are in the context of the new Resource Management Act (RMA) legislation. It\u2019s important that they also operate at the highest level\u2014typically around spatial planning\u2014and, most importantly, we want to make sure, at the individual project level, people can crack on and get things done on their own property.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224ae20f252a371a0084168ee1d4f9f9ac\u0022\u003EDebbie Ngarewa-Packer\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Prime Minster name one iwi organisation that asked his Government to repeal Mana Whakahono \u0101 Rohe agreements?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cf89e0520cce48c9e4ab7b66595d5dd4\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I\u2019m just saying to you that we actually believe that those agreements need to be in the context of the new RMA legislation. It makes no sense, getting caught in a transition from an old set of laws to a new set of laws, to have those agreements in the old setup.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a505e25a56374370ba46f88af06749bb\u0022\u003EDebbie Ngarewa-Packer\u003C/span\u003E: Was Federated Farmers the loudest voice the Government listened to?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db908d5340b69c47c43ac8a8917f3a4c\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: This Government takes lots of views from lots of different stakeholders, as you would expect. We like a view that comes from outside the Public Service, as well, because often people closest to the problem have good ideas to implement things, which is great. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022377f276ef813c57eb85933df47a48c05\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Just wait for everyone just to settle down a little bit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002249964d7f5ff0efd302600d0f49ff0dae\u0022\u003EDebbie Ngarewa-Packer\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Prime Minister identify one Government decision that has strengthened the iwi M\u0101ori participation in public decision-making?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f7a2f5dcc0b3bbe2b27eec12f8b826ee\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: I would look at the work we have delivered in terms of outcomes for M\u0101ori students, by focusing back on basics. That is a great outcome, and I know many iwi support that effort as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224eeb694c55ab4633a7c9a1c69024072a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e2a2eb4b5b26d230117377976ca84591\u0022\u003EDebbie Ngarewa-Packer\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. I just want to clarify, the question was: can the Prime Minister identify one Government decision that has strengthened iwi M\u0101ori participation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002298587653f14d2ab08de79342cfa076e1\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I think, with all due respect\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E] While I\u2019m speaking, no one else is. With all due respect, I think it would be worthwhile looking at the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E. The answer that the Prime Minister gave\u2014I think it more than addressed the question. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237b40d11275f4dba8e36c41507f8a1c5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022de26a25278940bbea7a8e9cf9572f2b6\u0022\u003EHon Erica Stanford\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Prime Minister aware of the M\u0101ori advisory group that sits in education, advising the Minister of Education on policy\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002242067e22c7a349218b3b868f58eda79d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002223c74c08aed91bf5f8755294e4da51a9\u0022\u003ERachel Boyack\u003C/span\u003E: Elizabeth Rata!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237b40d11275f4dba8e36c41507f8a1c5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225845e387af54232434499c0f714345b9\u0022\u003EHon Erica Stanford\u003C/span\u003E:\u2014including Dame Georgina Kingi and the honourable\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022da963b67d16d3f268ccb9d96766ebd47\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, wait on. The member for Nelson\u2014I won\u2019t use the name, because that would be naming someone\u2014is it necessary for you to ask a question at the same time as the questioner?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237b40d11275f4dba8e36c41507f8a1c5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ad0305568c257fb7a186c48fdd82cc34\u0022\u003EHon Erica Stanford\u003C/span\u003E: To the Prime Minister, is he aware of the M\u0101ori advisory group that sits around the Minister of Education, helping to advise on M\u0101ori education policy, including Dame Georgina Kingi and the Hon Kelvin Davis?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226ed0a20adfff962f01ec790fa8f822ff\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Absolutely, and I think the work that the Minister has undertaken to ensure that our new resources are now teaching the basics brilliantly. It\u2019s available in M\u0101ori medium\u2014it\u2019s fantastic.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0e2403c87194ab09a0bd954cda7ab12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227c318769c562a1a7af45eb2dbfaecf20\u0022\u003ERawiri Waititi\u003C/span\u003E: Supplementary!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225e56644ea26de86a1cd920f825da07eb\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Hang on. Just a moment. Ah\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022679bfe29c2a852e2eae427e7ea4e9e73\u0022\u003EHon Members: \u003C/span\u003ERawiri Waititi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b68a2127747749cb03227ea81a17c8c9\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Rawiri Waititi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0e2403c87194ab09a0bd954cda7ab12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221e199a7a3a955f0b99d1885262161543\u0022\u003ERawiri Waititi\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, Chris. Does he believe relations between the Crown and M\u0101ori have improved or deteriorated since he became Prime Minister?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228a0fdf2d207f6e1ad8ee370b40579432\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: What I believe is this is a Government that is very much focused on improving outcomes for M\u0101ori and non-M\u0101ori.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0e2403c87194ab09a0bd954cda7ab12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022661ec9ae73afe61bb640d2b122a0e37f\u0022\u003ERawiri Waititi\u003C/span\u003E: How does his Government measure success in M\u0101ori-Crown relations?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b862e84f867ee3dda2a1780e9a72c58e\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: By outcomes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229d5b13d601794bb282d99453116ad395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228e5c54f01fd48d98f58b781e2601f7da\u0022\u003EHon Tama Potaka\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Prime Minister please confirm that this Government\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e3b804b1170a4bfdffe27e6d1811480a\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Hang on. Today is a particularly rowdy day for some reason; it\u2019s probably the time of the season\u2014the Hon Tama Potaka and no one else.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229d5b13d601794bb282d99453116ad395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aee9581f447fa59b2034d9263afbf2a7\u0022\u003EHon Tama Potaka\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Prime Minister please confirm that this Government has supported the development of more M\u0101ori housing to the tune of over $400 million over the last three years?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002231914a2bd5fcf49f047dfb65f7c6941b\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, I think we can very proud of the effort on housing with M\u0101ori but also, I\u2019d say, with housing in general\u2014stable house prices, record first home purchases, average mortgages down by about $7,500, rent increases the lowest they\u2019ve been in 25 years\u2014$180 up a week under that Government but stable under ours.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0e2403c87194ab09a0bd954cda7ab12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c8a7af4767985448ece3a6af2e5ccae8\u0022\u003ERawiri Waititi\u003C/span\u003E: What evidence does the Prime Minister have that improving M\u0101ori outcomes has been achieved given that M\u0101ori unemployment is up 10.8 percent, M\u0101ori incarceration rates have increased, just three in 10 M\u0101ori own their own home, 50 percent of the public housing waiting list are M\u0101ori, and one in four children living in material hardship are M\u0101ori?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220780d77c583a822caa127e8b6b058e25\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I think M\u0101ori also appreciate the fact that there are 46,000 fewer victims of violent crime. I think they appreciate the fact that there is a 22 percent reduction in serious youth offending. I think they appreciate the fact there are 2,000 more people in prison, because we want them in prison, not in the communities causing pain and suffering on fellow New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0e2403c87194ab09a0bd954cda7ab12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229d9d7318bbc4b5da91ee0e0f561f5bf1\u0022\u003ERawiri Waititi\u003C/span\u003E: Can he name one policy\u2014just one\u2014that has improved M\u0101ori-Crown relations in this term of Government?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002287a8b7ced605f355cd59bd1cb74e3032\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Back to basics and structured literacy. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ddb1ce06e8e8a07fed1bad18800cd727\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: When everyone\u2019s quiet, the Hon Chris Bishop.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002277e9f40fd9c118b51a43e70891945974\u0022\u003EHon Chris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the first commercial M\u0101ori aquaculture settlement area to be developed in 20 years, that was previously declined under the Resource Management Act, has received draft approval through fast track\u2014namely Ng\u0101i Tahu\u2019s Hananui Aquaculture project in the South Island?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228e9529863b7b399536a0033b03d4a74b\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I can. I can also confirm that many iwi are on board with the fast-track proposals and have been able to participate in building out infrastructure across this country, and that\u2019s a great thing. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f3a37c13b6ce8769b17636701d297ef3\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019re almost at the end of question time, so I\u2019d ask people just to constrain themselves. There are more mundane debates coming in the afternoon; I\u2019m sure people will enjoy a similar level of participation there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00228d65a45992dd3ce48b2f853dbed24f86\u0022\u003ECommerce and Consumer Affairs\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022bdce6cecbe1b08649966b8a896aa9f71\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u002216526012ff0eab681bff95483696fd87\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002216526012ff0eab681bff95483696fd87\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (14:51)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs\u003C/span\u003E: Why did the Government decide to abolish the Grocery Commissioner before publicly releasing its analysis on grocery competition?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022587d574de1174371be09e431d9060e87\u0022 data-id=\u0022f0815a6fe75adff32f1a7218717c43b3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022587d574de1174371be09e431d9060e87\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f0815a6fe75adff32f1a7218717c43b3\u0022\u003EHon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (14:52)\u003C/span\u003E: As I told the member last week, the Commerce (Commerce Commission Reform) Amendment Bill removes the statutory position of the Grocery Commissioner, but it does not the remove the powers or functions of that role. Those responsibilities will continue to be exercised by the Commerce Commission as a whole. The Government\u2019s decision was based on its broader Commerce Commission reform programme, which is focused on strengthening governance, improving decision making, and ensuring regulatory functions are carried out by the commission collectively, rather than through a separate statutory office.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f5c834535a90a70cb8c0e379cc658954\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. Mr Speaker, the question was very specific and asked why the Government made that decision before publicly releasing the analysis on grocery competition. The Minister explained the rationale for making the decision, but in no way addressed the direct question as to why they did that before the information was released.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225425e027c7eaf5bab543c547c8573d80\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it\u2019s a bit hard to make that argument given that the Minister has just said that nothing is going to change with regards to the authority that that particular position had.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c7442aa497b4594e83361c2a48e1dcd0\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order, sir. With respect, sir, if Ministers are not required to specifically address a primary question, that completely undermines the point of question time. The House is in no way more informed as to why the Government decided to abolish the Grocery Commissioner before publicly releasing this analysis. It\u2019s a straightforward question, it isn\u2019t political in nature, and the House is reasonable in its expectation that we would be informed as to why\u2014and we are not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002271d8acf3a6f0476999f9d03b4ae70e7d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228620bb349a587a2addfec7115e8f85b9\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. It\u2019s quite clear, sir\u2014you\u2019ve reminded us on many occasions\u2014that Speakers\u2019 rulings 206 and 207 give adequate cover for the pointed accuracy of that response. We\u2019re getting to a point where we\u2019re trivialising with your authority\u2014please use it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221b6fe2a6cc8f4c214237e8b3deb63d1e\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Jones. I\u2019ll take that as an endorsement of some sort.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227a652011751a82ff813ee47048f2a634\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to that point of order, sir. I think the use of wording there by the Minister is quite telling. Ministers should not be seeking opportunities to provide cover. They should be complying with the clear direction under Speaker\u2019s ruling 202/1 that for a question on notice\u2014a primary question\u2014the House has an expectation that it be addressed. It was not. The question was not \u201CWhy did the Government make this decision?\u201D\u2014that was the answer that was given. The question was \u201CWhy was it made before the information was released?\u201D, and that in no way was addressed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022116358f222caded6d765e962e7b59175\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I think what we\u2019ll do is ask the second part of the question again, if you can remember what it was.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002277c4dc35cff8af48bbf0af0356df8b97\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002268e377074c8b23876b4a1ba2b2e3c876\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it\u2019s written down, so she should.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224b226445f35e766b77876c5e69b43c3a\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, it\u2019s\u2014we were on a supplementary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ebf95b194b7f9ad164b4d780720663c9\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: No, we weren\u2019t, sir.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022160d9f1bb80b6ba20ceb91ec918b5981\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e60314691b62eb57c5465a9030b646ad\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Were we not? My apologies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ca91c7027d383664594c51a8c0179fc2\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: No, it was a primary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f097da8fa85b9eb090e35652561900b2\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: OK. Well, in that case, we\u2019ll make it clear: ask the question again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002254d864eb48c5ffa726ef7776320b6d85\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: OK. Why did the Government decide to abolish the Grocery Commissioner before publicly releasing its analysis on grocery competition?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022587d574de1174371be09e431d9060e87\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e9d6a10fd5c0267de52fe76c06717f07\u0022\u003EHon CAMERON BREWER\u003C/span\u003E: This will clear this up: we did not need a further report to know that there were steps that we, as a Government, could take to improve the commission\u2019s governance and regulatory framework.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227dd04af351c0385182cf0462544aad11\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Why won\u2019t the Government release that analysis now, so that Parliament and the public can have an informed debate about grocery competition, instead of more posturing?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022587d574de1174371be09e431d9060e87\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b7c10fd950cdd935e4cf0b27abc94678\u0022\u003EHon CAMERON BREWER\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister for Economic Growth is working through the potential grocery competition reforms. No decisions have been made, and the Minister for Economic Growth has made it clear that when she\u2019s worked through that analysis, she will have more to say in the coming months.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222788cbf7119894dfe99afee9195468ea\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Does he believe competition in the grocery sector is improving on his watch?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022587d574de1174371be09e431d9060e87\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226d8479e637b4cbc0f172731e06b09105\u0022\u003EHon CAMERON BREWER\u003C/span\u003E: It seems that these supplementary questions, as I said last time, have been written before Statistics New Zealand came out on 21 July and confirmed that grocery prices are running at 2.8 percent. That\u2019s in an annualised context. That\u2019s a lot lower than 12.5 percent under the previous Labour Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a8b04a658e266a72d53c605111d9c46d\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Does he believe that lamb chops up 32 percent, cheese up 30 percent, and butter up 41 percent shows competition is improving?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022587d574de1174371be09e431d9060e87\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f1a50e126fe8af1cfe7571f4beb0da8b\u0022\u003EHon CAMERON BREWER\u003C/span\u003E: Again, I was very encouraged by Statistics New Zealand\u2019s release on grocery prices\u2014as far as, on 21 July, in the year to June 30 2026, grocery inflation is running at 2.8 percent. That is a big improvement on 12.5\u00A0percent under the previous Labour Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022484071d6c998f6e3b8b0e7380356fcad\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Wasn\u2019t it clear, Minister, that from the very beginning, when the commissioner job was first advertised\u2014filled 15 months later\u2014that the commissioner would be powerless to do any work of any value to the country in the first place?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022587d574de1174371be09e431d9060e87\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e9aad366a9c6287b4abc3a9bf22cc339\u0022\u003EHon CAMERON BREWER\u003C/span\u003E: We are looking forward to the delivery of the Commerce Commission reforms. We are looking forward to the delivery of the commerce amendment bill and the Fair Trading Amendment Bill, because that will give extra statutory responsibilities, including increasing the penalties for fair-trading breaches.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222776619342d2a159ffbd295bd74ac4f0\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: If he gets rid of the Grocery Commissioner while grocers charge more for groceries, which other businesses using their market power to charge higher prices can expect the same treatment?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022587d574de1174371be09e431d9060e87\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222a5b0ab8b180c44bb0596baf4d2d440d\u0022\u003EHon CAMERON BREWER\u003C/span\u003E: I go back to my original answer. We are seeing grocery prices coming down from 12.5 percent annual inflation to 2.8 percent. That is a big improvement\u2014that is a big improvement from where we were under the previous administration.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221d8c2806b8bd267aa81be8e255614ff9\u0022\u003EArena Williams\u003C/span\u003E: So he does want grocery prices to drop?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022587d574de1174371be09e431d9060e87\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b99c75ef27f4ca4190cb1dc192eee9c0\u0022\u003EHon CAMERON BREWER\u003C/span\u003E: As the Prime Minister articulated early, we want things to fall within that inflationary band, and grocery prices have at 2.8 percent. In fact, inflation, if you take out diesel and petrol, has also fallen within the statutory band of 2.9\u00A0percent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00228010b556a2ba6ca57fa340ed2f91dd76\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002249f323f33702d50b683ca1c6674dc28d\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022 data-id=\u00228ac07332daf36a2af1e58d5b3e28926a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228ac07332daf36a2af1e58d5b3e28926a\u0022\u003EHon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader\u2014Green) (14:59)\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000292\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=\u0022be559e8ed20d2f6b373ecd60635920c7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022be559e8ed20d2f6b373ecd60635920c7\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:59)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226dfcea1db9802cd44ebd6e539f22e358\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by his Government\u2019s record on appointments to the Crown entity boards given only approximately a quarter of the appointees were recruited through a publicly advertised process?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002221435c86470bc8bf04c495bcf4942f33\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, we have a series of appointments to make in any given year, and we do that with some rigour.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002251e7953a1193ab8f7866e3c66d91ceb3\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: How can he claim his Government appoints people on merit when 75 percent of these senior roles were filled without the public ever being told the jobs existed?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223de6da46546712a30be53a231320b17c\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m not sure what the member is referring to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022585d5dc3ef2231d91846f0209d29ef3c\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Why did only one out of every three of these roles appointed by his Government go to women?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002288fb3fbf7526bcc7bb8fe75ace1221cf\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, as I said, we have a rigorous Cabinet Appointment and Honours Committee (APH) conversation most weeks as a Cabinet committee\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a09be5a99c7c38993f2e01e96b3b0170\u0022\u003EHon Dr Megan Woods\u003C/span\u003E: So there\u2019s just untalented women then, eh?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022014dcc5f5c40f4af4e279137eec41b8d\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: No, we go through a series of candidates. We have those discussions. We take that very seriously and we make sure that we promote the best people we can find into those positions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002254aa7c61326f4a0395e6e4031c554ba3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a5cf30b508863d55fa87368069d2ad8d\u0022\u003EHon Dr Megan Woods\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, the best people aren\u2019t women.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e4a4872f7e47f919286b83e295fb230b\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s not what I said.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bc3cee6f7624a401baf01b3c69985846\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Does he then think women are less qualified for senior governance roles or\u2014[\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224f8c9de08c121ab904442ec060d9b8e2\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Hang on, wait a minute. When someone is asking a question, everyone knows no one else speaks, not from the front row of the Government or the front row of the Opposition.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002297d109052f2a9c5958e5f705a570dbbc\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Does he think women are less qualified for senior governance roles or does he accept that his Government\u2019s appointment process actively fails to appoint women?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227da9a2c0543f1bf1fc6528dd4d68a9cb\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: In answer to the first leg of the question, absolutely not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e65b51223cf4eb8aa02a982d92f8959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022959dd0f7dd40a27e0ae4781a7ad60cb0\u0022\u003EHon Marama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: How can New Zealanders have confidence these are the best people for the job when so many appointments are made through shoulder taps instead of open competition?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a150d5b757e630a853db6e727c7e9590\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: I reject the characterisation of the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022446ec2690c724b8189770c259d2e676a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022614547233648f7b9227e57ef1fa75557\u0022\u003EHon Nicola Grigg\u003C/span\u003E: Supplementary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002251abc581afc183f7241e63a2a4dec613\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Is this a supplementary?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022446ec2690c724b8189770c259d2e676a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022292e034f9240c5ec2918c8c9ba5da809\u0022\u003EHon Nicola Grigg\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, it is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f18b08354ac3834315aef8877015d2e4\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Supplementary question\u2014the Hon Nicola Grigg. [\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EInterruption\u003C/span\u003E] But just wait for everyone to give you the courtesy of their silence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022446ec2690c724b8189770c259d2e676a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022528330110693a861bc8e4b138aa3c76d\u0022\u003EHon Nicola Grigg\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Prime Minister confirm that, for the sixth consecutive year, Crown-appointed positions have been held by over 50 percent of women?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cd896dd87395460c8de853bbf60dbf66\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022de7fba7b98d48c729496e9dcb83acc0c\u0022\u003ERt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I can, and I thank the member for the contribution she makes on the APH Committee where she often brings those facts to us.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cf9e1eb91ef740868a26db659355f7e9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022de684f2598120fe0ade7f46ecb3fe6fa\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Could I ask the Prime Minister: is it wise that, before making appointments with respect to women, you know what a woman is?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022723e74de70c05adda70f4ceecc321f7c\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019ll move now to question 12.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b9907b5ddebd39e45cc43051e583e8f7\u0022\u003EMental Health\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022020542a3493657645213ea4c74f3da07\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 12\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022200839810eb94155be7306bf21d350dd\u0022 data-id=\u0022ae5c399b4bd6953cb5cc1d045bc8bd30\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022200839810eb94155be7306bf21d350dd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ae5c399b4bd6953cb5cc1d045bc8bd30\u0022\u003ESAM UFFINDELL (National\u2014Tauranga) (15:02)\u003C/span\u003E to the \u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBold\u0022\u003EMinister for Mental Health\u003C/span\u003E: What recent announcement has he made about introducing psychology assistants to deliver more mental health and addiction workers?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022 data-id=\u0022c34b3e45029a661c4039d71f4842843f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c34b3e45029a661c4039d71f4842843f\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (15:03)\u003C/span\u003E: Good news. Last week, I was pleased to meet the first students on their first day training to become New Zealand\u2019s first registered psychology assistants. This is a major milestone in delivering our Government\u2019s plan to grow the front-line mental health workforce and to deliver faster access to support. Budget \u201826 invested $28.45 billion to establish this new workforce, supporting up to 150 new psychology assistants entering front-line services. Psychology assistants will work alongside registered psychologists providing low-intensity interventions, supporting assessments, monitoring progress, and delivering psychoeducation. This will free psychologists to spend more time with people who have the most complex needs, helping reduce wait times, and improving access to mental health support.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022200839810eb94155be7306bf21d350dd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e651d50a45e77e361a25431f6d50d00c\u0022\u003ESam Uffindell\u003C/span\u003E: Why has the Government introduced the psychology assistant role?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d0fe2282c98bdbde9eb1a804edec162a\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY\u003C/span\u003E: Every year, many psychology graduates miss out on a limited number of postgraduate clinical psychology training places, and too many leave the profession altogether. This new pathway keeps talented graduates in the mental health workforce, helping New Zealanders today while building the skilled workforce we will need in the future. The Government\u2019s mental health plan is delivering faster access to support more front-line workers and a better crisis response. These graduates will start training in 2026 and enter the workforce in 2027.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022200839810eb94155be7306bf21d350dd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221fb07fd460d934a85cd5882c4342e928\u0022\u003ESam Uffindell\u003C/span\u003E: How will this new role improve access to mental health services?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224e74f651c270c1368c8e5e58d4ef238b\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY\u003C/span\u003E: Psychology assistants will provide evidence-based, low-intensity psychological support with the supervision of registered psychologists. By sharing appropriate clinical work, psychologists can focus on people with the most complex needs, allowing more New Zealanders to be seen sooner and helping reduce wait times. What\u2019s really exciting, is there are two universities, both University of Canterbury and Auckland University of Technology, now delivering this new qualification\u2014and more universities will start next year\u2014as well as funding 150 of these new roles in front-line services.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022200839810eb94155be7306bf21d350dd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225aa58c68b2f6cf5315ec54e0c0114e05\u0022\u003ESam Uffindell\u003C/span\u003E: What other steps is the Government taking to grow the front-line mental health and addiction workforce?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002224cf2b07c863455d8ff343c5bc53b590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224343b065d6489a57f7d7d39246bb0a34\u0022\u003EHon MATT DOOCEY\u003C/span\u003E: Another good question. This announcement builds on the significant investment this Government has already made to strengthen the mental health workforce. We are on track to double the number of clinical psychology interns. We\u2019ve increased psychiatry registrar places by 50\u00A0percent, increased clinical psychology fulltime-equivalent by 10\u00A0percent, while growing the front-line mental health and addiction workforce by 11\u00A0percent since coming into office.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002274413e0af955d06bbe310c909f1d07d6\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00227490df453947a569179fdc0f131be927\u0022\u003EDebates\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022eed5b57429b5fc25186629fce252c19e\u0022\u003EDecision to Abstain From Vote\u2014United Nations Appointment of High Commissioner for Human Rights\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00224242d758eb6d939c5ec7a9988527e862\u0022\u003EUrgent Debate Declined\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d5414e77edbba1359ef9445f2bb8b5d0\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Members, I\u2019ve received a letter from Vanushi Walters seeking to debate, under Standing Order 399, the decision to abstain on a vote at the United Nations General Assembly approving the appointment of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility, however, this is a matter that would be more suited to an oral question. It does not reach the level of urgency that warrants setting aside the business of the House today. The application is declined.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EBefore I call on the Leader of the House, we\u2019ll take 30 seconds for those who have to go to other business to do so quietly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002200aea3209ce59a6c1281f93e4cd9c61c\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. Thank you, sir. Without having an intention whatsoever to dispute the ruling on the urgent debate application, it would be useful to further understand one part of the response, and that is, \u201Cthis matter would be more suited to an oral question.\u201D Whilst it\u2019s quite probable that that has been used in Speakers\u2019 responses before\u2014I haven\u2019t heard it\u2014it would be useful for future applications to better understand, in your view, which topics warrant an application and what topics are more suited, in your view, to oral questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cd95fbcdfb24a35dfdde98e259122859\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, look, each one of those applications is judged on its merit, its immediacy, and a need for it to be dealt with by the House at the time. There\u2019s also a consideration of where that question might be asked elsewhere. So it\u2019s simply indicating that, today, rather than taking a full hour of the House to debate something that has happened, which is usually the case for the urgent debates I accept, it might well have been the sort of information the House could have elicited through an oral question. I\u2019m not trying to make it difficult for members\u2014quite the opposite.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002221d783f7d10a095929b3081be6ecf393\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Understood. Speaking to that, though, sir, if I can, reading between the lines, is it your view that the application may have been strengthened if a question was asked in addition to the application, and, hypothetically, wasn\u2019t addressed properly\u2014would that have then strengthened the application for the urgent debate?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222cd6a48800e00a6b2a76b37bd966b81b\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the member might have noticed that in cases where there is an absolute decline of a request for an urgent debate, I\u2019ve often mentioned those at the beginning of the question time. I\u2019ve also indicated that the debate would be allowed, at the beginning of question time, to allow a bit more preparation time. But also, I have, on a number of occasions, listened carefully to the answers to questions where the topic of a request was a matter for the House. That\u2019s happened not this sitting block but the previous sitting block, so take that for what it might be.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e6ef11887f15244d0ecb6dcf42ca3ed8\u0022\u003ESittings of the House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00226f66f90475199ad1c503e8e0c29993e5\u0022\u003EExtended Sitting\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022 data-id=\u00225017c3de6e0efd5f1a07191ec2315891\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1901a44e88e40d095f26c06ebac9721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225017c3de6e0efd5f1a07191ec2315891\u0022\u003EHon LOUISE UPSTON (Leader of the House) (15:09)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning to consider Government orders of the day Nos 1 to 7, and to hold a special debate on petitions\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000341\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f4a627dcf02b75a5307d7e31acddf9e0\u0022\u003EAppointments\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022355d9361344b83247746188b37f73ed6\u0022\u003EJudicial Conduct Commissioner\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022687734ad57faa8bda8415583f4f2a977\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022687734ad57faa8bda8415583f4f2a977\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Attorney-General) (15:10)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat this House, noting that the Chief Justice has been consulted as required by section 7(3) of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004, recommend Her Excellency the Governor-General appoint Paul Norman Collins as Judicial Conduct Commissioner for a term of 5 years, under section 7(2) of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETry saying that twice! The Judicial Conduct Commissioner is responsible for investigating and assessing complaints about the conduct of judges. It\u2019s an important constitutional position. They must carry out a preliminary examination of complaints and determine whether a complaint is dismissed or whether any further action is taken; whether or not it\u2019s referred to the relevant head of bench or, if it\u2019s serious enough, it is recommended for a referral to a judicial conduct panel.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Act provides for the appointment of a commissioner and deputy commissioner. The current commissioner, Mr Alan Ritchie, is not seeking reappointment. Appointments are made by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the House of Representatives for a term of not less than two years and not more than five years. When we look, as a House, for the qualities in a Judicial Conduct Commissioner, we look for analytical and decision-making skills, and good judgment and communication skills. Previous appointees have been senior and experienced legal practitioners with high standing in the community.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMr Paul Collins is an Auckland barrister with nearly 40 years\u2019 experience in legal practice, including practice before the courts and tribunals, at all levels and in a wide variety of jurisdictions. For the last 30 years, he has specialised in the law and practice relating to the regulation of the legal profession. That includes professional discipline at all levels, from standards committees to the Supreme Court, and he has also conducted public law and regulatory issues before the senior courts in judicial review applications and appeals. I can inform the House that the Chief Justice has been consulted as part of the appointment process and has expressed her support for the appointment of Mr Collins. The proposed appointment has also received support from the shadow Attorney-General, Vanushi Walters, and I thank her for that support. It is very important, I think, that this is a decision made by the House unanimously or, at least, by consensus.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EUnder Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004, appointments can be made for a term of not less than two years and not more than five years, and I am proposing a five-year term for Mr Collins. The current commissioner, Mr Ritchie, was appointed in 2015, after first serving as a deputy commissioner. I\u2019d like to recommend the Government\u2019s appreciation and gratitude for the professional and conscientious manner in which Mr Ritchie has carried out his duties over the past 10 years. Thank you, sir.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226f607d4079164946af0eb589f5753d1b\u0022 data-id=\u0022f31ccacef1983e5e35592b5e73a3f8a5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226f607d4079164946af0eb589f5753d1b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f31ccacef1983e5e35592b5e73a3f8a5\u0022\u003EVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (15:13)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak to the appointment of Paul Collins as the new Judicial Conduct Commissioner, and it\u2019s an appointment that we support.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs a bit of history, before 2004, New Zealand had no formal independent mechanism. Complaints were, essentially, handled by the heads of each court, and it was with the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 that, for the first time, we brought in this independent office, really dedicated solely to receiving and assessing complaints about judicial conduct.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe office has a fairly narrow mandate to independently assess the conduct complained of and not judicial decisions themselves. That is a deliberately narrow mandate, because it sits beside a much larger principle that we should all defend in this House, which is judicial independence. Unlike most judicial appointments, which flow from the Attorney-General\u2019s advice to the Governor-General, this commissioner is appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the House, following, as the Attorney-General has pointed out, consultation with the Chief Justice. Parliament, the elected branch, is given a direct role in safeguarding the integrity of the judicial branch. This is really a constitutional choice. It is accountability for judicial conduct and recognising that that should not rest solely with the judiciary nor solely with the executive but should carry the authorisation of the people\u2019s representatives. There are few offices in our system that ask this House to shoulder that kind of responsibility so directly, so this is an important motion in the House today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat brings me to the outgoing commissioner, Alan Ritchie. Mr Ritchie\u2019s association with this office goes back to 2011, when he became the first Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner before taking up the office of commissioner in 2015, meaning his stewardship of this young institution has spanned more than a decade\u2014over half of its entire existence. In these roles, the office has delivered against the intentions it was created for\u2014it has been independent, it has been transparent\u2014and that is Alan Ritchie\u2019s legacy, and this House owes him our thanks.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI won\u2019t speak to Mr Collins\u2019 background, as the Attorney-General has already laid that out for us, but I would say, as we now welcome Paul Collins to this role, we do so mindful of what is being handed on: an office that in many ways is still young, in constitutional terms, but already proven; a mandate that is narrow by design but essential in function, and a responsibility that this House uniquely, in many ways, has a direct hand in bestowing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJudicial independence and judicial accountability are not opposing values. This office exists because they are companion values. I commend this appointment to the House, and I wish Paul Collins well in the work ahead. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022393185b1e0f0498d8a6e755f5dd01310\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=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022ea1c12e70c7bbc96928553844c8d6f6e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ea1c12e70c7bbc96928553844c8d6f6e\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (15:17)\u003C/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003E:\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Green Party does support the appointment Mr Paul Collins to the role of Judicial Conduct Commissioner, though it must be noted that the Green Party was not consulted on the appointment but was informed by the Attorney-General of such an appointment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s important to first address some of the qualifications when it comes to Mr Collins, and I think the previous speaker, Vanushi Walters, as well as the Attorney-General have given a good overview of the existing role. In this case, I think Mr Collins, from the Green Party\u2019s perspective, is well suited and well qualified for this particular role\u2014particularly considering that he has been the author and also the editor of a number of key textbooks regarding the legal system of Aotearoa New Zealand, as well as being a convenor, and possibly the current convenor, of the New Zealand Law Society\u2019s Ethics Committee, which does go hand in hand in terms of the role that we are currently discussing here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think it\u2019s also important to note, as the previous speaker, Vanushi Walters, mentioned, that the importance of this role in terms of upholding the independence of our judicial system warrants a debate on this particular motion. I think it\u2019s important to note that with regards to the role itself, as suggested by the Attorney-General, it was established under the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004. The commissioner is able to investigate the conduct both within and outside of the court of any judge, and in severe cases recommend to the Attorney-General the establishment of a Judicial Conduct Panel. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe main purpose of the empowering Act for this role is to enhance the public\u2019s confidence in the judicial system, and I think that it\u2019s incredibly vital, in this age, for the public to be able to uphold the standards and trust in the Judiciary. We are hoping that Mr Collins will be able to undertake such a role with the effectiveness of the outgoing Judicial Conduct Commissioner. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think it is also important here to mention and address, in the last few minutes, the fact that, while we\u2019re seeing the importance of this role in order to have public trust in the judiciary, we do not have a parallel system for parliamentarians for the executive.  Indeed, we do see that we have the Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards, which has a very narrow scope and was only established in recent years, but that\u2019s specifically to do with conduct within the Parliament and particularly from an employment perspective, however; it does not extend beyond the Parliament itself.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is important to note that with the establishment of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner role in the 2004 Act, as I mentioned, it is to do with the enhancement of public systems. So we do think that it is important, if we do want to have the public trust, both in the judiciary but also in terms of our political system, that we should see similar standards being placed on parliamentarians as well as the executive, because what we have seen is that while the judiciary is doing its best to uphold the principle of comity and the separation of power between the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive, we haven\u2019t seen the same courtesy extended from other roles, and, in fact, we do see a continued violation of that principle of comity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo I think while we\u2019re discussing the appointment of Mr Collins to the role of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, it is important for us to also remind ourselves of the importance that is needed for us to be able to have the trust of the public in our standards and the standards of parliamentarians, Ministers, and other members of the executive as well. It is important for us to remember and realise what an honest political system looks like.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223db660ea12eab5f60762c2ea2941986b\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Interesting, but come to the motion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ad09aadc4e38d755c1840fc584af3aee\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: So, with that, I do believe that while we\u2019re seeing this role\u2014and the Green Party does support this particular appointment, and the importance of the role of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner\u2014we would like to see similar standards and similar accountability being placed on other branches of the Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000365\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022038b12fefcf6e3512a38a0b4a91d4826\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ad693c9139cb1cfb2b7dc34ed8229755\u0022\u003EInfrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b8f6b41fa24009d52a1dfb38682dd005\u0022\u003ELegislative Statement\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u0022a621be34131a50d829bd2ffafa056406\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a621be34131a50d829bd2ffafa056406\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing) (15:22)\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a2d138cbb839455d9754acbe91a75102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e8d0eac0f135575a80dc29d02ba18e93\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a481b84f9efcb6f325024f9af60bbdb7\u0022\u003EThird Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022 data-id=\u00225789eb6f6b129ff23bc32723b3e53d74\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b111696b9f040d3b1d5339eead7439f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225789eb6f6b129ff23bc32723b3e53d74\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing) (15:22)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill be now read a third time\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen I introduced this bill\u2014some months ago, I have to say\u2014I spoke of moving to a world in which the economics of development dictate where and how it happens, rather than artificial planning rules which have held our cities back. That is the central thesis of the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill, and it remains so after the Finance and Expenditure Committee scrutiny and the committee of the whole House last week. I want to thank both the select committee and Parliament for the very generous and supportive way that the House has worked through what is quite a complicated bill but with a simple proposition at its core.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOur housing crisis requires a flexible tool kit of funding and financing instruments that mean development can happen where it makes the most sense, and that\u2019s Pillar Two of the Government\u2019s Going for Housing Growth programme. Through Pillar One, we are moving to a system where competitive urban land markets and abundant development opportunities in our land markets and our planning and resource management system means councils will not be able to artificially constrain the supply of developable land through planning restrictions. It\u2019s fine to unlock land through removing the planning restrictions, but you also need an infrastructure system that equally has a flexible supply of development opportunities that are able to be funded and financed. That\u2019s what Pillar Two is all about, and that\u2019s where this bill comes into effect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe original Act that we\u2019re now replacing started life, actually, under the last National Government: was, essentially, developed by Bill English and Nick Smith in 2016 and 2017; didn\u2019t quite make its way into law by the time of the 2017 election; was picked up by the Hon Phil Twyford and others and eventually passed into law in 2020. I think it would be fair to say, given we\u2019re now making some amendments to the Act, it hasn\u2019t quite delivered on the promises that were intended, and that is why the Government campaigned, or at least certainly the National Party campaigned, on refining and tweaking the Act to make it more user-friendly and make it easier to use.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESince the Act has come into effect, only three levies have been established, and that\u2019s in\u2014what?\u2014six years or so, so that\u2019s one every two years. Actually, it hasn\u2019t really been used for what it was originally designed for, which is new housing projects. Instead, we\u2019ve got the sludge plant in Wellington, and we\u2019ve had a citywide transport project in Tauranga, which is useful up to a point. Only just actually this year, have we seen the first greenfields housing project, which is Te Awa Lakes in Hamilton, which the Government was very pleased to see and I turned the sod on some weeks ago, alongside Ryan Hamilton\u2014very hard-working member for Hamilton East.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill makes some changes to make it more usable and viable. We\u2019re streamlining the levy approvals process. This includes simplifying requirements for levy proposals and recommendation reports, simplifying mandatory considerations the Minister of Housing has to take into account when assessing a levy, improving certainty for developer-led proposals by limiting councils\u2019 ability to withhold necessary endorsements where statutory requirements have been met, and removing the requirement to assess a levy\u2019s affordability for those proposals supported by developers and all other existing landowners.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000378\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 is a particularly important change. It hasn\u2019t received a lot of public commentary, I have to say. I mean, it\u2019s a complicated piece of legislation; it\u2019d be fair to say the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act (IFF Act) itself has not received a huge amount of public commentary. But this is very important, because once this amendment Act comes into effect, it will allow the IFF Act to be used for transport projects delivered by the New Zealand Transport Agency or KiwiRail or water infrastructure organisations established through the most recent round of water reforms.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat that means is, essentially, it\u2019s a more granular form of user-pays: the beneficiaries of infrastructure projects will be required to help pay for some of the benefits that they receive. You know, people got pretty excited over the last 10, 15 years in this Parliament about value capture tools and cost recovery and all sorts of things. There were lots of terms thrown around, and some of the tools overseas are quite complicated. This is a form of cost recovery in which, you know, new State highways that unlock land and there\u2019s a bit of a value that accrues to that land because of the public investment\u2014it means that those who benefit from that public investment can help cover some of the costs of that public investment. If we\u2019d had a tool like this back in the day of the City Rail Link, it could\u2019ve potentially been one of the funding tools available to help offset the enormous cost of City Rail Link. There will be other projects in the future\u2014and it\u2019s probably not appropriate to talk about those projects here, but there will be other projects where the ability to have, essentially, a user levy will be useful. It\u2019s part of broadening the funding tool kit. That\u2019s what it\u2019s about. It won\u2019t always be appropriate in every situation and it won\u2019t be the default, but it\u2019s about broadening the funding tool kit so that we can help address our infrastructure deficit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do want to thank the select committee for the hard work on the bill. The Hon James Meager spoke on my behalf during the committee stage. I was here for most of the committee stage, but he spoke in the second reading, and I want to acknowledge the changes made. Changes include a requirement to assess cumulative levy affordability, a requirement for levy proposals to include details of any consultation undertaken, and for a court judgment to be required on funding and financing costs in the case that a special purpose vehicle seeks to use the accelerated recovery mechanism. So there have been a variety of sensible changes made at the select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Government is looking forward to receiving levy proposals under the new and improved Act in the future, and we\u2019d encourage councils and developers and other infrastructure providers to consider the IFF Act as a potential funding and financing solution.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the things that I have to say I do find slightly frustrating about the local government sector is it\u2019s kind of become de rigueur to say, \u201CWe need new tools.\u201D, and when you say to people in local government, \u201CWell, have you heard about a thing called the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act 2020?\u201D\u2014which, by the way, has been on the statute book for, now, six years\u2014they say, \u201CNo, I\u2019ve got no idea what that is.\u201D The Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act is actually normally what they mean when they talk about \u201CWe need a broader range of tools to fund and finance infrastructure.\u201D, and the answer is \u201CYes, we agree, and it\u2019s actually been on the statute book for five years.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s not perfect, which is why we\u2019re about to pass an amendment Act to make it easier to use, but the level of knowledge is a bit frustrating. It\u2019s probably not so much a criticism of local government so much as, I suppose, the political system in Wellington itself, where we haven\u2019t been good enough at promoting the use of this tool, and there\u2019s probably a lesson there for all of us. When local government says, \u201CWe need new tools and we need new arrangements so that we can get on and build infrastructure.\u201D, I agree with them, and this is one of the solutions that\u2019s there. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other point I\u2019d often make is that people often say that we need to have a form of targeted rates, but they exist in the Local Government Act now. They can be used now, and, actually, sometimes what it takes is a bit of creativity, thinking a bit outside the box, and just moving away from the simple \u201COh well, here are some rates. We\u2019ll just chuck the rates up and spread the costs over everybody and hope for the best.\u201D Actually, the system we\u2019re moving to is a much more kind of granular, calibrated form of cost in which high infrastructure costs are reflected in the pricing for that infrastructure, and over time that will lead to more sensible and efficient investment decisions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe IFF Act is part of that because it may be that someone wants to do a greenfields housing development and they may go out and say, \u201CRighty-o, I\u2019m going to set up a special purpose levy in order to fund the infrastructure.\u201D, and it may be that there are no buyers for that. It may be that people say, \u201CYou know what, the costs of that infrastructure are so vast, we\u2019re not going to do it.\u201D, and that\u2019s fine. That is actually the market working\u2014that is economics in action. Again, one of the other benefits of this model that we\u2019re setting up through the IFF Act is to let costs be reflected in prices. That is a good thing, and it is part of the move towards getting better value for money when it comes to infrastructure. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnyway, I\u2019ve talked for long enough. I want to thank the House for the support that has been provided to the Government in relation to this bill on the way through. I thank all members for the constructive way that they\u2019ve approached this. Notwithstanding its technically complicated language and its long title, this is actually a very important piece of legislation as part of the Government\u2019s reform agenda, and I commend the bill to the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022 data-id=\u0022f7e56ddbd82591ca2a1ee4621eeb9f06\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f7e56ddbd82591ca2a1ee4621eeb9f06\u0022\u003EHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (15:32)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Labour Party lends it support, as it has done throughout the parliamentary process, to the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill. That\u2019s not to suggest that we have been completely comfortable with every single aspect of this bill, but, frankly, we\u2019re of the view that both the local government sector and the infrastructure sector, such as it is\u2014which has a very broad way of bringing in many, many sectors\u2014want to see this Parliament working together. We keep hearing time and time and time again that people are sick and tired of the stop-start carry-on that we\u2019ve seen in this Parliament too long and too often. There are many examples in this Parliament alone, but there were examples in previous parliaments as well, and, at the end of the day, if we can\u2019t agree on the settings around infrastructure, we haven\u2019t got a hope of achieving what this country needs to do for getting anywhere near addressing the infrastructure deficit that this country faces.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo often in the past perfect has been the enemy of the good, as the saying goes, and both sides of the House have opposed things because it\u2019s not quite perfect, or whatever. Now, we\u2019re not saying that this bill is perfect. There are elements that we\u2019ve expressed concern about, but nevertheless we have worked constructively with the Government through the select committee process and through the committee of the whole House to try and identify areas where it can be improved, and there have been improvements through that process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe would be much further along as a country if Parliament had looked for a compromise wherever possible and had actually looked to stick to its guns on bills like this, where we could have actually helped to get things along further. This actually does demonstrate continuity across parliaments, which, unfortunately, isn\u2019t all that common, and so, as the Minister for Infrastructure outlined in his contribution, the previous Government had put forward the original bill. That had started in the previous Parliament before that, and now, after a period of time, it\u2019s become clear that there needed to be some improvements to make it more effective and easier to utilise for the sector. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI don\u2019t share the Minister\u2019s slightly dismissive attitude towards local government. I don\u2019t think it is as simple as them not being aware of the legislation and not being able to use it. The fact of the matter is that with the best intentions and, as I say, work across successive Governments, it wasn\u2019t quite right. This bill has gone a long way to addressing that, and I am confident, actually, that more local councils will start to utilise this in order to be able to unlock some infrastructure projects in their own areas. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is important to note, though, that because it is linked to this, it could quite easily have been our local government spokesperson leading off the Labour Party\u2019s contribution to this. Yes, it\u2019s an infrastructure bill, but it is very much a local government bill as well, and, as the Minister mentioned local government in his contribution, it\u2019s entirely appropriate for us to talk about this and in some detail, actually, because this alone won\u2019t fix things. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe local government sector is facing tremendous challenges and some of it is not of their making, frankly, because current councils are dealing with problems that they themselves have inherited in part from, in some cases, decisions made by previous councils but also the situation that is set by Government policy. So when we are considering what this bill can do to assist councils to unlock infrastructure, we also need to acknowledge that councils are facing a rates cap policy which might ultimately lead to fewer infrastructure projects getting funded, even with this mechanism to assist with getting projects procured and funded off councils\u2019 books. That is crucial because many councils around the country are at their debt caps and they simply don\u2019t have the ratepayer base to be able to address the infrastructure needs that they have. Also the changes that were made by this Government around water have not worked like it said that they would, and now many councils are facing the prospect of being part of a water entity that doesn\u2019t have the scale and that cannot deliver the cost savings to their ratepayers. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s important because at the end of the day, if the broader settings for local government aren\u2019t addressed, what could happen from this is that it could end up putting further costs on to ratepayers through other fees and other levies that aren\u2019t necessarily rates, and that could undermine the intent of this. We hope that that doesn\u2019t happen, but it\u2019s important that we recognise that that is a risk because at the end of the day, whilst the Government has signalled that it intends to see reorganisation of councils, there\u2019s a massive question as to how that\u2019s going to land. There is a three-month period by which regions need to put forward proposals, there\u2019s no guarantee that even after all that work those proposals will be accepted, and it\u2019s possible that the Ministers may decide that they will put forward or will decide on an alternative proposal that is completely different to what the regions have put forward. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, let\u2019s say for argument\u2019s sake that they decide on having a number of unitary authorities across the country. There are, roughly, 16 regional councils at the moment, and so for the sake of this argument, we could say that it\u2019s 16. Then we\u2019ve got a situation where this bill needs to be applied within a situation where we have 16 unitary authorities and 40-odd water entities. How is that going to work? It\u2019s a relevant question that we haven\u2019t had an answer to, and whilst we do support this and we think it\u2019s important, and we also think it\u2019s important to acknowledge that occasions like this, where Parliament has agreed on something\u2014which happens more than people realise. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI spend a lot of my time, actually, as infrastructure spokesperson, talking to this sector and emphasising the areas that we are working on alongside the Government, but it is also important that whilst we are working together and we\u2019ve come to an agreement on how this can progress, we\u2019ve got to acknowledge the challenges that are faced, as well.  If we are in a situation where we have a number of unitary authorities, potentially against the will of those areas, and a larger number of water entities, it\u2019s possible that that scenario could significantly undermine the intent of this bill. In the context of a rates cap, as well, it\u2019s possible that the work that is required\u2014be it through water, be it through roading, be it through housing developments\u2014simply might not be able to go ahead. Again, that goes against the intent of this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo, yes, we are confident that this will lead to more infrastructure projects going ahead than would otherwise be the case if this bill doesn\u2019t pass, but it is important to recognise, in our view, that with a rates cap coming, with the way that the water reform has landed, and with the massive question mark hanging over the local government sector in the Government\u2019s proposed restructure, we\u2019re not fully confident that this bill could reach its potential. If those things are addressed, and we have a rational conversation about rates caps and the examples overseas, where they have simply led to a large number of exemptions so that they become pointless, or a significant increase in alternative fees and levies, and the structure of local government isn\u2019t linked adequately to water so that we see unnecessary rises\u2014if this ends up, this bill included, in simply increasing the cost on ratepayers, then we\u2019re back where we started. It is important to make that point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHaving said all that, with this bill passing, it does give local government as it currently exists more options than are currently available. Yes, as the Minister pointed out, this was available previously. But given there\u2019s only a couple of examples where this has been utilised, I think it\u2019s fair to say that this bill is needed, because it does clarify the way in which it\u2019s done, it\u2019s made it more streamlined, it\u2019s made it\u2014hopefully\u2014a bit more user-friendly, and it makes it easier for the local government sector to utilise the funding mechanisms and financing mechanisms that are outlined in this bill. On that basis, having taken into consideration all of those things, it is in everybody\u2019s interest\u2014the local government sector, the infrastructure sector, construction and water, and ratepayers\u2014that Parliament passes this bill today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022 data-id=\u00229ddb14130233523d9a12f4409b8e280f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229ddb14130233523d9a12f4409b8e280f\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green\u2014Rongotai) (15:42)\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003ET\u0113n\u0101 koe, Madam Speaker. T\u0113n\u0101 koutou e te Whare.\u003C/span\u003E We have a massive infrastructure challenge, and it goes back some decades, I think. It\u2019s largely been because of the neoliberal reforms in the 1980s and 1990s, and nothing has really fundamentally changed since then. The whole attitude that we\u2019re not collectively pooling our resources appropriately through a progressive tax system that sufficiently devolves funding to local government has constrained local government\u2019s ability\u2014and Government\u2019s ability\u2014to invest in the infrastructure that our communities want and need.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWith climate change, there\u2019s a massive need to change our infrastructure. Climate change is impacting our communities right now, and there\u2019s going to be a need to adapt and invest in significant infrastructure. We\u2019re having to recover from regular extreme weather events that are impacting our public infrastructure, water, roads, and homes, and it also has some impact on electricity; and the infrastructure we build fundamentally influences our contribution to dangerous climate change. And so, for the last 20 years, successive Governments have been investing in the wrong transport infrastructure that is not doing what we could be doing to have much more affordable transport, much more affordable housing, much lower emissions, and lower pollution. It\u2019s time that we start doing those things. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe origin of this bill\u2014and this is an amendment bill\u2014is the first Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill, which the Green Party supported. At the same time, I was saying to the Government of the day, which was then the Labour - New Zealand First coalition that the Greens were giving confidence and supply to, that, firstly, you can\u2019t really solve the funding problem unless you raise revenue somehow. That\u2019s what this does. It provides a mechanism that\u2019s not general taxation; that\u2019s not rates for raising revenue from people. I mean, we could be doing it through taxation, and the issue is we\u2019re not raising enough revenue through taxation, and, therefore, there\u2019s a problem where there\u2019s a constraint on the infrastructure. It\u2019s not fundamentally going to solve the funding problem without impacting people somehow. People will have to pay more. The question is whether this the best way to raise the revenue or whether it is better to pool our resources and do it through general taxation, as so many highly successful small, developed countries do, and that I think New Zealand could learn from.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second issue is that we really cannot conflate funding and financing. Financing, again, is something that Government could do. Central government can finance more cheaply than the private sector and better than the local government sector, because of the fundamental revenue problem that local government is facing and has been facing. The review of local government undertaken by the last Government made that very clear. What we need is a more progressive tax system that, actually, will tax work less and that will tax passive income from asset ownership fairly\u2014which we don\u2019t have\u2014and then we\u2019ll have more money. With that money\u2014more public money; the money we have that we use together\u2014we can invest in the infrastructure we need. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELook, I can see some small areas where this sort of tool might be helpful and useful in ensuring that we have both financing and funding for some of the infrastructure we need. But it doesn\u2019t change the fact that if you go to other countries and look at the way they\u2019re doing things, most of them aren\u2019t doing it this way, right? Most of them are doing it through general taxation. In countries with really excellent public infrastructure that is helping people move around and that\u2019s creating more productive cities, more affordable cities, and cleaner air, that is being funded by tax, and they have more tax on the wealthiest people and less tax on low-income workers. That\u2019s what the Green Party is calling for here. It\u2019s just, like, so basic, but somehow the Government parties are in absolute denial. They just don\u2019t really have the curiosity to understand how things work, and they love repeating their silly attack lines that are thought up for them by Topham Guerin or whoever their consultants are, and whatever plays well on the Facebook algorithms\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c7942c22a2e4f53e665a808be0bac202\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The financing is related to the bill, but it might be nice to be a little bit more specific about the bill. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226710095aa1204b3793448571c208ccd4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ef433930cd1ca5e665aafb702aa1a9b1\u0022\u003EHon JULIE ANNE GENTER\u003C/span\u003E: Sure. I\u2019d just say that it\u2019s kind of a shame that we\u2019ve spent a decade not addressing the fundamental problem with funding and financing infrastructure, which is the inadequacy of our tax system and the fact that our tax system is funnelling most of the money\u2014like, 90 percent\u2014to central government rather than just giving it to local communities and allowing them to make smart decisions, which they would, because local communities know what their priorities are. We don\u2019t need the Minister of Transport telling local communities what to build or what the speed limit should be in their local communities. We should just be providing local government with the resources to do their job. That\u2019s what the Green Party is arguing for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m not in the least bit surprised that there wasn\u2019t much uptake with the first iteration of this Act. Frankly, I\u2019m not sure of the amendments made by the select committee, even though we support it. One of the biggest concerns, I think, is removing the requirement to assess a levy\u2019s affordability for proposals supported by private developers. I mean, it\u2019s just a subset of public infrastructure money in a way, just limited to a particular private development, and, ultimately, the people who buy into that development will be paying the levy for 10, 20, or 30 years. That doesn\u2019t make it more affordable. That\u2019s still a cost for people. If the development is happening in the wrong place with really high costs, it\u2019s going to be a problem. That\u2019s why it makes sense to have more Government leadership and a more collective approach to master planning, to what gets built where. Fundamentally, private developers are totally capable of doing a development, but they\u2019re looking at it from the point of view of the land they already own, not what\u2019s in the best interests of the community, and they\u2019re trying to maximise their return off this one little piece of land. That just doesn\u2019t work, looking at it in a disconnected way, because, fundamentally, where you live, where your kids go to school, where one works, and where one\u2019s partner works\u2014all of that is all interconnected. You can\u2019t just go live in a fully private development and have all your needs met. Ultimately, the infrastructure connecting to that private development is still mostly public infrastructure. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI just think this is a big, roundabout way of avoiding the fact that successive Governments are not raising enough revenue from the super wealthy, are not investing enough in the right infrastructure, and especially are not devolving enough power and funding to local government. This Government is making things worse. The previous speaker, a former Minister of Local Government, absolutely nailed the point: right now, local government is being forced to go through these discussions about amalgamation, yet another unfunded mandate has been put on them, where they\u2019re going to have to somehow find the resource to go about and consult their communities under this ridiculously short time frame, which is totally unrealistic and not conducive to coming up with a good structure that\u2019s actually going to deliver for communities\u2014not to mention the fact that Local Water Done Well totally doesn\u2019t align with the idea of 16 unitary authorities. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf we just had a little more forethought and if we were just thinking a little further ahead and being a little more curious as a country about how other countries do things, instead of just buying into certain beliefs about how things have to be done, we\u2019d make better decisions. I don\u2019t oppose the bill, but I don\u2019t think the bill is the solution to the problem that we\u2019re facing. On a case by case basis, we might prefer development contributions or borrowing by local or central government. This is an additional tool, but it doesn\u2019t fundamentally change the fact that if we want infrastructure that serves us, we\u2019re going to have to pay for it; we\u2019re going to have to pay a lot more than what we have been paying. If we did it in a coordinated way and if we built up our public institutions to have the capability and the capacity to do the proper planning with our communities and to properly procure the infrastructure and to have more capability in-house to do this, it would cost us less money and we\u2019d have more long-term planning. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill\u2019s fine\u2014whatever. It\u2019s not really what we need. I can imagine it\u2019ll be used for some good projects; that\u2019ll be good. I can imagine it will be used for some crap projects that cost people a tonne of money, and people will look back on Governments and say, \u201CWhy didn\u2019t we do better?\u201D The Green Party has a very clear plan and a very well argued rationale\u2014evidence based\u2014for how we can actually deliver for the future for our communities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022 data-id=\u00223e31e339a0f40372a0139fa5a1f4ae9b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223e31e339a0f40372a0139fa5a1f4ae9b\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT (ACT) (15:52)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Today\u2019s third reading of the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill marks an important milestone in making it easier for developments to get off the ground through innovative approaches to funding and financing infrastructure. For decades, we\u2019ve had a planning and infrastructure funding system that made it too hard to build the homes New Zealanders need. That\u2019s why this Government is committed to Going for Housing Growth, a comprehensive work programme to unlock development.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe three pillars of the programme are freeing up land for urban development and removing unnecessary planning barriers\u2014that\u2019s through wholesale planning reform, getting rid of the Resource Management Act and replacing it with two new bills\u2014improving infrastructure funding and financing tools so councils and developers can better fund the pipes, the roads, and the other infrastructure needed to support growth; and directly improving the incentives for councils to support housing growth. That\u2019s kick-started by the $400 million Incentives for Growth Fund in the Budget to ensure that councils and communities can share the economic upside that growth affords. Increasing the effectiveness of the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act (IFF) is a key component of that second pillar of the Government\u2019s Going for Housing Growth programme. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Act was originally born out of a market innovation success story where a developer established a pathway to build the infrastructure needed for the Milldale development without having to contend with council infrastructure funding and debt constraints, yet while it was intended to codify this approach to replicate the Milldale success, the IFF Act has fallen short of delivering the additional infrastructure needed to respond to growth, as Minister Chris Bishop, my colleague in delivering this legislation, pointed out. The extensive process required for applicants to have a levy approved and the associated costs of that process can be a barrier when trying to use the Act. To date, only three levies have been authorised. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019re making it more viable and flexible so councils and developers can get on with building the infrastructure our growing communities need. This amendment bill will remove those unnecessary barriers to uptake, broaden project eligibility, and make the levy development and approvals process simpler and more streamlined. This bill makes various changes to support those developer-led proposals. It requires levy and infrastructure authorities like councils to provide the necessary endorsements where statutory requirements are met, limiting avenues for councils to obstruct approval of development. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022440a125e85954bae9f5d470b7551e4f3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022207eac0bd8579fd00d7799375ee26ed0\u0022\u003ECameron Luxton\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220838e5f9bac748d2a59aea595e5226a0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e4e5eabb640050d0a447e9a2cf8b6e81\u0022\u003ESIMON COURT\u003C/span\u003E: That means\u2014that\u2019s right\u2014faster decisions, fewer vetoes, and more developer-led infrastructure projects being built. It removes ministerial affordability assessment requirements where a proposal is supported by a developer and all the other existing landowners. In greenfield areas, levy payers will self-assess affordability. In other words, they\u2019ll work out if they can afford it themselves and opt in to the levy when deciding to purchase a property. As such, ministerial consideration of whether a levy is affordable is simply not needed if the existing landowners are supportive. To the member Julie Anne Genter, that is the property market working.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis bill simplifies the mandatory considerations the responsible Minister must take into account, however, when assessing a levy. This in turn will reduce the extent of supporting evidence applications need to include in their proposals and the cost and time taken needed to evaluate them. The bill also extends eligibility from council- and developer-led projects to projects delivered by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), KiwiRail, and the new water service organisations. If it\u2019s good enough for the private sector, it\u2019s good enough for all of these entities as well. This is expected to help accelerate the delivery of key growth projects in the infrastructure pipeline, while ensuring the beneficiaries of those projects pay their fair share of the cost.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThese changes\u2014alongside other minor, technical, and remedial changes\u2014will cut down on unnecessary process and bureaucracy. Red tape\u2014we\u2019re going to cut it with this bill and deliver a more usable pathway that can be accessed by developers and others to deliver infrastructure that may not have been planned for by councils. Imagine that! Councils failed to plan. But developers, the private sector, and now NZTA, KiwiRail, and the water agencies will be able to use this tool.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELast month, the Finance and Expenditure Committee reported back to the House on this amendment bill, and they recommended it be passed with a number of changes to various clauses. I\u2019d like to thank the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee for their careful consideration of the bill, and those members of the public who submitted and took the time to provide oral and written submissions. Their input has helped strengthen the bill that is currently before the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EImportant improvements that were progressed included that operational and maintenance\u2014OPEX\u2014costs can now be included in a levy proposal, and that means that those costs can be funded by levy revenue. It\u2019s a sensible change which means instead of just paying for the capital cost of a new asset, the full funding and financing solution will include OPEX that may\u2014in fact, we consider it\u2019s a predict; it will\u2014increase uptake and use of the Act, and it\u2019s expected to better encourage procuring, operating, and maintaining assets based on whole-of-life costs. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA change has also been made to require written notification of endorsement decisions to be given as soon as practical. This is expected to reduce the risk of unnecessary delay, particularly by councils, for those proposing a levy, because if houses aren\u2019t getting built because the infrastructure is not there, it must be sped up. This bill is a key enabler of flexible, market-led housing growth that sees councils relinquish some of their unnecessary control over what gets built where. Our Planning Bill, separately, will facilitate responsive planning rights to develop. Another thing that the infrastructure bill provides is a critical pathway for developer-led infrastructure that turns the planning rights into real development.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe are unlocking the infrastructure block. It\u2019s also, therefore, fitting that these planning and infrastructure streams now come together under the same Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport\u2014MCERT\u2014roof. On that note, I\u2019d like to thank Jane and her team of housing and urban development officials for their hard work on this bill. Thanks also to officials at National Infrastructure Funding and Financing, Treasury, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOverall, this bill is expected to improve the workability and effectiveness of the Act so that councils, developers, and other infrastructure providers can get on and build the essential infrastructure that our towns and cities need. This is how we unlock New Zealand\u2019s potential. 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=\u0022a3fb7f6a0fae0719c1c47a153790bb7e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002248ce26e54d83406399b875df20400dec\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a3fb7f6a0fae0719c1c47a153790bb7e\u0022\u003EANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (16:00)\u003C/span\u003E: I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this piece of legislation, which had unanimous support as it went through the select committee process, and that is very welcome. This is a tool to support urban development, as you\u2019ve just heard. You\u2019ve heard all the details from Simon Court, so I\u2019m not going to re-traverse those, except at a very high level.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill\u2019s about streamlining the Infrastructure Funding and Financing (IFF) levy process, making it easier to establish, and also taking a more flexible approach. I\u2019m really pleased in particular to see the ability for the New Zealand Transport Agency, KiwiRail, organisations like that, developers, water organisations, to be able to establish IFF levies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000424\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhy am I particularly keen on that? If you look at some of the developments, particularly motorway developments or rail developments that have occurred, what has happened as a result of that is it\u2019s opened up land. It\u2019s allowed land to be developed; it\u2019s made that land more valuable. But at the moment, the ticket hasn\u2019t been clipped. It\u2019s not the public sector that\u2019s gained from that. It\u2019s not those organisations that have spent that money. It is the private developer. This is about capturing some of that value. I think about some of the developed\u2014say in Wellington, for example. Kelburn, developed off the cable car development. If there hadn\u2019t been the cable car there, you probably wouldn\u2019t have had Kelburn being developed at the time it was. You look at the development right out through the Hutt Valley again, developed off the rail network. This is something which has been done for many, many years and it\u2019s right and proper that we do use some sort of legislation like this to allow the costs of some of that development to be defrayed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think about some of the potential development in Auckland. KiwiRail needs to develop the rail network there; if it doesn\u2019t develop the rail network the freight network is going to get fouled up with all the commuter rail traffic. It needs to be able to develop around that. Can we manage to integrate the development of housing alongside, and help pay for, the infrastructure development? That would make a whole lot of sense, because otherwise some of that infrastructure won\u2019t get built at all. It\u2019s great that we have a more flexible approach, that the SPV, special purpose vehicles, do not have to be a council.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt takes funding tools. Obviously, it\u2019s not a council, but even if it is a council, it allows councils to take development of particular assets off the council\u2019s books. Minister Bishop said that there were only three of these, and the councils don\u2019t know anything about these. I don\u2019t think he\u2019s right there. I think Kieran McAnulty was quite right about that. Councils do know about these. In fact, it was my council that actually did one of those three. It was the sludge pellet plant in Wellington. We did that because we were topping out in terms of the amount that we could borrow, needed to do it that way. But let\u2019s not kid ourselves: this is not a free ride. There is no magic money tree here, because in that situation and in many of these, the cost of that is still going to land essentially on the same people. The unfortunate thing in the case of the Wellington sludge plant is it started off at $200 million; we went for what was then the best option out of about 40-odd. The new council came in, the price doubled, and what they didn\u2019t do is go back and say, \u201CWas that still the best technology?\u201D I think they mucked that up, and of course it ended up at $500 million, not $200 million\u2014but there we go. So we did have some experience of doing that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe funding tool, as I said, is off council\u2019s balance sheet, but the cost still lands potentially on some of the same people. What I was pleased to see is the select committee\u2019s amendment in clause 17, and that\u2019s looking at cumulative affordability. So you can\u2019t just add and add and add because there is only so much. That\u2019s where things like the rates cap are really important, that we can\u2019t have councils spending far too much. Councils do want more tools. They\u2019ve also got to be disciplined in how they spend the money they\u2019ve got. So it was really pleasing, actually, to hear the Hon Julie Anne Genter saying that there is no magic money tree. That\u2019s not something which you often hear from the Green Party, so it was nice to hear that recognition at least, at least in this context. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000428\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne other thing that I wanted to comment on is this idea that it means that development will go where it makes the most sense. And yes, it does send a market signal. If the cost of infrastructure is really high, it is less likely the development is going to go there. That\u2019s a really important signal, because we haven\u2019t been particularly good in this country about targeting investment to the right places. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI would say that councils do go through a very long process\u2014spatial planning process, district planning processes, as they have been\u2014sometimes over decades to get to the stage of saying, \u201CHere is our plan; we\u2019ve consulted with our community; here is where it makes the most sense to do development.\u201D And then we have these out-of-centre developments, these private plan changes. I know it drives them nuts, and it\u2019s not just Auckland, but it\u2019s Canterbury councils, councils all over the place. It drives them nuts that you go through all this process and then development is allowed to occur somewhere else. That\u2019s probably fine, if the development pays all the costs and if the quality of the infrastructure is up to scratch. Sometimes it\u2019s not, on both counts, and that is a real issue, and we shouldn\u2019t kid ourselves about that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe need to make sure that development is done properly and it does pay its true costs. It\u2019s very easy to say the landowner supports, but if you\u2019re the developer who owns the land or you\u2019ve got a deal with the landowner to do a development there, and the landowner is going to benefit from it, of course they\u2019re going to say it\u2019s a great thing to do. But as I said, it\u2019s important that we are eyes open on these issues, because quality is important. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EUser pays is an important signal, but we need to make sure that the development which is done is encouraged where the infrastructure is genuinely of lower cost, but not where we\u2019re just hiding that cost and it\u2019s got to get picked up in the future. I know that is a real issue, as I said, for many councils. With that, I, on behalf of New Zealand First, commend this bill to the House and look forward with a great deal of interest to see how it is implemented, because I think we should all be very cognisant of that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e66329e431ea47019b41524c6ef2954a\u0022 data-id=\u00220e1369e95396bff739696ea4fe890a43\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e66329e431ea47019b41524c6ef2954a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220e1369e95396bff739696ea4fe890a43\u0022\u003ECELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) (16:06)\u003C/span\u003E: I rise to support the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill at its third reading, and it\u2019s a pleasure to be able to agree with a number of the statements across different parties today. But we do have to remember that we are a country of 5 million, spread out over a very vulnerable set of land issues. You only have to look at the South Wairarapa to see the increasing costs of fixing those bridges, the coastal roads, and so forth. It\u2019s a welcome change from central government punching down on local government; we actually have an alternative to \u201Cyou must always spend less\u201D, which is quite unrealistic when you look at the costs for just roading maintenance in our rural councils. The Tararua District Council has got longer roading distance in kilometres than Auckland Council, and yet they have a tiny ratepayer base.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis won\u2019t solve everything by any means, but it is a step in the right direction, and I particularly like what Mr Court said about it including OPEX now, because that\u2019s been one of the issues. We scrabble together and get the money to build something, but we don\u2019t properly finance its maintenance. Whether it\u2019s the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission, or other organisations, or people seeing the flooding in their own rohe, that\u2019s something we have to do better.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI did want to talk a little bit about whether it potentially encourages better infrastructure on brownfield sites. Potentially, it\u2019s a value uplift that would enable things like light rail, or whether it encourages urban sprawl. I think that this bill is pretty neutral about where you should build. My concern is that people talk about, \u201CIf all the infrastructure can be funded, the private developers will go ahead and it\u2019s a market-led development. It\u2019ll happen where it best happens.\u201D The trouble is that many people can only afford the cheapest house, so their costs for transport will be higher if they\u2019re going out to a greenfield site. There\u2019s the fact that they won\u2019t have a nearby school, the fact that they won\u2019t have a community centre. They can\u2019t factor that into buying a house, or they often don\u2019t. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000435\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI look back to the development of Churton Park, which was many years in the building before it had a community centre, which we opened when I was mayor. But all of the people that lived there for a number of years beforehand had no community centre, no library, no supermarket, and therefore it was at least two cars per household, which is an expense that isn\u2019t necessarily factored into \u201CI can afford that mortgage.\u201D  I think we need to think broadly about infrastructure and community infrastructure as well. The other area that I\u2019m interested in\u2014I believe it\u2019s unlikely but it\u2019s possible that this bill could include investment in natural infrastructure. When I went to the Gisborne area and walked up into the Rauk\u016Bmara Range with kaum\u0101tua from there, it was plain that the destruction of the forest understorey was one of the things that contributed to the flooding and the gravel that came down into the river. I think it was something like 14\u00A0meters higher than previously, which is extremely expensive, destructive, and difficult.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI hope we could consider how stormwater, whether it\u2019s done by councils or water authorities, could possibly incorporate flooding resilience through natural and, in the long term, cheaper mechanisms than always being bulldozers and concrete.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022784f4e929aed4ea6a05d1a10add6eccb\u0022 data-id=\u0022b279684a9c9b801eb68382d21f62ac9a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022784f4e929aed4ea6a05d1a10add6eccb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b279684a9c9b801eb68382d21f62ac9a\u0022\u003ERYAN HAMILTON (National\u2014Hamilton East) (16:11)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Speaker, thanks for the opportunity to speak on this. I\u2019m really proud of the work that the Finance and Expenditure Committee did, and it\u2019s great to see it come through the House in what looks like will be an anonymous passing\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022944fa2e9730610d50b150ca057118119\u0022\u003EHon David Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: Anonymous? Unanimous.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022784f4e929aed4ea6a05d1a10add6eccb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226eb7927702de4f0fe433e943e9e6101d\u0022\u003ERYAN HAMILTON\u003C/span\u003E: Unanimous; thank you, Mr Seymour. I\u2019d also like to acknowledge some of the officials up in the gallery watching this come through the third reading. It\u2019s wonderful. The first iteration of the infrastructure fund (IF) was actually a housing infrastructure fund (HIF), which was a housing infrastructure loan, and Hamilton City Council took that out, which was a great way to unlock some development. The challenge with a HIF is that it still sits on the council\u2019s balance sheet, and the great thing about an IF is that it sits off the council\u2019s balance sheet, so we actually want to biff the HIF and get an IF.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000440\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is really great because Te Awa Lakes is a great development north of Hamilton, and they are actually the fourth property development to get an IF $50 million loan, which unlocks 2,500 homes. In fact, by unlocking these homes, further homes can actually be unlocked further up because of the conjoined and connected infrastructure. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is a fantastic thing we\u2019d like to add to our toolbox. It\u2019s great to see it come past the third reading, and it\u2019ll be a great tool for the funding and financing to make the funding options less binary from just council and developers now that we\u2019ve got a third option. 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=\u0022582d90cf06818785bb083d47f0ea164c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002201f738f244724e5b8da066dba7a6a526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022582d90cf06818785bb083d47f0ea164c\u0022\u003EDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (16:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to also make a contribution on this bill. There\u2019s been some interesting contributions so far, and the bill is obviously supported. It\u2019s not universally agreed that it\u2019s anything close to the perfect solution, but it is something that Labour is happy to support. We\u2019re particularly able to do so given some of the changes that were made at the Finance and Expenditure Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think my colleague the Hon Kieran McAnulty said earlier that it does require us to continue to keep a close eye on some of the potential for some of those implementation roadblocks to occur, particularly with regard to how, ultimately, the cost is passed on, or passed around, from Government to local government and, ultimately, on to the consumer. But we do support this bill, particularly with the safeguards, as I\u2019ve said, that had been added at the select committee process. I\u2019d like to acknowledge the select committee and all of the contributions that were made by submitters through that process\u2014it was an interesting process\u2014and also take the opportunity to acknowledge officials and all of the people that worked on this bill as we\u2019re here at this third reading. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe infrastructure financing tools, obviously, as we\u2019ve heard today, do have the potential to unlock some projects, particularly around housing. As we\u2019ve heard, this has been broadened into transport and other projects, including water projects, which does raise a little bit of a red flag which I\u2019ll come to soon. Our main concern is that they must not become a way of just simply quietly transferring costs and, more importantly, also the risks on to households while also weakening that local accountability. Our position, therefore, is relatively straightforward: we just think that, whilst it\u2019s good to have tools\u2014 and we acknowledge the positive contributions that have been made from the Government side\u2014and tools are fine, they do need to be workable. They have to also be fair, they need to be affordable and not lead to extra costs, and I think, really importantly, they must be transparent and subject to proper democratic and legal safeguards. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWith regard to financing, I think the number one issue is that it doesn\u2019t undermine affordability in a context and a circumstance that we find ourselves in at the moment where affordability, and particularly affordability for households, is such a major concern. We know that it\u2019s at the forefront of most people\u2019s thinking at the moment, and we know that this Government doesn\u2019t have a track record of doing anything positive to actually reduce costs or to have done anything like what they promised before the election to make life more affordable. We don\u2019t want this to be something that actually adds to that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOn the one hand, while we are perfectly supportive of finding new ways to fund infrastructure, those costs don\u2019t just disappear because there\u2019s another mechanism in town. Simply because local body infrastructure will then be collecting through a levy rather than rates or taxes, it doesn\u2019t mean that the costs disappear. It just means that there\u2019s a different way of paying for it. If those levies can remain on a property for 30 to 50 years, it\u2019s not inconceivable that a developer or a current landowner may be perfectly happy to agree to those levies today but the people who then go on to eventually buy those houses may have no involvement in that decision. A family purchasing a new home could face mortgage repayments, they will face council rates, often water charges, and an additional levy on top of that. It all adds up. Each cost can seem quite manageable in isolation, but considered together, they actually do have quite a material effect on affordability. We, therefore, welcome what the select committee did through that process of ensuring that the Minister of Housing has to consider those cumulative effects, or those cumulative impacts of existing charges on top of what this levy could add. We do, however, remain concerned that the affordability test itself can still be set aside in certain circumstances where developers or existing owners support the proposal, at least initially.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000447\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWith regard to transport costs, we\u2019ve heard that there\u2019s a broadening through this process, and the bill expands the model from local development infrastructure. It can also now be used for projects undertaken by national transport agencies. As we all know, transport infrastructure has traditionally been funded through those more national mechanisms, mainly because they tend to serve those wider regional or national interests. We do remain somewhat sceptical of the fact that the bill could become a little bit of a back-door mechanism for shifting those costs in particular on to councils and, ultimately, on to local households.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFor example, a major State highway interchange or a rapid transit project obviously has a national economic and transport objective, but those nearby property owners could be required to fund at least part of that through a long-term levy. As we\u2019ve also heard, that concern is just elevated and is magnified somewhat when we hear the discourse and the inevitability of things like a rates cap policy. It doesn\u2019t all quite add up, and whilst it sounds good on paper, as I said, we remain somewhat sceptical of how this is going to be implemented. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000449\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ECouncils could expect to facilitate or collect new infrastructure levies while simultaneously finding themselves in a really restrictive environment where they have to weigh up because a rates cap has been thrust upon them. On the one hand, they\u2019re collecting this levy, and on the other hand, they\u2019re quite seriously thinking about how they\u2019re going to continue to fund libraries, parks, public transport, community facilities, and all the other things that local ratepayers do expect from their council. We don\u2019t think that that particular issue has been resolved at all through the select committee process. We think that that contradiction still exists.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000450\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWith regard to local voice, we noted that was also a salient point made through the select committee process. It\u2019s really important that whilst we all tend to agree that streamlining the process is a step in the right direction, streamlining can\u2019t mean sidelining. It\u2019s really important that councils aren\u2019t put in a position where they are forced to streamline, but they are actually just having a reduced meaningful public consultation process, because that serves nobody\u2019s best interests. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe bill does significantly narrow some of the circumstances in which a council can decline to endorse the levy, which I think is somewhat concerning. In practice, a council may be required to support a proposal unless it believes that actually collecting the levy would place its rating system at risk. An example of that would be a council having serious concerns that a project didn\u2019t fit in with its long-term plan, it had evidence, whether it be anecdotal or formal, that the local communities didn\u2019t support it, and it could find that the project could quite unfairly increase unfair costs on people. But under this bill, those concerns wouldn\u2019t necessarily be enough for them to withhold consent and withhold endorsement, which I don\u2019t think is quite what was intended.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000452\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s also important that councils are democratically accountable to their communities and they shouldn\u2019t actually be put in the position of being reduced to a levy collection agency for projects over which they ultimately have very limited control. With regard to the strong legal safeguards that are essential when property rights are involved, we also support the Finance and Expenditure Committee\u2019s changes about the accelerated recovery process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI don\u2019t think anybody\u2019s particularly touched on this, and I\u2019ll leave this to colleagues to finish it off, but the special purpose vehicle\u2014there are several ways in which a development may fail. I think there\u2019s certainly a little bit more discourse to be had about how that would work in practice, but it\u2019s a little bit ad hoc. We have some concerns. We agree in principle that being flexible and freeing up mechanisms is a good thing and, therefore, are happy to support the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b7cff05e64f346e68983b2fdbfba3ad8\u0022 data-id=\u00228033b31f034d823c51f7b3d2e8bdab81\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000454\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b7cff05e64f346e68983b2fdbfba3ad8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228033b31f034d823c51f7b3d2e8bdab81\u0022\u003EDAN BIDOIS (National\u2014Northcote) (16:22)\u003C/span\u003E: With 102 days to go until the election, it\u2019s great to see unanimity come and break out in the House on this important piece of legislation. This bill is all about the Government\u2019s Going for Growth agenda, freeing up land for development, improving infrastructure funding, and providing incentives for communities around urban growth. It\u2019s all a part of this Government\u2019s plan to fix the basics and build the future, and 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=\u002298ab7607ab048c4ffb427fdfaac463b1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000455\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f988bc72b5e47b8856ba70e41dfbbaf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002298ab7607ab048c4ffb427fdfaac463b1\u0022\u003EGEORGIE DANSEY (Labour) (16:23)\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003ET\u0113n\u0101 koe e te M\u0101ngai o te Whare\u003C/span\u003E. It\u2019s good to stand and take a call on the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill. As other speakers have spoken to, Labour supports this bill and sees it as a step in the right direction in regards to infrastructure in Aotearoa New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to acknowledge the Finance and Expenditure Committee and the process this bill has gone through to take us to the third reading and acknowledge that there were some changes made through that select committee process, which, in our opinion, improved the bill. However, there are some further improvements that we would have liked to see that were not followed through the select committee process. I\u2019ll speak to some of those today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELook, Labour supports improving tools that unlock housing and infrastructure, but we do so on the basis that there is an element of fairness, affordability, and local democratic accountability and safeguarding. We know that we need more housing and infrastructure in this country, and I think, as the Hon Kieran McAnulty spoke to, having a joined-up approach to how we approach infrastructure across successive Governments should always be the aim, that we are future-thinking and thinking of a long-term plan for ensuring that future generations have the infrastructure that they need, and that hasn\u2019t always been the case. This bill is a step in the right direction and that is why Labour lends our support to the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHowever, the conflict sits with the rates cap proposal policy from the current Government and the risk that in one camp, we may have a rates cap, but in another camp, other expenses are expected of homeowners and home users in Aotearoa. We know that when we look overseas from other jurisdictions that have implemented rates caps, it hasn\u2019t always worked, that where exemptions have come from having to follow the rates cap, it hasn\u2019t meant that costs are kept down for homeowners. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELast week, I had the good fortune of having Labour\u2019s spokesperson for local government and transport Tangi Utikere in Hamilton. We took the opportunity to meet with a number of members of Hamilton City Council and staff and we had a robust discussion. The essence of that discussion was that the stop-start nature of what\u2019s happening in local government is not one that suits local government in order for them to get on and do the jobs that they need to do. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe sort of impending possible amalgamation that hasn\u2019t been confirmed or denied\u2014we\u2019re not sure what space that is in. The very short time frame of 90 days for local government to put forward their views to central government\u2014we talked about that truncated time frame and that not being long enough for local government in order to respond adequately. Also, we spoke about the centralisation of decision making. We know that local councils are best placed to understand their communities, but what we\u2019re seeing in the changes from this Government is that more and more of that decision making is becoming central with less ability for local councils to make their own decisions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo while we support this bill, we need to take into consideration the fact that the space of local government is a complicated one, and adding additional costs to councils and to ratepayers is not something that is going to help us in a situation where the cost of living continues to rise. I\u2019ll finish there. Labour supports this bill. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022 data-id=\u00220f73709f854b9076324362a3683e3698\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220f73709f854b9076324362a3683e3698\u0022\u003ETOM RUTHERFORD (National\u2014Bay of Plenty) (16:28)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s great to rise and speak in support of the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill. This is going to deliver and help deliver a number of things across our community and across New Zealand. Ultimately, it\u2019s also really important that there is cross-party support in this Parliament, which is a really good thing to see in this sort of space, particularly as we look to create that sort of unanimous support for infrastructure projects and long-term thinking in this country moving forward. I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022 data-id=\u0022343991bea075f8dcb09c5079dae9cd21\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000463\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223de6e6d6d57d40b483b9b558769ce301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022343991bea075f8dcb09c5079dae9cd21\u0022\u003EARENA WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Manurewa) (16:28)\u003C/span\u003E: New Zealand needs more homes built affordably and quickly. We need them in our cities, we need them in our regions. That is why Labour supports this bill, which is just one of the many tools that we will need. The Minister himself said that this is not the silver bullet; this is one of many measures which councils and central government are going to need to use to meet the increasing challenge which is mounting and has been a challenge for a long time in New Zealand, our infrastructure deficit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe rubber really hits the road when you look to Auckland, our biggest city, our global city, that we really need to be an economic powerhouse for the country, to be somewhere where young New Zealanders can buy a house and see a future there for themselves instead of going overseas. That is where we also hope to see real gains around including, say, transport projects within the sorts of projects that might be funded by this alternative tool, which has enjoyed bipartisan support in its history. When it was introduced by Labour, it enjoyed some criticism, but then some support as well from the cross benches.  This is an important stepping stone in the story of that emerging consensus that we are seeing around this Parliament in support of infrastructure and of a long-term approach which lifts it up above the political fray of the day and into something that is planned for future generations, and something that will benefit everyone. But they still haven\u2019t fixed it; National still have not fixed the funding issues which are underlying the problem here. Their transport announcements are simply a shorter list of unfundable transport projects, and New Zealanders can see that there is not a way out of this simply because we have introduced one more tool to spread the costs in a different way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESaying, as the Minister did, when he began his statement on this, the last reading of this bill in this House before it becomes law, that councils are artificially constraining supply through planning restrictions is simply to ignore the fact that Government have not provided local councils with any better tools\u2014any better proxies\u2014for the ability to stage development sensibly. Again, I return to the Auckland example here: of course, Auckland Council knows that it can use infrastructure financing tools like this off-balance. They are already doing that for their projects like their water projects. It is important to understand that council are\u2014especially at the size of Auckland Council\u2014sophisticated, quasi-state government - like entities that are able to organise their funding and financing in a way which is the most appropriate way to spread those costs around the ratepayers who will benefit most from the growth.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is not a lack of knowledge; it is simply because Auckland Council should be able to stage the developments that occur around the city. You should be able to say, \u201CIf we\u2019re going to build a new road, the first housing development should be at the beginning of the road. And the next housing development should be in the middle of the road. And the next one should be at the end of the road.\u201D That is not what this bill allows; this bill, we\u2019ve got to be very clear, might continue the very worrying trend in other pieces of legislation, like fast track and like others, where you get out-of-step growth in areas where it is inappropriate. We see this in, say, the 2024 residents who moved into their 300 new homes in West Auckland. We want them to be able to do that; we want those homes to be affordable. Yet, every day\u2014still\u2014their sewage is held in a holding tank and trucked out because there are not appropriate waste-water solutions, or grey-water solutions, or sewage solutions for that development, which was done entirely out of step. When the council tried to get in the way of that development, saying, \u201CWe have not sequenced this growth; this is not something we have allowed for in infrastructure development\u201D, they were not able to use any sorts of sensible mechanisms, which most New Zealanders would agree were sensible, for the council to be able to plan for that kind of growth.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve got to make sure that this is not enabling, as the ACT Party would have it, market-led housing growth. We\u2019re not going for a Houston model, where all zones are up for grabs. This is a model which we support, and there is bipartisan support, because it will continue to allow sequenced and sensible growth. Including transport projects in that is an important step, but it is also probably the most open to the kind of political interference that everyone in this House has been busily saying, in the last three years, we are trying to avoid with infrastructure\u2014that we are trying to grow a long-term, non-political, cross-partisan, future-generation - focused commitment to infrastructure that serves the growth of all New Zealanders and spreads costs appropriately and does not get sucked down into whichever developer is first off the block and ready to go, or whichever piece of land or field at the end of a city limit is ready to be developed, or whichever area suits political aspirations at any given time is the one we develop. No, we should allow local communities to have the appropriate kind of say, and this bill should not build that out any more than it already has been.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe point around having more tools for councils to be able to do that planning is also very important, and so part of our support around this is also making sure that we have those spatial planning rules in place and those other tools which enable communities to have a proper say about where growth happens, because if this Government wants to go for growth, it should go for growth in the right places and make sure that growth works for everyone. That is the final point I want to make in this debate: that maintaining faith in this kind of tool, which will create costs for ordinary New Zealanders and will create costs that they need to pay every year in upfront bills to the council\u2014that we should be cognisant of the need to maintain public faith in this law and in the schemes which are run by special purpose vehicles. It is going to be critically important that people not only have a transparent view through the financial arrangements which they\u2019re paying into\u2014this is their money; no taxation without representation is a pretty fundamental part of our legislation-making process, and we should make sure that there is transparency about how those funds are used and the sorts of public accountability mechanisms that attach to them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is also going to be really important that people can see they\u2019re getting value for money\u2014if we\u2019re talking about value capture and value uplift, which is the sort of Holy Grail of the last 15 years, I would say, of back and forth between very knowledgeable Ministers and members on this topic, around how to introduce that appropriately\u2014that if we want to get value capture, the value we are capturing is real and that people are benefiting from it, not only those people who want to stay in their homes that are rising in value, because it benefits them and that community, but also that developers who are coming into an area to buy up, say, a four-bedroom bungalow in Auckland and then develop it into a set of units, a set of apartments, are also sharing in the sort of uplift and are incentivised to create the right sort of housing. That will be critical to public faith in this sort of regime. That will be critical in a regime not only about transport projects but around critical infrastructure that people rely on. It\u2019s one thing if we make it about the roads, but this is also about people\u2019s access to those things they need most in their lives, like floodwater infrastructure when their homes flood, like access to space where water can run off. These things are also critically important, so that people can have oversight of them and actually understand how they work at a community level.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000470\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat genuine increase in land value is an important thing that we should be able to capture, but it must also never be capricious. The idea that we\u2019re saying, \u201CIf these funding tools were available at the time of City Rail Link\u201D sort of ignores the fact that that is a trade-off that is being made here. Central Aucklanders have the infrastructure now that they need to be able to get around the city quickly, to have drinking water that is always reliable, and floodwater systems that they can use, but suburban Aucklanders do not, and so the growth should also be happening in those areas where infrastructure is plentiful, or else you get a system where tools like this one, in the law that is being introduced today, are effectively extra charges on people who live in the suburbs and in areas that were developed in the \u201980s, \u201990s, and 2000s, and not on those people who enjoy living in the central, leafier suburbs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe final comment that I want to make is that this consensus on infrastructure that has emerged in this Parliament and the last is important. We should cling tight to it, and the ability for us to continue to build out on this is important. I hope tools like this are used, not only by the smaller councils that really need them but also by Auckland Council, with its level of financial sophistication to be able to build more infrastructure that we need in 50 years and in 100 years as well. This is a real opportunity for our city to be the best that it can be, and I hope we can use it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b52eff5aa2a94fcc88903b73d0443de3\u0022 data-id=\u0022bb4f247593067030c67cb10e753b7621\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b52eff5aa2a94fcc88903b73d0443de3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bb4f247593067030c67cb10e753b7621\u0022\u003ENANCY LU (National) (16:38)\u003C/span\u003E: It is brilliant to hear all the support coming from the different parties in the House today to support the third reading and passing of the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ELike many speakers have said before me, this is about unlocking growth and the opportunity to grow in many different parts of the country. It is about fixing the basics and removing the red tape and the green tape\u2014the many different coloured tapes\u2014so we can actually just get moving, keep moving on, and continue to build a better future for New Zealand. I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002290f442a79aea4ce0aeae083763135935\u0022 data-id=\u0022def6380011bf5a931fa4979d9decf1e4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290f442a79aea4ce0aeae083763135935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022def6380011bf5a931fa4979d9decf1e4\u0022\u003ECARL BATES (National\u2014Whanganui) (16:39)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is about ensuring better access to funding and financing tools that local councils need in order to invest in the infrastructure our growing communities require without passing ever higher costs on to our ratepayers. I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cdf7e377b380befb23d677ac825af651\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Employment Leave Bill, the Crimes Amendment Bill, and the English Language Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a852b67ba5f44ef820a38e63ee24c5ff\u0022\u003EEmployment Leave Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b36283b8c2ae5c1f5f415778433d6eaf\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u002203ec4743fab16aebb2de62617284565a\u0022\u003EPart 1 Preliminary provisions, and Schedule 1\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022269fffbd5fed129e33370827b246ae7e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the House is in committee on the Employment Leave Bill, the Crimes Amendment Bill, and the English Language Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWe come first to the Employment Leave Bill, and we begin with the debate on Part 1, which is the debate on clauses 3 to 20A, \u201CPreliminary provisions\u201D, and 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=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022 data-id=\u00224d6de27487691c2bfa54f2de21e0c3c4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224d6de27487691c2bfa54f2de21e0c3c4\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation) (16:40)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s a great pleasure to deputise for Minister van Velden briefly in this committee stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000484\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 1 contemplates the meaning of key terms, and the whole basis of this reform is to shift from quite a bulky and difficult set of rules for calculating holiday pay, annual leave, and the like, to an hours-based system, with three types of hours used to count work and leave from work: the standard hours, which will be what most people do, having a standard set of hours that they work, from which their accrual of leave is calculated; additional hours, which are any additional hours on top of the standard hours that somebody works; and casual hours, for somebody who works a variable amount and does not have standard hours. In the latter two cases\u2014additional and casual hours\u2014rather than an accrual of hours of leave, a person will be eligible for compensation equivalent to 12.5\u00A0percent of their usual pay during those hours. Part 1 also introduces notional rosters for employees that don\u2019t have a regular roster, for calculating their standard hours. They will be able to use one of these notional rosters. It goes on to define a working day.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis part really defines three key concepts that are foundational to the new framework put in place by the Employment Leave Bill, and I welcome questions on those key concepts in this part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022 data-id=\u0022d4718497eff32287337c86dfd4c5392a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d4718497eff32287337c86dfd4c5392a\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (16:42)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister, the Hon David Seymour, for outlining Part 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to take just a couple of minutes first in my contribution to outline where we want to head with this debate, Madam Chair. We think that there are a few questions in Part\u00A01, but the substantive debate\u2014part of the questioning that we would like to look at\u2014is more likely in Part 2, as that is the more substantive part of it. However, as the Minister for Regulation has pointed out, Part 1 does look at those preliminary provisions, and, of course, in there is the purpose, application, and interpretation. That comes in clauses 3 to 5, and that is fundamental to the whole bill. I think we will spend a short amount of time just asking some questions around that, and then some more around the rest of Part 1, but not too much time, if that gives a bit of an overview.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs pointed out in Labour\u2019s differing view, we do feel that there were some changes that were good that were made at the select committee stage, but we also feel that some of those changes were inconsistent with what was left in the bill. So, as part of asking around clauses 3 to 5\u2014the purpose, application, and interpretation\u2014I will be asking a question around those inconsistencies and the level of comfort that those inconsistencies exist.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe \u201CPurpose\u201D provision now specifically and expressly recognises rest and recreation, which we\u2019re actually very happy with, because we see that leave is an important part of a person\u2019s rest and recreation, as did many submitters at the select committee. But the operative scheme still treats leave as a divisible hourly compensation and excludes additional and casual hours from accrual. Definitions in clause 5 drive the whole bill, and there must be that sufficient certainty around the variable work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI went back to select committee notes when I was preparing for this committee of the whole House, and I had a look at the Law Association and the submission they put in, Minister, around this particular aspect of the bill. They are saying that restoring rest and recreation is a really good thing, but again, going back to have a look at the actual fundamental framework, it seems at odds. I would be really interested in whether the Minister is comfortable with the operative leave compensation payment scheme being consistent with that rest and recreation definition that has now come through\u2014of seeing that that express rest and recreation is there and, from what I can see, is an absolute inconsistency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf the Minister is comfortable with that, why? And what advice have officials given to give that level of comfort with that? It seems completely at odds with each other in that definition, and it is very, very important to the overall framework of what is set out for the rest of the bill. I do have some other questions, but I think that particular question is fundamental to us going forward.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022 data-id=\u00228bf8a3613e81828631f74d976591e2b6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228bf8a3613e81828631f74d976591e2b6\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation) (16:46)\u003C/span\u003E: First of all, I just give my apologies; I\u2019m not the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, who has worked diligently on this for several years. That\u2019s Brooke van Velden.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo me, it seems very clear. First of all, yes, I acknowledge that the Education and Workforce Committee has added rest and recreation as a purpose for having leave\u2014you can take leave so you can do things, like take your kids on holiday\u2014but I don\u2019t see an inconsistency between that and the framework for delivering that leave. The whole purpose here is simplification, so that people can actually be paid the correct amount. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat means, for standard hours, which will be most people who just work their 9 to 5, a certain number of days a week, they will get accrued leave at rate of, I believe, 0.0679, or some percentage that gives them the right number of hours off for the number of hours they\u2019ve worked. In terms of additional hours and casual hours, they will be eligible for a cash entitlement, which they can also use for any purpose they choose, including, I guess, rest and recreation. I don\u2019t see any inconsistency there, if I properly understood the member\u2019s question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022 data-id=\u0022c45f4f1d8fa2b6f595e7f9d48f302317\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c45f4f1d8fa2b6f595e7f9d48f302317\u0022\u003ETEANAU TUIONO (Green) (16:48)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise on behalf of the Greens at the committee of the whole House stage to work our way through the Employment Leave Bill, and just to note, I guess, that having an Act that is clearer and simpler is an intention that I think everybody from across both sides of the House would want. Making sure that things are less complicated, so that people know exactly what their leave entitlements are, is a good thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000496\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHowever, I do have some questions around the purpose of the bill, and it really does speak to the heart of actually what this bill is trying to do and what I think any other amendment to this bill should actually be doing. It is about being able to take your annual leave, being able to take public holidays\u2014if you\u2019re sick, you\u2019re sick\u2014bereavement leave, and family violence leave. Making sure that we get that balance right and correct is what is at the heart of this bill. Being able to take that opportunity to take paid time away from work and for rest and recreation, etc., those public holidays, is an important part of getting that work-life balance correct.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000497\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the things that we grappled with at the select committee, and I don\u2019t think it was adequately answered, was that if this is the purpose of the bill\u2014and, of course, the purpose of this bill is to make sure we get that balance right around sick leave, bereavement leave, etc., etc.\u2014why was this the particular pathway chosen in terms of trying to address that? We do know that people want things to be clearer. We do know that people want things to be simpler. That is not for debate here, in my view, because that is something that the entire House wants. But, when we looked at the three options within the regulatory impact statement, option 1 was the status quo. I don\u2019t think anybody wanted that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000498\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOption two was the weeks-based accrual, which was something that had been worked on over a number of years, to move from weeks-based entitlements to a weeks-based accrual model for annual leave. The focus there, again, was on providing clarity and certainty within the existing weeks-based framework, but instead the option was to move towards this hours-based accrual. My question is: why this one? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf the purpose of the bill is to make sure that we get that balance right\u2014that we make sure that when people are sick, they can stay home; that when they are suffering a bereavement, they can take that leave, and to make sure that people are able to rest\u2014why was this particular option the option that pretty much flows through the entire bill itself and leads itself to all the different types of calculations that, I guess, we\u2019ll be making through in Part 2 and Part 3 and other parts of this bill, when possibly that is not the best option to achieve the purposes outline here in clause 3? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000500\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m wanting to get to the intention of that\u2014beyond wanting to get clarity and simplicity, which is a good thing. I do take the point that the Minister in the chair isn\u2019t the Minister who has been shepherding this bill through, but it would be good to get some framing comments as to why that particular option was taken, given that option two could have provided the simplicity and clarity as well, while better reinforcing the parts within clause 3 around the purpose\u2014around ensuring that annual leave is able to be taken, and bereavement leave, sick leave, and so on and so forth, because when you look in the media, there is a lot of concern that, actually, what this bill will do will lessen that\u2014will take away people\u2019s annual leave, sick leave, and so on and so forth. If we can get some clarity on that from the Minister, that would be a good start.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022 data-id=\u0022bace0fd13e06cd4a45aa4383b740db82\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000501\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bace0fd13e06cd4a45aa4383b740db82\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation) (16:52)\u003C/span\u003E: Look, the member is right to identify that there are always different options. When Minister van Velden assumed this role, there had been several attempts which had not succeeded, and she had to throw out the work that had been done to date because it was found to be unworkable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000502\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWhy did she ultimately choose an hours-based accrual system rather than the status quo, which everyone agrees is broken, or weeks? I would say that it comes down to fairness. If you imagine, for example, two people who work a public holiday\u2014they both give up a lot\u2014but one of them works a few hours, and the other one works a few days. If you use an hours-based system, then they can accrue different amounts of leave for the work that they do, and that seems only fair that the person who gives up more on that public holiday should get more, whereas if you go by a bigger unit than hours, then you can\u2019t do that kind of discrimination that people should get if they make different choices.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u0022c9437bc359a59f6740524c8b381d8e2b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c9437bc359a59f6740524c8b381d8e2b\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (16:53)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. It\u2019s a good opportunity to take a call on Part 1, looking at the \u201CPurpose\u201D section in clause 3 of this bill, which looks at the purpose of the bill. I have a few questions for the Minister in the chair around that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI was thinking about, Madam Chair, the correct place to give a bit of context to how this bill came into being, because I do think it is important for our consideration of that. Probably, unless I\u2019m corrected, the \u201CPurpose\u201D section right at the beginning, when it looks at the intention of the legislation and what it\u2019s looking to achieve, is probably the best place\u2014obviously with relevance to those particular sections. I see you\u2019re smiling at me, so, hopefully\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000505\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022051bd88e71d51fd3f1e8e0a589c4972e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I just hope that we\u2019re not going to get distracted, and we are going to focus on interrogating the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223430bf30e7907e3286181294db48ef18\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH\u003C/span\u003E: No, Madam Chair, I just think it\u2019s important to note that this bill has come through a very long process through different Governments. The intention of it, I think, at the beginning, was to provide some clarity around entitlements for what was then called \u201Cholidays\u201D. It was something that was worked on by the previous Government, and I know that it is something that has been worked on by a number of people\u2014not only within this House but externally as well. The reason that that is relevant is because, when we look at the purpose, it\u2019s about\u2014I don\u2019t believe that this bill came to the House with a particular political ideology surrounding it. I believe that it\u2014and the Minister can correct me if I\u2019m wrong\u2014started very much as a clarification exercise. We, of course, have had some famous examples where the purposes outlined in clause 3 have not been achieved in terms of clarity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000507\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think that that is where it started, and I do recall the Minister who has brought this bill to the House bringing an exposure draft, which is quite different to what we have ended up seeing in terms of the drafting of this particular bill here today. I think that is relevant, because it is a substantive change. The other thing that is a big change, which is kind outlined in the way it\u2019s described in the purpose, is the change of the title, really. I know we\u2019re not debating that at the moment, but we were previously looking at \u201CHolidays Act\u201D\u2014that\u2019s what all of this came under\u2014and now we\u2019re looking at \u201CEmployment Leave\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000508\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think, if you look at the particular aspects that the bill is covering in the purpose\u2014annual leave, public holidays, sick leave, bereavement leave\u2014perhaps they are better described as \u201Cleave\u201D rather than a holiday, but it does signal a change in relation to approach to leave. The original purpose often, when you look at the kind of international agreements that look at leave, is for health and safety, and I don\u2019t know if that aspect particularly\u2014I know we\u2019ve talked about rest and recreation, but, actually, most provisions in relation to compulsory leave are based on a health and safety perspective. If we look at countries that don\u2019t have leave provisions, they\u2019re often countries that don\u2019t have the types of fair working conditions that we would consider appropriate in a country like New Zealand. That aspect of it, I think, is important. I\u2019d like to ask the Minister: is there still the intention for this to be an implementation of some of the obligations that New Zealand has in relation to health and safety? Is this part of providing a healthy and safe workplace for New Zealanders by providing them the opportunity to have leave?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000509\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA related question to that is: if it is based on health and safety, one of the important purposes for leave to be taken is for people not to be disadvantaged when they take leave. I think this is where the parties diverge in their support of this bill\u2014because that fundamental tenet does not appear to be reflected in the purpose or probably in the provisions that we will look at. The reason that\u2019s important is if you\u2019re disadvantaged when you take some of the leave that\u2019s listed there in the purpose\u2014financially, I mean; if you\u2019re paid less for taking leave than you would be if you turned up to work\u2014then you won\u2019t take leave, most likely, especially for people who are low-paid, or especially in a cost of living situation that we\u2019re in at the moment. That is also related to health and safety, because it provides a disincentive for people to actually take the leave they\u2019re entitled to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000510\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Minister may say\u2014and I\u2019m interested in his response to that\u2014that what is here is reasonable, and it\u2019s not so low as to be a disadvantage or a disincentive for people to take that leave, but I\u2019m interested in how that balance was struck and whether, if these provisions were lowered more significantly, that would perhaps be something that would disadvantage people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022 data-id=\u002255db5d99b6837003e96780f5a94c1e74\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000511\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002255db5d99b6837003e96780f5a94c1e74\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (16:58)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair, and can I thank the Minister in the chair for his answer about the leave compensation payment before. I do take the fact that the Minister is not the Minister who has shepherded this bill through, but this is our opportunity to ask our clarifying questions, too. The reason I\u2019m so really wanting to have a good time of asking the questions\u2014and I thank the Minister for that\u2014is because, actually, there are parts to this bill that we agree with.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000512\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve met with the Minister who shepherded the bill through around this bill, and I said, \u201CActually, this is something that we probably need to have a real conversation about across the House\u201D, whether in this term or the next term of Government\u2014around where we can find that we\u2019re not having the pendulums shift. I think we can all agree with that\u2014that leave is something that\u2019s a fundamental right of our workers within New Zealand. We\u2019re trying to get there too, and that\u2019s why we\u2019re asking these questions. As I say, I totally get the fact that you\u2019re not that Minister\u2014the Minister\u2019s not the Minister that shepherded it through\u2014and these may be questions that we continue to ask and follow through on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000513\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy colleague over here from the Green Party talked about standard and additional casual hours, which are clauses 6 to 8, and I\u2019m happy to move with those clauses just to ask the next question from my point of view. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000514\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is a real area of disagreement that we have, as a Labour Party, around what is happening with this after listening very carefully to submissions in the select committee process. We absolutely believe that all hours worked should accrue leave. We had a number of submitters who agreed with that position, including the Law Society, including many individual workers, and including some businesses too. Particularly some businesses where they had casualised workers within their business who might have some standard hours that they employ for each week but then there are casualised hours on top of that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000515\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESome of those that come to mind were the horticulture sector. They can\u2019t determine what their next week is going to look like, and they have their workers employed on, maybe, 20 hours a week, but they could be working 40-plus hours depending on the conditions that they\u2019re coming through. They were very concerned about that, that all those hours weren\u2019t accruing that leave.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000516\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere was one submission that really stuck out for me, and that was Workers First. They submitted about how some of their Cotton On members are guaranteed only three hours a week but regularly work considerably more. That was normal for those particular workers, which is of a concern that if they\u2019re employed for a standard three hours a week, but they\u2019re working way more than that, that they\u2019re not getting that leave accruing on the other hours that come there. This sort of came through a lot from those presenters at select committee; that this was going to almost incentivise casualisation because employers would be paying out less for leave overall. It came through time and time again. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000517\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat evidence does the Minister give that the bill will not encourage that no-guarantee model across retail, care, and hospitality, but also, some of our big economic industries such as horticulture, some of our big exporters\u2014Dairy Workers Union was another one that came through. In fact, the dairy workers full stop came through that there was some big\u2014and I know that was a real issue because there was a separate part put in the select committee commentary around the dairy workers, but they weren\u2019t the only ones; it came through in many different industries, and it was employers that were coming through.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo my question is: what is the evidence that that\u2019s not going to incentivise casualisation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022 data-id=\u0022a5704e49e2cd338a2ac63538da90567e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000519\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a5704e49e2cd338a2ac63538da90567e\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation) (17:02)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll try and respond to the last two, which are related.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000520\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich was right: she sort of answered her own question. It\u2019s not called \u201Cholidays\u201D, because a lot of the reasons that people take leave\u2014being sick, a bereavement, and particularly family violence\u2014I think people would not consider a holiday, so that\u2019s why the name\u2019s changed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000521\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich mentioned that the bill that was initially produced is quite different\u2014that is true\u2014and, as I mentioned in an earlier speech, Minister van Velden inherited some work that, ultimately, she had to start again with, and I think that showed some courage and got her to a better place. So that\u2019s been canvassed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000522\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question that Camilla Belich asked\u2014the most substantial question\u2014is there still an emphasis on ensuring that leave is used for health and safety? Well, you know, certainly there is a balance here between simplicity and ensuring that employees get the benefit of leave. I think that that balance has been struck very well here. The underlying purpose that employees aren\u2019t disadvantaged for taking leave\u2014that underlying principle of the Holidays Act was never set out in the Purpose, and the purpose of the Employment Leave Bill is the same. There hasn\u2019t actually been a change in the way that the purpose is set out, but the balance between ensuring that people take leave and the complexity of the bill, I think, has been struck well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000523\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat kind of relates to the question that Jan Tinetti asked, which was: is it advantageous for an employer to have fewer standard hours and more causal or additional hours? Well, no, and I think, in a way, the member answered her own question. You have employers coming to the select committee\u2014and I certainly heard them\u2014saying, \u201CLook, this requirement to pay 12.5\u00A0percent in money in place of accrued leave for those casual and additional hours, that is, if anything, a little bit more generous than previously to the employee.\u201D So, if anything, the incentive for the employer is probably to have more standard hours and fewer of those additional and casual hours, because when they have additional and casual, they have to pay the extra 12.5\u00A0percent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022 data-id=\u002250d800cf79017245533a5e857557190b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000524\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002250d800cf79017245533a5e857557190b\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (17:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for that answer. Just following up on that, Minister: that\u2019s not what many submitters said; many submitters actually said that it was going to cost the worker more than what it would\u2014they would have less money in their pocket or less time in their pocket than what it would be to get the money. So I\u2019m wondering what modelling was carried out to actually ascertain that that would be the case, that employers would be out of pocket more at the end of it. I\u2019m not debating that employers were saying this or people were saying that; I just really want to know what the modelling was that employers were going to be able to pocket more.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000525\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EBut also, did officials model that there might be a behavioural response to incentivising casualisation more, and, if so\u2014they may not have\u2014what did the modelling show, and, if not, was the risk accepted? So was that an absolute identified risk that there could be that casualisation? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022 data-id=\u00229c61f5d62d3a0716908386e32495b954\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229c61f5d62d3a0716908386e32495b954\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation) (17:06)\u003C/span\u003E: I can answer that fairly quickly. In terms of modelling, there may well have been. I\u2019m not advised on that, but it stands to reason that given that the 12.5\u00A0percent is more generous than what is available under the Holidays Act, whatever incentives are in place now, the incentives under this new Act, as far as employers are concerned, will be to move towards more standard hours because it\u2019s actually the additional and casual hours that have become more expensive from their point of view, under this new law, because the 12.5\u00A0 percent is actually higher than what went previously.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002242067e22c7a349218b3b868f58eda79d\u0022 data-id=\u00221c25cd10468fd52291b007457537957e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000527\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002242067e22c7a349218b3b868f58eda79d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221c25cd10468fd52291b007457537957e\u0022\u003ERACHEL BOYACK (Labour\u2014Nelson) (17:07)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you to the Minister in the chair. I just want to ask a follow-on question on that specific point because one of the issues that used to crop up around 20 years ago or so was when holiday pay was paid out on an as-you-go payment. It was very common for employees to receive their holiday pay\u2014and in this case, I want to talk specifically about the extra 12.5\u00A0percent\u2014and they\u2019d have it paid out weekly. And what that would, ultimately, mean, if we\u2019re talking about it as leave as opposed to holidays, is that those workers would end up without having any actual time to take off to have a break.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000528\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ESo the concern I just want to put on record, and get the Minister\u2019s response on, is that if those workers, let\u2019s say, are doing five hours a week permanently, that that is used to accrue their leave, and they\u2019re doing anything between 15 to 20 hours a week or sometimes up to 30 casually and getting paid out an extra 12.5\u00A0percent during that week, essentially, they\u2019re actually not building up a pot of time to take off, to have some rest and to have a break. And that starts to, in itself, become a health and safety issue. If people are receiving that on a weekly basis, but then, ultimately, it comes time to have two weeks off to have to have some rest and relaxation so they can come back to work refreshed, they actually don\u2019t have enough sitting in the bank in order to be able to look after themselves during that time. So there was always this trade-off\u2014right?\u2014between workers receiving extra money weekly through that holiday pay, and then there were changes made so that it could only be paid out on a weekly basis with the employee\u2019s approval. And now, I just want to get a stronger understanding of whether that will need to be paid out weekly or whether it can be bagged up\u2014firstly. And secondly, whether there has been an analysis done on the behavioural impacts that if someone doesn\u2019t actually have a weekly\u2014isn\u2019t accruing that in order to have it paid out in one lump sum, is there going to be a disincentive for that employee to take time off because they\u2019re actually not able to have enough income generated in that week in order to be able to do so safely?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022 data-id=\u0022272d679478ed32e5703b1682e13f40da\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000529\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022272d679478ed32e5703b1682e13f40da\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation) (17:09)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m advised that the 12.5\u00A0percent leave pay is paid out on a normal pay cycle. So if, in the member\u2019s example, someone worked five hours a week, it\u2019s certainly true it would take a long time for them to accrue a whole week\u2019s leave; however, they would only require five hours of leave to get a whole week off, given that we\u2019re moving to an hours-based system. For the rest of their time, their other\u2014I think the member said\u201415 to 30 hours, they wouldn\u2019t get paid the week that they took off, but they would have been getting an extra 12.5 percent. Effectively, if you have casual hours, then you need to do your own saving for your leave. That\u2019s part of the logic of the bill. But I believe that somebody who chooses to do five hours standard hours and 30 hours a week casual is probably someone who\u2019s switched on and organised enough to do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022 data-id=\u002205ca90bf9011d3cdfa5794ac27888ead\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000530\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002205ca90bf9011d3cdfa5794ac27888ead\u0022\u003ETEANAU TUIONO (Green) (17:10)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just reflecting on one of the answers from the Minister around assumptions around holiday pay. I recall one submitter who was a care and support worker talked about\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000531\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022952ec73a63a5d6c8b77374617117f520\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Can I just ask which clause you\u2019re speaking to?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228f20981bc1e34ea7d9ebe4f39f6d546c\u0022\u003ETEANAU TUIONO\u003C/span\u003E: The purpose one\u2014this is something that the Minister talked about in one of his second or third contributions around the reasons why people would take public holidays and the reasons for moving it towards an hours-based accrual system. In that example at the select committee, they were talking about, well, actually an example of where a care and support worker could be scheduled on for four hours in the middle of a public holiday. But, actually, that ruins the entire holiday. Because when we have public holidays, the purpose of a public holiday is you take the whole day off, and there\u2019s possibly other things that people might want to do together as families or as communities, which won\u2019t relate to that specifically 3 to 4 hours. So I just wanted to test the Minister\u2019s assumption around that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EPublic holidays are quite different from other days. There\u2019s not very many of them, however, because the intention behind a public holiday is that they\u2019re of national significance, they should be treated differently. From my reading from the Minister, it would be treated as any other day. If you look further through, in the definitions, there\u2019s only a set number of public holidays. So my question is: is that assumption correct? Is the concern by this particular submitter at the select committee also correct that actually this type of schedule\u2014being scheduled on in the middle of a public holiday would mean that they wouldn\u2019t get the full amount owed to them, but just a couple of hours, and the fact that they would feel penalised for doing so.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022 data-id=\u00222c199e4cfd442f9f82193d68490ef48b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222c199e4cfd442f9f82193d68490ef48b\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (17:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to follow on\u2014I\u2019m still on clauses 6 to 8, just for clarification. It\u2019s following on from the answer that came before about the accrual of the work on the hours that are worked. The regulatory impact statement (RIS) itself considered only the status quo, so that\u2019s the weeks-based model that we currently have, and one end-to-end hours-based model, and it says, \u201CPrior decisions and time constraints prevented consideration of all options.\u201D That\u2019s on pages 3 to 5 of the RIS.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000535\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019m really quite interested in what advice the Minister received on the obvious alternative of hourly accrual. I\u2019m not going back to weeks here; I\u2019m staying with hourly accrual, and it\u2019s the obvious on all hours worked. We haven\u2019t had that discussion. We\u2019ve only had the discussion on the standard hours. So I\u2019d like to know the advice that came on all hours worked, what it said, and where is that option assessed? So that\u2019s a very short question, so I\u2019ll leave it there around that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u002291c4eb9f56181ed4f4d59b359e8fc264\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000536\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002291c4eb9f56181ed4f4d59b359e8fc264\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (17:14)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just before we move on completely from clause 4, I just have a specific question. I won\u2019t take a full call, but I think one of the notable factors of this bill is the exemption, basically, for people employed by schools and State schools, from this piece of legislation. Essentially, and it is set out in the application section in clause 4, if someone is employed by, essentially, a board of trustees at a State school, then they are not covered by this bill and they may\u2014I think there\u2019s an intention in the future that they may be covered, but there\u2019s a clause here that states that that may be 10 years after Royal assent. So a significant period of time that State school employees would not be covered. I\u2019m not casting a view on that exemption because I can see that it\u2019s reflective of the complexity of this particular piece of legislation and also the employment agreements that are in place with people who are employed in schools. But I think it\u2019s probably appropriate for the committee for the Minister to provide an explanation as to why that exemption as in place. So I politely request that if the Minister is able to do so, that he do so.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000537\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAlso, just to check that this is only an exemption in relation to State schools. I don\u2019t believe that is defined in this piece of legislation, but I would assume that that excludes other types of schools. For example, the Minister has a special interest in charter schools, are they exempted or covered? I would imagine they were covered, but good to get clarity from the Minister\u2014and also private schools. The Minister will well know the number of different options in terms of legal entities that schools are set up under. So that\u2019s my first question. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000538\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust in relation to the definition section\u2014I don\u2019t want to go through this in detail. And this is for practical reasons, because obviously each of the terms is expanded further on in the bill, which I think would be the more appropriate place to discuss them. I just wanted to ask the Minister, if we look at the clause 4(2), there is an overall statement that if something\u2019s not defined in this Act, then it\u2019s the Employment Relations Act definition which is the defining piece of legislation that will set out the meaning if not otherwise defined. Many of these, from my knowledge of the Holidays Act, and I didn\u2019t participate, like the Minister, in the select committee\u2014I just wanted to know, maybe officials could tell him, whether there has been a substantial departure from the definitions in the Holidays Act in relation to some of the definitions in clause 4. If so, which are the substantive departures? Obviously, we know that the Act operates differently. I\u2019m not asking the Minister to explain that in relation to the definitions, but it\u2019s more if there\u2019s a notable change in the meaning of a word or a term that was included in the Holidays Act which has been substantially changed, not in an operational way, in relation to this bill. Hopefully, that makes sense to the Minister. So that those are the questions I have in relation to clause 4.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022 data-id=\u00221af02c808a345ac9f54abd9524136edf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000539\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221af02c808a345ac9f54abd9524136edf\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation) (17:17)\u003C/span\u003E: Just to answer Teanau Tuiono\u2019s question. He\u2019s right. One of the implications of an hours-based system is that a person could work several hours on a public holiday and they would accrue leave in return for those hours. It might be true that some people would feel that they had lost the whole day. I\u2019m not sure all people think like that, but someone might. I just make the point that if a person was to be given a whole day, then the incentive for an employer to have a person working only when necessary and actually have the rest of the time to themselves, is less. Whereas if you only pay and accrue for certain hours, then you\u2019re more likely, rather than losing the whole day, to lose several hours and still get compensated with pro rata leave for that. So I don\u2019t think that is a bad deal overall.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen there is this question of why, Jan Tinetti asked, was hours-based accrual not the way? Why is it that you get accrual for your standard leave, but there\u2019s 12.5 percent cash up front for your other hours, your non-standard hours. The reason for that is really quite straightforward. If you work the same week, the same hours every week, those are your standard hours, then it\u2019s not difficult to work out what it takes to give you a week off. It\u2019s just you get so many weeks off for the number of weeks you worked. If you start having variable hours then the question is, did you accrue enough to take the hours off that you would have worked in the week you take off, which is irregular? Far simpler to let the person take their money, their share, 12.5 percent, and make their own decisions about when they do and don\u2019t work, or when they would have worked and how much compensation they need in order to take a week off. Far easier to do that in cash than it is to do it in hours. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn fact, moving to that cash compensation for casual hours is one of the main changes that has made this bill so much more workable than the Holidays Act that went before.  So I hope that\u2019s clear. I\u2019ve explained it as best as a can, but having different hours in the week you accrued the leave from the week you take off is basically the whole problem with the Holidays Act, and moving to cash rather than accrual for variable hours largely solves that problem.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000542\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich asked why State schools are exempt for 10 years. My instinct was that this was terribly Byzantine contracts negotiated by public sector unions and their wily lawyers. It turns out I was almost correct. It\u2019s because of those contracts that the public sector pay system is so Byzantine and it\u2019s going to take a long time to sort that out to comply with the new laws, hence the delay. So if the member knows anyone in that space, if she could have a word with them, I\u2019m sure everyone would be very grateful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn so far as clause 4(2) and definitions in the Employment Relations Act\u2014is there a deviation from that Act? I\u2019m still awaiting advice on that. That\u2019s a bit above my pay grade, but I\u2019ll try and get an answer for the member as soon as I can.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022 data-id=\u00227d00306a6be82cff82499ee7f2c6122b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227d00306a6be82cff82499ee7f2c6122b\u0022\u003ETEANAU TUIONO (Green) (17:21)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think there was an interesting question on that side from Rachel Boyack around the Cotton On employer, because that was a very real submission that did come to the select committee and we haven\u2019t yet heard an answer to that. And if I can put it this way to get an answer from the Minister in the chair, I think, would be good.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000545\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002293e8d717118b7a305e9a0b99f5ce38ab\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister did answer that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000546\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002245cfc41af13aa6c4e92ed8e7edb42dbc\u0022\u003ETEANAU TUIONO\u003C/span\u003E: He did answer it? I didn\u2019t quite hear it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000547\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290a05c0f561045159bf3351d524a65ac\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002227a772401d8216c9014e3be4a8663299\u0022\u003ETim van de Molen\u003C/span\u003E: Pay attention.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000548\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002214fd110c603f766de83956f773962335\u0022\u003ETEANAU TUIONO\u003C/span\u003E: I am paying attention.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000549\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290a05c0f561045159bf3351d524a65ac\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022771217805b5d9466c4de6b98434a8896\u0022\u003ETim van de Molen\u003C/span\u003E: Clearly not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000550\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b62fb48d4974d952a929f776b3c81ab1\u0022\u003ETEANAU TUIONO\u003C/span\u003E: Chipping over from the sidelines isn\u2019t helpful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b13aa8ffbae34ee4972a7ab313f6b300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227ba25f0304d6b7154f9c0385757328ef\u0022\u003EHon Dr Deborah Russell\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, take a call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002206333f3178a30feaf8cbe27be8d7f7fe\u0022\u003EHon Members: \u003C/span\u003ETake a call!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000553\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b8373e3c7ec89bf33c49d0197276bbd7\u0022\u003ETEANAU TUIONO\u003C/span\u003E: Take a call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000554\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI just wanted to jump down to the \u201CMeaning of standard hours\u201D\u2014this is clause 6. Here in subclause (1)(a)(i) we move from \u201Crequires\u201D to \u201Cmay require\u201D. I was wondering if the Minister could clarify for us that particular movement and what that would mean around the concerns of casualisation of standard hours and whether he had an answer to that in the context of the numerous examples that we\u2019ve brought up and the concerns of submitters that did come to the select committee concerned that the impacts that this would have on their ability to take their annual leave. So that\u2019s clause 6(1)(a)(i), we\u2019ve crossed out \u201Crequires\u201D and moving to \u201Cmay require\u201D, and if we could get some clarity around that, that would be good.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022 data-id=\u00221c5daa083d1f94c93d9acf6686a67ec2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000555\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221c5daa083d1f94c93d9acf6686a67ec2\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation) (17:22)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I think a plain reading of that is that it\u2019s actually a concession to the employee. They can qualify for standard hours and hours that they may be required to work, not hours that they absolutely are required to work. So it actually broadens the scope of what can count as standard hours, which I would have thought, from an employee\u2019s point of view, would be advantageous\u2014it gives them additional scope to have a regular roster.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u002274105d587727eb8c9381d470e226771c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002274105d587727eb8c9381d470e226771c\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (17:23)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just actually did forget to ask\u2014apologies for this\u2014one question around the definition of \u201Cwork roster\u201D, and that\u2019s under \u201Cwork roster\u201D in clause 5(1). It states there that a work roster is set by an employer, \u201C(whether in writing or otherwise)\u201D. I cannot think of a work roster that would not be in writing. So I have a question around what is intended by that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000557\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also have a question around the meaning of \u201Ccasual hours\u201D. In this definition, there is no obligation to offer any work, and no obligation to accept. So my question is probably more of a fundamental workplace relationship question: if that is the case, then is there a contractual relationship that exists between the employer and the employee? The Minister will be aware that in contracts there are obligations and considerations that need to be provided by each side. It appears, if there\u2019s obligation to offer work or accept it, I have a question about whether there is actually an existing employment relationship. That might be something the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Seymour, wants to get some advice on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also have some questions\u2014and it may be that colleagues have questions in relation to earlier clauses\u2014about the idea of a notional roster. Now, as I understand it, this is a new concept that has been included within the Employment Leave Bill. Although the idea of trying to ascertain the normal or regular or standard hours of an employee is not a new concept, the concept of a notional roster appears to me\u2014and like I said to the Minister, I was not on the select committee, so I could be incorrect about that\u2014is a new process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000559\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EInterestingly, in this clause, there is a test of how you apply a notional roster, but then also there is a role for the Labour Inspector in determining a notional roster if agreement fails. What I wanted to ask the Minister\u2014in terms of the Labour Inspector, this appears to be a relatively minor, technical decision that the Labour Inspector would need to make. From what I can see in this clause 9, I don\u2019t have clarity around the process that the employee would have to do to get that roster determined by the Labour Inspector. So if it is possible for the Minister even to get some advice on how he expects that would go\u2014whether either employee or employer, I assume, would be to apply to the Labour Inspector for that and whether there\u2019s any additional resourcing for the Labour Inspector to do this type of work. Obviously, they do very similar work at the moment, so I\u2019m not alleging that it is so far outside their additional duties, but I do think it is quite a particular job. What if there is disagreement on the failure to agree? How does that get determined? Is that a Labour Inspector thing or is that something that would need to go to the Employment Relations Authority for determination?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAdditionally, is it expected that a notional roster would be something that employees and employers could use the mediation service to determine an alternative to the Labour Inspector, or is it mandatory that it must be determined by the Labour Inspector if there is a failure to agree on a notional roster?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022 data-id=\u002223592f90291ea8f41ae22dee403bd322\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002223592f90291ea8f41ae22dee403bd322\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation) (17:27)\u003C/span\u003E: Quite a few questions there which I\u2019ll try and address. Can a work roster be written or otherwise? I can assure the member from my first ever employment at the very earthy TDC Sawmills in Whang\u0101rei that a work roster can indeed be unwritten and can be communicated orally in words that the member may not be familiar with from her legal practice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f1f4f0f6560ce3ae4ff1b17ad05ec9f5\u0022\u003ECamilla Belich\u003C/span\u003E: Is it a roster, though? Is it a roster?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000563\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002216975f5f4314b4cf4e50b4b15f45699a\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Well, under this law, yes it is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000564\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve been asked \u201CIf there\u2019s no obligation to work or to pay, then is there any kind of obligation that would make consideration for a contract and is there an employment relationship? I\u2019m awaiting advice on that, so I will come back to the member on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn relation to the role of the Labour Inspector in putting in place and determining a notional roster, the purpose of the notional roster is to give a basis for calculating standard hours when the person might not have a precise roster. They might work different days each week but always work the same number of hours, so the notional roster is used to calculate what their standard hours are. If there is a dispute over that, then, yes, they can certainly go to the Labour Inspector who\u2019s been given power here. If the Labour Inspector can\u2019t settle the dispute, well, I draw the member\u2019s attention to clause 11, which says that the determination by the Labour Inspector is binding, unless, of course, the Employment Relations Authority or the courts who have the authority over just about everybody\u2014except for this House, thankfully\u2014can then overrule the Labour Inspector. But, in the first instance, the Labour Inspector, if they make a determination about your notional roster, that\u2019s the rules.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022 data-id=\u002208cd1b71a6902eceb4a8aa8457cae7fa\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002208cd1b71a6902eceb4a8aa8457cae7fa\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert) (17:29)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to ask about the issue of availability provisions\u2014it\u2019s at clause 6(5). It excludes from standard hours, hours that are under an availability provision. Now, I would like to know whether that\u2019s different from the law now, or whether it clarifies the law now, and what will happen if people work on hours as a result of the availability provision, what will then happen with regard to the hours they work?  I can understand that, often, availability provisions have a remuneration somewhere in the contract for their very existence\u2014being around at that time\u2014but they are also things that people actually work, so they might be called upon to work on those hours. How are those hours then treated? How are they remunerated, and what happens with regard to leave for them?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000567\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ECan I also ask about the determination process\u2014and I apologise, I wasn\u2019t on the select committee, but it does look like what you have here is that there are things that the labour inspector is going to take into account, but what\u2019s the actual process that they\u2019re going through to make that determination? Will there be a submission process? Often, that\u2019s a matter of evidence on a worksite, and I\u2019m all for labour inspectors doing this as swiftly and as efficiently as possible, but is that something that is then appealable to the authority? I can see that it\u2019s a binding determination, and then it talks about, in clause 11, except in so far as the authority or the court is looking at it. Are they looking at it like any other determination, or is this its own thing? Is there an appeal process for that determination or, in the context of a wider dispute, could someone take a matter over the notional roster to court, and go through the authority or the court and they would make the determination in that way, because it could come up within a context? Those are my questions for you. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022 data-id=\u0022911621f6e226066505e3beb3e1587f34\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000568\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022911621f6e226066505e3beb3e1587f34\u0022\u003EHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (17:31)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It\u2019s good to be able to take a call. In terms of some of those key meanings of terms in Part 1\u2014the meaning of \u201Cstandard hours\u201D and, also, the meaning of \u201Ccasual hours\u201D, which is in Part 146 and Part 1, clause 8\u2014I\u2019d just like to then cross-reference into the regulatory impact statement, which talks about what consultation went into place in order for this to be drafted up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000569\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe heard a little bit about this at select committee, but I\u2019m really interested to hear from the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Seymour. In the regulatory impact statement, it makes it quite clear that further consultation was conducted in the first half of 2025 as part of the policy work to develop the hours-based accrual system. In fact, I understand that included engagement with key Government agencies, and those key Government competencies were the Public Service Commission, the Treasury, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health, Health New Zealand, Ministry for Ethnic Communities, Ministry for Women, Ministry for Pacific Peoples, Te Puni K\u014Dkiri, and, also, Whaikaha \u2013 Ministry of Disabled People. A large payroll provider\u2014not named\u2014was also consulted with, as well as a series of workshops with businesses and employer representatives. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe feedback obtained as part of that consultation, in addition to the insights from the targeted consultation, has really been used to refine and develop the key option that is the preferred option, which is then implemented. There\u2019s a lot of consultation going on there with the big end of town, with big Government agencies, with a large payroll provider and, also, workshops with businesses and employer representatives. I\u2019m really keen to know if the Minister is aware of any other consultation that actually involved the lived experience of workers who will be the ones that will be detrimentally impacted by the fact that they will receive fewer days of sick leave and fewer days of annual leave if they work in a precarious type of employment or on a casual basis, and whether any of that kind of consultation actually fed into the development of the preferred option.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022 data-id=\u0022e76f7324b1c5fc00292de25708128de8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000571\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e76f7324b1c5fc00292de25708128de8\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation) (17:34)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ll just come back to an earlier question by Camilla Belich: I\u2019m advised that the concept of casual hours is not intended to alter the concept of casual employment, which is defined in case law. It\u2019s well-understood that casual employment is a legitimate form of employment. I hope that helps\u2014well, I had intended that to help Camilla Belich.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000572\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn terms of consultation, the consultation went very wide over a long period of time, and no one can doubt the amount of work that Minister van Velden has put into this bill. I\u2019d just make the point that she did focus on talking to people who are payroll providers because those are the people that need to actually make it work. There\u2019s an old saying, \u201CAmateurs talk strategy; professionals talk logistics,\u201D and I think that\u2019s very much what the Minister\u2019s done.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022 data-id=\u00229de3b7ea050d896c40943e945d953158\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000573\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb40eb85aab340879622563050ab25fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229de3b7ea050d896c40943e945d953158\u0022\u003ETOM RUTHERFORD (National\u2014Bay of Plenty) (17:35)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat debate on this question now close\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000574\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227f84cc0bbdac7fea7023f84504972aec\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: I am not going to take a closure motion, but I will use the opportunity to let members know that clauses 6 to 8 have been well-traversed\u2014six, seven, eight questions on clause 6 alone. So I am looking to move forward.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022 data-id=\u00228314019115bd7196894f1bdb78df9f4b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000575\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228314019115bd7196894f1bdb78df9f4b\u0022\u003EHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (17:35)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I\u2019d like to skip further ahead to clause 16, and it specifies in there, \u201CWhen [a] day is not otherwise [a] working day\u201D. We know that it\u2019s important to be clear; it needs to be transparent. It states in here that \u201CDespite section 12, a day is not an otherwise working day for an employee if it would be reasonable for the employee and their employer to expect that the employee would not work on that day\u201D, because the employee is on parental leave; is volunteering under the Volunteers Employment Protection Act and has volunteer leave; has leave for which the employee has ACC for; or has unpaid leave. It also specifies, under clause 16(2), that unpaid leave does not include any unpaid leave that the employee takes during an annual closedown or an agreed closure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I just wanted to get some specification from the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Seymour: what is his view in terms of when there is a disagreement? Is that a matter for an advocate? Is that a matter for another body, when there is not clear agreement under the specifications here on what is actually deemed to be a day that would be a working day? Under those clear grounds there, there are definitely some grey areas where there might be a disagreement between the employee and the employer as to when a date is not otherwise a working day. I would be interested to understand from the Minister who is the right determining factor for that, because the legislation goes on to provide that there are multiple roles with the same employer that can be treated separately, as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000577\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll raise that in a separate question, but my key question to the Minister is, with this provision here, when it\u2019s really important that you understand if you\u2019re going into accrual of days as a casual worker\u2014we\u2019re wanting to make sure that\u2019s correct. There may be an incentivisation on the side of the employer for it not to be recorded as a working day, because that would then mean that the employer would have to pay less in either annual leave or potentially even in sick leave that\u2019s not accrued. Who is the correct determining factor for when a day is not otherwise a working day?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022 data-id=\u0022173529dc7da51217f29d648ae2c8f0d0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000578\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022173529dc7da51217f29d648ae2c8f0d0\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert) (17:38)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Can I ask about clause 13, which is the issue about days that are working days. I can see from that clause that there\u2019s the introduction of a concept\u2014and I did do this work for a long time and I don\u2019t think we had this concept at all, so I\u2019m assuming it is a new concept\u2014that it\u2019s going to take 13 weeks before there was any kind of kick-in to a day being a public holiday. Am I right in saying that workers in the past, if they\u2019ve been working for, say, eight weeks or four weeks and there\u2019s been Anzac Day or Queen\u2019s Birthday on the day that they would otherwise be working\u2014so often it\u2019s a Monday or the Friday\u2014that they would have been eligible for that public holiday and now they won\u2019t be?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EYou\u2019ve got all these people whose day is normally that day who will not enjoy that public holiday within the first 13 weeks of employment, even though they are in permanent work and they are expected to work\u2014that is their normal day. If I\u2019m right about that, what was the justification for stripping away that right from people? Because that can\u2019t be about clarifying the law. That\u2019s about it eroding the entitlement of people in work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt doesn\u2019t seem right or fair that somebody who\u2019s been working for eight weeks in a job, and that\u2019s a public holiday they enjoy, is not treated the same way as somebody who\u2019s been working for 14 weeks in that job\u2014or, even worse, 11 weeks in that job and 14 weeks. Am I right about that? I haven\u2019t had answers to my questions before. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019d just like to say that when I looked at these clauses, and I wasn\u2019t on the Education and Workforce Committee, this is a really difficult area of law. This has not been easy, the issues around working days and what is and isn\u2019t when you get rotating rosters. I appreciate that there are lots of things that need fixing in this area, because what we get is three and four rosters, where people move constantly, and it\u2019s really hard working out whether they\u2019d be working on that public holiday. This is talking about people who\u2019ve worked 50 percent or more on that time. I do understand these things. There were issues in this part of the law, and it would be good if we were able to more easily understand the entitlements, but this doesn\u2019t seem to be that. It looks to me like it\u2019s a reduction in entitlement, and what was the reason why that happened, if I\u2019m right? Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022 data-id=\u0022c248fecac94e6d84f2dcbbbceea7a68e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c248fecac94e6d84f2dcbbbceea7a68e\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation) (17:41)\u003C/span\u003E: Look, I think the logic behind the 13 weeks is that traditionally, and now, there will be four weeks a year, which is one week out of 13 in leave. If you\u2019ve done 13 weeks, you get a whole week off.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000583\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022598220b554ff59b0d6a4a71b412358dc\u0022\u003EHelen White\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s a public holiday.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000584\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dc8a95f49b4adf1fca8beb9cd8ce4b15\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: After 13 weeks, you will\u2014yes, you still get the public holiday off, but the question is, do you accrue extra leave? The answer here is that after 13 weeks, you would be entitled to a whole week off, and you\u2019d get it, but you don\u2019t get it straight away. If you think about it under the old system, you wouldn\u2019t necessarily accrue time in that whole 13-week period until you\u2019ve done 13 weeks and got your whole week. It\u2019s a question of going from weeks to hours. No one is being disadvantaged here; it\u2019s just a different way of calculating the same thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI also had a question from Helen White\u2014she\u2019s complained she hasn\u2019t had her questions answered. I think all of them have been answered with one possible exception, which was around availability provisions and the fact that under clause 6(5), they were excluded. \u201CIs it different from the current law?\u201D, she asked. Well, additional hours are hours an employee receives additional payment for. Hours worked under an availability provision may be included in salary for a salaried employee. They are not additional hours, but an employee receives salary on leave. This aligns with the current law. The bill includes a new provision that provides an employee cannot be required to work under an availability provision when they take leave. Most of the provisions for availability have been brought over from the previous Act, and in addition, this new provision that provides an employee cannot be required to work when they\u2019re taking leave, which I think is important to honour the spirit that it\u2019s not standard hours.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002242067e22c7a349218b3b868f58eda79d\u0022 data-id=\u00222b7f6a32d82cd943f73a07ff7d3dac74\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000586\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002242067e22c7a349218b3b868f58eda79d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222b7f6a32d82cd943f73a07ff7d3dac74\u0022\u003ERACHEL BOYACK (Labour\u2014Nelson) (17:43)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m just signalling I\u2019ve got a couple of clauses on Part 1 where I\u2019ve still got questions that haven\u2019t been traversed yet. I\u2019ve got one first for the Minister in the Chair, the Hon David Seymour, on clause 17A, which is page 23 of the report from the Education and Workforce Committee, around \u201CMultiple roles with the same employer treated separately\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000587\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis clause seems quite confused in how it\u2019s written, so I\u2019m trying to get my head around exactly how it will operate in practice. Essentially, it states that this is for someone who has more than one role\u2014it could be two, three, four roles; hopefully, maybe, not up to three or four, but that can happen\u2014where you\u2019ve got a separate employment agreement for each role or an agreement that covers off all of the roles. That\u2019s clause 17A(1)(a) and (b). What it states in clause 17A(2) is that \u201CIf 2 or more roles provide for the employee to work standard hours, the employee and their employer may agree how leave entitlements and payments under this Act will be treated for each of those roles.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve got a question first up around the standard hours part because, for example, I had a situation like this myself once; I had two fixed-term agreements. One was four days a week, and one was one day a week\u2014something like that\u2014but I could work them as I wanted to within that week. The one-day-a-week job, I could do two hours a day, or I could do four hours one day. I could dive in and out of the two different roles, which meant that if I was sick one day, I accept, it did present some challenges as to which role\u2014because they were on different pay rates as well\u2014was being covered for that day that I was unwell. I\u2019m interested to understand if, when we\u2019re talking about the standard hours in that context, it actually has to be exact, fixed hours\u2014say you\u2019re doing one role 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on a Monday, and another role 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on a Wednesday. These kinds of things do occur. I\u2019ve got that first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000589\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second question, which I think ultimately causes some concern, is that if you look at clause 17A(3)(a), it says that \u201Csubsection (2) does not apply to a role that provides for the employee to work casual hours\u201D. My reading of that is that in a situation where one role has fixed standard hours\u2014let\u2019s say 20 hours a week\u2014and another role is casual, that could be anything between, say, three and 10 hours a week, it\u2019s not then giving the option of clause 17A(2), which allows the employer and the employee to come to an agreement about how that leave will apply. I\u2019d like to know what does occur in those circumstances, because this is one of those examples where employment contracts can get quite complicated. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m interested that clause 17A lists out what happens reasonably clearly, apart from my questions around the \u201Cstandard hours\u201D definition, when you have two or more roles, but it\u2019s not clear about what should happen in practice\u2014just to be clear, those two or more roles when the hours are fixed standard hours\u2014when you have one role that\u2019s fixed and one role that\u2019s casual. I\u2019d really appreciate the Minister being able to give us some clarity on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen it goes on to say, in clause 17A(3)(b), \u201Cif the employee and the employer do not agree under subsection (2), this Act applies to the employee\u2019s leave entitlements and payments for each role separately.\u201D Again, I\u2019m just struggling to understand, a little bit, exactly how that agreement will work in practice. Is there a situation where the two sets of leave under clause 17A(2) could be, I guess, merged so that you\u2019ve kind of got an averaging out of the two roles? Is that the intention of clause 17A(2)? It kind of implies that under clause 17A(3)(b), they\u2019d be treated separately. That\u2019s the kind of default position. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000592\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI genuinely would like some more information on how standard those hours have to be\u2014I hope that\u2019s a clear question around that\u2014across that week. Secondly, if you have two roles that are quite different in terms of how the hours play out\u2014one being standard hours that, essentially, could be fixed across particular days and times versus one that\u2019s casual\u2014I\u2019d be really interested in what the bill actually sets out should occur in those circumstances. I will be coming back with some more questions on this part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022 data-id=\u002289ca23033fe017e241a6c3e18af22858\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000593\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220750364c2c1444d0ae00bced720f964e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002289ca23033fe017e241a6c3e18af22858\u0022\u003EHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (17:48)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I\u2019ve got some questions for the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Seymour, in relation to clause 20A\u2014\u201CWhen employee receiving accident compensation may also take leave\u201D. I\u2019ve got a real concern in here, and it\u2019s in relation to clause 20A(3) in terms of the family violence provisions that are here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFrom my understanding of reading the bill, the way this works is for employees who work casual hours, the amount of family violence leave taken under clause 20A(2)(c) cannot exceed the amount that can be calculated\u2014and they\u2019ve even come up with a cunning little maths formula on how you calculate that someone is entitled to family violence leave. It\u2019s \u201Ch\u201D divided by \u201Cw\u201D, and that\u2019s in brackets, for those who remember maths, times 0.2\u20140.2; that\u2019s the number they\u2019ve come up with in the formula\u2014equals how many days of family violence leave. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFor people watching, people who could be in a family that has family violence, to understand what this means, this means that the number of hours an employee was paid for is the \u201Ch\u201D\u2014so how many hours you worked\u2014divided by the number of whole and part weeks in the reference period, and that is then timesed by 0.2, and that gives you the maximum number of hours of family violence leave that the employee may take in a week.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, my concern is that when this was introduced as a bill, the ability to take family violence leave\u2014I think actually quite a few parties voted for it; I\u2019d have to go back and check the record, but the idea is that for someone who is a victim of family violence, doing that maths equation to figure out whether you get a day off or not doesn\u2019t really matter if you\u2019ve got a situation where you\u2019re unable to get medical treatment, whether you\u2019re unable to get psychological support, whether you need some leave to be with your children after a traumatic family violence event.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000597\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy question to the Minister in the chair, David Seymour, is: is he comfortable with a maths equation really summing up whether someone gets some family violence leave based on the hours that they\u2019ve worked, because it seems to really undermine the whole purpose of having family violence leave: that it should not matter in terms of how many hours you\u2019ve worked; if you are a victim of family violence, if you are a victim of crime\u2014and that party he\u2019s part of and the others who are in the Government seem to be quite big on victims of crime, and so are we, so we\u2019d like to see victims of family violence given the access to the medical help, the psychological support, and all of the services they need. It would seem the equation \u201C(h \u00F7 w) \u00D7 0.2 = d\u201D would be a prohibitive factor for women who need support yet, because maybe the very same circumstances which are causing them to be victims of family violence may also be inhibiting their ability to attend work; they may have a partner that\u2019s preventing them from getting to work on a regular basis. So it would seem that you\u2019re doubly penalising victims of family violence by minimising their experience and equating it to \u201C(h \u00F7 w) \u00D7 0.2 = d\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo I\u2019m really interested to hear from the Minister: is he up for some further consideration, maybe even a review of this provision within the legislation from people like Victim Support, people who work in women\u2019s refuge, people who understand that on the front line of dealing with family violence, those circumstances cannot be dictated by the number of hours someone may be working. It\u2019s actually a whole range of other factors. Surely, it\u2019s a basic human right to be able to have access to those services, and that should not be underpinned by the number of hours you\u2019ve attended in any given week. Surely, as a New Zealander, you should still get access to those services. So I\u2019m interested to hear from the Minister: was it him who came up with that equation, and how he thinks that\u2019s going to work in the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002242067e22c7a349218b3b868f58eda79d\u0022 data-id=\u002202cae1016f83fbc182f97f88f14c6c8e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000599\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002242067e22c7a349218b3b868f58eda79d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002202cae1016f83fbc182f97f88f14c6c8e\u0022\u003ERACHEL BOYACK (Labour\u2014Nelson) (17:52)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I did say I had another question on Part 1, and I haven\u2019t had a response yet\u2014it looked like the Minister in the chair, David Seymour, might be ready to jump up, but he\u2019s letting me have another call, so I appreciate that. I\u2019m still waiting for the response on clause 17A, but I have a question now on clause 18, which is \u201CRestrictions on type of hours\u201D. Just the plain reading of this is that \u201CAn employee who\u2014(a) has standard hours cannot have casual hours in relation to the same role: (b) does not have standard hours under an employment agreement cannot have additional hours under that employment agreement.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000600\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy plain reading of this suggests this is utterly bonkers, to be honest. You know, a lot of the examples we\u2019ve been using are around situations\u2014and they happen a lot in retail and hospitality\u2014where somebody does have, let\u2019s say, 10, 20 fixed hours and then flexes up quite regularly. I say this from experience because I used to work for Workers First Union and represented and negotiated a lot of contracts with companies like Kmart, Farmers, Cotton On\u2014as my colleague Jan Tinetti mentioned\u2014Countdown and many others of those common brands. This is something that employees and employers accept. We were always working hard to get employees the maximum amount of standard hours possible for their security and consistency of work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000601\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut if you look at a place like my electorate of Nelson, you know, in winter, it\u2019s dead at the moment\u2014and I know Madam Chair\u2019s looking at me and nodding and understands that\u2014and in summer we\u2019re absolutely bonkers crazy busy. So there\u2019s always been a reasonableness that if you, say, work at a supermarket, you might have 30 hours a week and over summer you\u2019re going to be doing 40 to 50 hours a week, because that\u2019s what happens. We have tourists coming through and stopping off at all our supermarkets on the way to the Abel Tasman. So it\u2019s commonly understood that that\u2019s fair and reasonable to have an element of standardisation to give that security and then have some casual flex above that. It\u2019s what happens in practice, and even having been a union organiser, it\u2019s not something I\u2019d argue against, because it\u2019s very common.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EYou look at hospitality as another really good example in my region whereby it\u2019s very common for some of our hospitality organisations to close some days during winter because it just is not as busy in town as it would be over summer where they have a seven-day operation. So it could be that if they don\u2019t open on a Monday in the winter, Monday\u2019s never a standard day but would be some casual hours over the summer for those workers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo just coming back to the plain reading of clause 18(a), an employee who \u201Chas standard hours cannot have casual hours in relation to the same role\u201D, I mean, my plain reading of that just seems utterly bonkers from both an employee and an employer point of view. Then it states, if you look at (b), that an employee who \u201Cdoes not have standard hours under an employment agreement cannot have additional hours under that employment agreement.\u201D I\u2019m very confused about what that means. So you can\u2019t have overtime if you\u2019re casual. I mean, that\u2019s crazy, because one of the things that I would hope this legislation still covers is not allowing zero-hour contracts. So that\u2019s, again, a really confused clause that I think is going to actually add more misunderstanding and complexity, because it\u2019s very uncommon for somebody not to at least have, say, four or five fixed hours a week.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo in addition to getting a response to 17A, which was around having multiple roles, I\u2019d really like the Minister to respond to my questions on 18, and I\u2019m particularly interested in discussions that the Minister\u2014I recognise the Minister is not the Minister who\u2019s been shepherding this legislation, but maybe officials can advise him. I\u2019m particularly interested in actually what employers have said about this, because my plain-language reading of this creates some confusion in my mind. As a former organiser, it was my job to actually help advise employees through navigating these clauses in the law, and so I think having some clarity but also just some understanding about how much engagement occurred with employers, particularly on 18(a) and 18(b), I\u2019d find really helpful, because my plain-language reading of it suggests a quite a lot of confusion about how this part of the Act will be interpreted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022 data-id=\u00221e9c2ab8bced2c4d747333b600954680\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000605\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ef2baa19e4b8b9dc9ee8604ae7dba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221e9c2ab8bced2c4d747333b600954680\u0022\u003EHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation) (17:57)\u003C/span\u003E: I don\u2019t want any confusion in the member\u2019s mind. Coming to her questions about clauses 17A and 18, in a way, 18 answers the question for her. Yes, you might have one employee, one employer, and two different roles or jobs, and there are multiple possibilities. There might be one role where they have some standard hours and also some additional hours; there might be another role where they have no standard hours and only casual hours. Clause 18 says that you can\u2019t have standard hours and casual hours; you can only have standard and additional or just casual. There might be a situation where for some reason they had two roles, both of which had standard hours\u2014perhaps different standard hours or different pay rates\u2014and in one of them they regularly worked additional hours; the other one they didn\u2019t.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo there\u2019s quite a number of different possibilities under this law that facilitate people to have different arrangements depending on the needs of the employer and the needs of the employee. I actually think if you start imagining in your mind some different scenarios, they do actually make sense. I\u2019m not actually hearing where the contradictions are. In any scenario, there are ways for people to have fixed and extended hours depending on what they want under this framework.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000607\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGinny Andersen asked: are we comfortable with the formula \u201C(h \u00F7 w) \u00D7 0.2 = d\u201D? Well, there\u2019s nothing wrong with that formula, in a sense, but it carries over the same domestic abuse or violence entitlement as was in the Holidays Act. So whether or not we like that particular formula\u2014I don\u2019t think it\u2019s a bad formula\u2014the point is that if you\u2019re a victim of domestic violence, you can take some time off at your employer\u2019s expense, but that is not an unlimited entitlement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000608\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022caa83920b13211791503451f59ff6603\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, it\u2019s time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The committee will resume at 7.30.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterItalicsCentred\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c4fe87e513a83111facd5deca0364a09\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Good evening, members. We are in committee on the Employment Leave Bill, and we\u2019re debating Part 1, clauses 3 to 20A.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022 data-id=\u00220a1ba90c7b85d29b891e0d53a7ff8c64\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220a1ba90c7b85d29b891e0d53a7ff8c64\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (19:30)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, it\u2019s lovely to see you in the seat. I just want to reiterate that we are really only going through, and asking questions on, the parts that we disagree on and want some clarification on. We are spending the shorter time on Part 1, which we\u2019re currently on now, but we\u2019re on the last clauses, I believe, of Part 1, with the more substantive part being Part 2, as you know.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000612\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EAs I said before, Minister, you know that there\u2019s stuff in this bill that we agree with and we\u2019ve met with and we think is on the right track, but there are other things that we\u2019ve got some clarifying questions around. Some of the stuff that we\u2019ve discussed in this part comes up again, because we\u2019ve talked about the framework, and it will come up again in Part 2\u2014in the more operational side of what it looks like going forward in Part 2. In Part 1, I\u2019m talking now about and asking questions about clauses 17 to 20A. It\u2019s more towards clauses\u00A017 and 18, around the multiple roles, that I wanted to know about. It was just a very short question around the NZNO who\u2014people watching might not know that they are the New Zealand Nurses Organisation\u2014argued that, with the multiple roles, separate balances are unworkable, especially where nurses move between overlapping duties and may need leave from several roles at once. They had an issue where they saw that the employment is with the employer and not an abstract role. I\u2019d be really keen to know, Minister\u2014this is one of our sticking points that we\u2019ve got at the moment, because we didn\u2019t get to that in select committee\u2014what operational advice did Health New Zealand give on clause 17, and did it support separation as the default? That\u2019s the question that I\u2019ve got at the moment. I might have some others depending on the answer to that, but I\u2019d really appreciate having an answer to that question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022 data-id=\u0022c86e6aa4654b55bbe06628816cfc2cb1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000613\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c86e6aa4654b55bbe06628816cfc2cb1\u0022\u003ETEANAU TUIONO (Green) (19:32)\u003C/span\u003E: Just on the question that I had around clause 17A around the different roles and the way that those different agreements can be played out, I am interested to hear from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety how notional rosters will play within that particular arrangement and also the way that the labour inspectorate might look at the way that work patterns are considered within clause 17A. My concern there is that if you have a particular situation where you have different roles with different agreements, how was the work pattern then determined if there was a disagreement between the employer and an employee, and how will the labour inspectorate determine what is actually the work pattern? Will it look at the agreement by itself and determine whether that one part of that employee\u2019s arrangement has its own work pattern by itself, or will it consider it across the range of different arrangements that it might have? I wonder if the Minister could answer that in the context of the discussions that we\u2019ve had earlier.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000614\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI think the Cotton On example was a good example where a submitter came to the select committee\u2014I think it was Workers First\u2014and said, \u201CActually, we have an example of an employee that has a standard three-hour contract but is actually working 20- or 30-plus hours.\u201D My assumption would be that that would be considered to be a work pattern, but let\u2019s say that that particular employer then divides up those different roles as per clause 17A, how would the labour inspector reconcile the differences? Would it do it purely on that one agreement, or would it look across the range of agreements specifically between that employer and employee?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000615\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fa171bc5cc0f356a3f6c3ec558345ec0\u0022\u003EHon Phil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chair?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002218fb119ec561b1fcd9e01b2bdc63b65b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Phil\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000617\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022380e7559e4e7b1f00497369380401bf8\u0022\u003EHon Phil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: How long have we known each other?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000618\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c407e5d377f568cf103827b45f69ce97\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014Twyford.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022 data-id=\u00224360ef3900b5f5c7fa7d35e9b5abd7ff\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000619\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224360ef3900b5f5c7fa7d35e9b5abd7ff\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B) (19:34)\u003C/span\u003E: Ha, ha! Thank you, Mr Chair. Further to my colleagues\u2019 questions, if I could add another one to the list that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is madly scribbling and seek her answer\u2014it\u2019s really just further on this question of whether or not different roles are combined or treated separately. At the committee, the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions argued that the approach in the bill basically overturns established understandings and creates litigation risk. The committee added an agreement option to combine roles and treat them as one, but the Government decided to retain separation as the default, so I\u2019d just be interested in whether the Minister can share the policy thinking behind that. In the case where, basically, you\u2019ve got one employee, one employer, and a continuous employment relationship\u2014regardless of whether there are different roles involved\u2014why has the Government chosen to maintain separation as the default in light of the submissions we heard at committee?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022 data-id=\u0022c5099bacb992d4b467f0a63d8ba459a4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000620\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c5099bacb992d4b467f0a63d8ba459a4\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert) (19:36)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I wanted to ask about clause 20. It\u2019s about the minimum entitlements. I understand, from what I\u2019m reading in that clause, that this is intended to mean that, no, there was no prohibition on adding to entitlements\u2014you could always have more\u2014but I just wondered about the use of the word \u201Cmust\u201D in earlier clauses, which seems to prescribe how much those entitlements should be. For example, I noticed, in the notional roster terms, \u201Cmust be used to determine the standard hours\u201D. Then the same is true throughout. It seems like it\u2019s language that does not point to the fact that there is, in fact, a capacity to go over and above that amount. Now, I\u2019m asking this because of the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E, Minister. It\u2019s really important that people understand that there is no boundary on this and that people can, in fact, add to that entitlement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000621\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI know my colleague asked earlier about the issue over family violence leave and a worker who wasn\u2019t going to be entitled to many hours, because it would be calculated in a different way, and so there would be a limits on that. Now, I know that there will be lots of employers out there who definitely, when they\u2019re faced with somebody who\u2019s been through that kind of situation, want to do the right thing and allow that person time off on leave, and so they should be able to. I\u2019d also like to know what happens when it is that kind of oral, discretionary use where people go over and above. What I see in clause 20 is that it looks like that\u2019s much more about having an arrangement in writing over and above that. That\u2019s what I\u2019d like to know. I\u2019d like the assurance from the Minister that people can go over and above, and should go over and above, to meet the human need in that situation, and that that\u2019s what\u2019s intended, despite those strong words that we often associate with an absolute like \u201Cmust\u201D. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u00226dea50729720803909b4adac3fe40309\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000622\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226dea50729720803909b4adac3fe40309\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (19:39)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Ticking off the contribution by the Hon Jan Tinetti regarding operational advice from Health New Zealand and whether it supported a separation at clause 17A, yes, that is true. Health New Zealand were consulted, and based on the practicalities of managing leave, they did support a separation. This change provides flexibility for employers and employees to agree, based on what is most appropriate within a given context.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002227d19573a8ba4d8283b17374978c8ea2\u0022 data-id=\u00223a0ee4e50b7397b5c99b9f67f312aa8e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000623\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227d19573a8ba4d8283b17374978c8ea2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223a0ee4e50b7397b5c99b9f67f312aa8e\u0022\u003EGRANT McCALLUM (National\u2014Northland) (19:40)\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000624\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000625\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000626\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000627\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000628\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000629\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e21db0f6868b28971acb7a0a43395003\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Teanau Tuiono\u2019s tabled amendment deleting clause 17A be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000631\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000632\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000633\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000634\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000635\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000636\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000637\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Part 1\u003C/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003E be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000638\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000639\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000640\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000641\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000642\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000643\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f5c05758b674dae60156e3b09cb859f1\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000644\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022bdfaf469accbc910cac47eacc69cdb44\u0022\u003EPart 2 Leave entitlements and payments\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000645\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022996c2d5e5012eddf927cfa301896a5c1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to Part 2\u2014the debate on clauses 21 to 129\u2014\u201CLeave entitlements and payments\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=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022 data-id=\u00223edec2f333974f5190040e94945bd37c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000646\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223edec2f333974f5190040e94945bd37c\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (19:42)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the Minister for answering that question before. I noted that even though we\u2019ve both left that part now, we might come back to you at some point so that we can understand\u2014not now, Mr Chair, but I mean in the future, so that we can sort of work towards where we can get to that point where we have understanding across the House. Those questions are being asked in earnest around the points that either we disagree with or have some confusion around.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ENow, what I\u2019m about to say is probably more for you here. We\u2019re now talking about\u2014I\u2019ve got questions about clause 23. It might sound similar because we\u2019re talking about employees\u2019 entitlement to accrue annual leave. Some of that will be around the standard hours as opposed to the leave compensation payment on hours worked above the standard hours. Now, we have asked a few questions about that before, but that was on the framework. What I\u2019m wanting to ask now is more the operational side of it and what it looks like in Part 2. Even though it might sound similar, there\u2019s quite a big difference between the questions that we asked before to the questions that we\u2019re asking now. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000648\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229fec86cfad93a9d098d86b6c3d6091a0\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: I think the member explaining what she\u2019s doing is a very good idea, because we are not wedded to parts, but information like that is very helpful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000649\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227f316e44d6ce002501e1183e27afadcc\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. That\u2019s exactly why I have done that, because as I keep saying, these are questions that I really do want to know the answers to so that we\u2019re formulating where we\u2019re standing in these areas.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000650\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EEarly accrual can be administratively useful. We all know that and we all understand it. Absolutely the point of this bill is to take what was essentially a very complicated Act and to simplify it. As I\u2019ve said consistently, it\u2019s hard to disagree with it except that making something simple doesn\u2019t always mean that it makes it better. Our premise is that if there are people who are missing out, when this bill comes in after Royal assent and after the two years, then we can\u2019t support that if we\u2019ve got workers who will be missing out at the end of all of this and are worse off. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000651\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe really want to understand why this decision has been made, but from the point of view of those workers who will be missing out. We believe that it should apply to all hours in this bill, and I know I\u2019ve had this conversation with the Minister before. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000652\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ECan I also say that I\u2019ve got a few examples that have come from the Education and Workforce Committee that I want to ask some questions about. I will say that the departmental report\u2014and thank you to officials because I think the departmental report was an exceptionally good departmental report\u2014outlines the issues really clearly. We had workers from the likes of\u2014I\u2019ve already mentioned the Cotton On workers, so I won\u2019t go back to them. But the Auckland Council delegates urged Parliament to make sure workers earn annual leave and sick leave for every hour they work, including overtime and additional hours, noting that under the bill some would be worse off and would have less leave.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen I go back to the regulatory impact statement, which expressly acknowledges that some employees will receive reduced leave, including part-time workers and says, \u201CPayroll testing could not be conducted because of time constraints.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000654\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to understand the evidence that the Minister has relied on in this particular case to conclude that those losses were proportionate and acceptable. What is the percentage of workers that we\u2019re talking about who are going to be worse off at the end of this and will receive losses or will experience losses? Does the Minister believe that those are proportionate and acceptable? I will leave it there, but yeah, I would really like an answer to that. Thank you, Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022803cea2db9db0d4474b03818ea95a5e3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000655\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022803cea2db9db0d4474b03818ea95a5e3\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (19:47)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Look, I\u2019m happy to give this one a go. Look, I understand the member\u2019s desire to have numbers and figures of specific numbers of people who will be affected in which particular way, but it\u2019s just not possible. If you think about it, I don\u2019t think it would ever be possible. The Government doesn\u2019t hold a central registry of every single employment agreement throughout the country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000656\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWe also know that under the current law versus this law, we simply impose minimum standards as a Government, whereas a lot of contracts already go above minimum standards and entitlements. So even if you\u2019re looking at trying to have an analysis of one contract in the present day versus what that contract would look like in a future day when there is a renegotiation happening within that same employment situation, there is always the chance that something goes up and it also goes down because it is quite possibly up for renegotiation. It is actually not feasible to say that this particular number of people will go up or down or sideways or around or whatever you like to call it, because we don\u2019t actually hold how many people already have contracts on minimum standards or have contracts above those standards or how many people through the renegotiation process will even change parts of their contract to be quite different to the current present day. That is where I\u2019ll leave that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022 data-id=\u0022b92feabb4eeddb8d07a5384ff4e6fd68\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000657\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b92feabb4eeddb8d07a5384ff4e6fd68\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B) (19:49)\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s music to my ears. Thank you, Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000658\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002208aefe8a403ef6f1f162055fd27d451a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: It wasn\u2019t that hard, was it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000659\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d46dafc67e139169c7fa1261f028cf3c\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: No, it wasn\u2019t so hard. It wasn\u2019t so hard. I often forget myself. Further to this point, the Law Society came along to the Education and Workforce Committee and they warned that regular hours not labelled as standard under the bill would not accrue leave. They talked about the incentives that that provides for employers to depress the number of kind of regular hours and keep people on casual hours.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000660\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019m interested in what advice the Minister received on the idea of having a provision deeming actual regular hours, which was clearly not an option that was followed, but I ask whether or not that was considered as an alternative. In trying to get to the nub of this, really, the adoption of the leave compensation payment for non-regular hours or non-standard hours, I\u2019m still not clear, and I\u2019d really like to hear from the Minister why she preferred the option of having the leave compensation payment on additional hours to the simpler alternative, which would have been accruing to a formula on every hour actually worked, which is eminently doable with modern payroll systems. Why was that policy design choice made over the idea of accruing on every hour? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022 data-id=\u002209feb80f6dbdb392e33994265ec788c5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000661\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002209feb80f6dbdb392e33994265ec788c5\u0022\u003ETEANAU TUIONO (Green) (19:50)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety for engaging. I\u2019m interested in the Minister\u2019s response to the Hon Jan Tinetti about estimations of the number of workers impacted, and I wondered whether the Minister had seen in the media statements\u2014and I\u2019d like to get a reflection\u2014that this will impact 200,000 workers. That analysis was done around figures from Stats New Zealand and they got quite specific, and so I want to know whether the Minister has done any analysis, and, if not, why not, about the impact on workers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI wanted to tease that into what she feels about that number of 200,000, and they have specific numbers in there. For example, the number in manufacturing, meat, seafood, dairy, fruit and vegetable work, chemicals, and metals is estimated to be 24,000 workers; in electricity supply are 1,500 workers; in heavy and civil engineering and road construction is an estimated 1,500 workers; in retail, supermarkets, motor vehicles, electronic goods, and furniture are an estimated 11,000 workers; in road, bus, rail, water, and air transport are an estimated 13,500 affected workers; in newspaper publishing, broadcasting, and telecommunications are an estimated 1,500 workers impacted; in financial and insurance services are an estimated 6,500 affected workers; in police, corrections, Inland Revenue, the Department of Internal Affairs, the Department of Conservation, and local government are an estimated 35,000 impacted workers; and health, allied health, and health administration workers, and doctors, nurses, midwives, orderly care and support workers, ambulance officers, and social workers number an estimated 106,500 workers, and so that is around about 200,000 workers. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000663\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThese are very specific numbers. The 200,000 figure is a very big number, and within that analysis there are specific sectors where they have specific numbers. I would like to get a reaction and a reflection from the Minister around whether these figures are correct or not. I ask whether the Minister or her officials have done any estimations on the impact on those workers, and, if they haven\u2019t, then why not\u2014if not, then why not?\u2014and whether there is any other information which gives us a bit more of a reflection. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000664\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI don\u2019t think it\u2019s good enough to say, \u201CWell, we don\u2019t know\u2014no one can know. No one can know how many workers this will impact.\u201D I think that it\u2019s important to have done some analysis. If it hasn\u2019t been done, there need to be reasons as to why that has not been done, and if that analysis has not been done, then I think there needs to be some commitment from the Government that an analysis will be done. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000665\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust to round out my question, it is around the Minister\u2019s reflection on those particular numbers\u2014and if the Minister can go into detail on those impacted sectors with their big numbers, that would be really, really helpful\u2014and, following up on that, what analysis has been done, and if no analysis has been done, why hasn\u2019t it? If that analysis has not been done, will there be a commitment to determine how this will impact workers? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u002245aa534bfafafbecc9ff22d75e999ef6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000666\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002245aa534bfafafbecc9ff22d75e999ef6\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (19:54)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m taking a contribution in response to the Hon Jan Tinetti. She queried why the accrual was only on standard hours, I understand. The accrual is on standard hours only, and that does ensure that in most cases the leave entitlements are proportionate to the hours an employee usually works. Removing additional hours from the accrual allows the overall leave system to be simpler.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u0022699c9cc01b34d443b7a2368bd845ebeb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000667\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022699c9cc01b34d443b7a2368bd845ebeb\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (19:55)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I was just going to clause 23, as well. Following the comments from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety that she may not have exact figures, I wanted to ask about any consultation that she may have done with the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) or Whaikaha.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000668\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere is one group that I\u2019m interested in, which is people who are transitioning from the jobseeker medical or supported living payment into part-time employment. The way that this formula works will see people in part-time employment with, basically, less leave entitlements, and one of the concerns that I have is whether the Minister has done any engagement or received any feedback on how this formula could impact potentially negatively the number of years that someone remains off a benefit but who may be living with health conditions, because those leave entitlements ultimately are critical for people\u2019s wellbeing. If it\u2019s as large for workers who are not working long hours, that will have an impact on them, and so I\u2019m just interested to know whether she actually engaged with Whaikaha or MSD about getting some information around this, and whether the feedback that she received told her that this bill could positively or negatively contribute towards the Government\u2019s overall target of reducing the number of people on a benefit. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000669\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe cannot decouple leave entitlements with someone\u2019s ability to remain in employment because, ultimately, there are days that people can then use for a range of other things and other responsibilities, or just to look after themselves. I\u2019m keen to know whether she thinks that the feedback that she got highlighted any issues, and if she didn\u2019t think to highlight it with either of those entities, I\u2019d like to understand why\u2014particularly, the group of people who may be transitioning into employment are those that I think are more likely to find themselves in that sort of precarious state. So does she have any information or any data, and what kind of feedback has she received? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022ef7023fe2e428173228ab49a8e3d10f3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000670\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ef7023fe2e428173228ab49a8e3d10f3\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (19:57)\u003C/span\u003E: In response to the Hon Phil Twyford, who queried why I preferred the leave compensation payment (LCP) over accruing leave against every single hour that is worked, this is quite simply about simplicity. Using LCP for additional hours allows the core leave and leave payment rules to be much simpler. The complexity was the main problem with the old Holidays Act, and the core purpose behind this bill is simplicity for everybody.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022 data-id=\u0022d2df43afc766fb451464c084dcea00e7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000671\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d2df43afc766fb451464c084dcea00e7\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert) (19:58)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I wasn\u2019t on the Education and Workforce Committee, and so I wanted to ask the Minister in the chair some questions that are totally genuine, and I\u2019d like to hear the answers, particularly with regard to the kinds of contracts that I saw that don\u2019t seem to fit this model particularly well. It\u2019s a little bit getting into that area that we\u2019ve talked about, which is about who is affected and about how they\u2019re affected.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000672\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the groups of workers that I understand are affected are dairy workers, and dairy workers have contractual entitlements which are hours-based over an entire year. I would consider that those would be their standard hours, but they work them when there is a need. That works well for both the employer and the employee, but they work them in crowds, and so they actually work that system to the benefit of both the employer and the employee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000673\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat I am concerned about here is: will some of those hours that they\u2019re working\u2014because they\u2019re working rotating rosters, and you can see the roster pattern. The roster patterns change, but they\u2019re also working additional hours in the milk peaks. They might be a tanker driver and they\u2019re driving in that situation, or they\u2019re processing the milk. What will happen in terms of those workers who are doing the right thing for New Zealand productivity by working a lot of hours at one time, and then they don\u2019t work in areas which are actually the dry season? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000674\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo a lot of the Fonterra workers, they go to the mines and they work on the vehicles overseas or they take that time to get that work-life balance. So they can either use it for further income or they can use it for some actual looking after of their children, etc. So those people are using that control they have over their recreation and it\u2019s been based on leave. So what happens to those workers in this situation? Do they have their leave reduced under this bill? I appreciate that they may have a contractual entitlement which is greater than that, but what happens in those situations when we are talking about the productivity that people get through working greater hours and they would have actually accrued leave at the same time under the other system?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000675\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI take the point that the Minister\u2019s made that it\u2019s simpler; but is it simpler if, in fact, you\u2019ve got these kinds of complexities in the workforce? What work was done by the Minister, looking at those kinds of contractual arrangements which have been extremely successful in some industries and making sure that we\u2019ve (a) learnt the lessons from them as to what works, and also are we going to detrimentally impact on them? Did we look at, for example, the Fonterra agreement, which is a pretty important agreement and covers a lot of workers in New Zealand? Their collective agreements, they\u2019re a matter of public record, so it shouldn\u2019t have been something that the Minister and the Minister\u2019s advisers couldn\u2019t get hold of\u2014being able to survey the collective agreements. I appreciate it\u2019s very different with individual agreements, where only one person is employed, because they\u2019re not a matter of public record; I think they should be, but they\u2019re not. What sort of analysis was done and are we going to have unintended consequences as a result? Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022758365d45a6b8c80bdcd719f198a1ab1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022758365d45a6b8c80bdcd719f198a1ab1\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (20:02)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Look, in response to that last contribution, I would simply point the member to the commentary in pages 12 and 13 of the Employment Leave Bill as reported back from the Education and Workforce Committee, which actually goes into some detail about the specificity of the dairy industry, because that was something that the committee members raised and asked for official advice on during the select committee period. I would note that they seem to have covered that off quite substantially.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000677\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo the query from the Hon Phil Twyford: \u201CWhat advice did the Minister receive on the actual regular hours deeming provision?\u201D Look, I was advised a notional roster was a simple way to address this. If standard hours are not clear in an employment agreement, the parties will use a notional roster to set them. I was also advised that we would expect employers and employees to engage regularly to ensure that their agreements accurately reflect the hours an employee is required to work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETo the contribution from Teanau Tuiono about analysis on different particular workers: the regulatory impact statement produced by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment identifies a range of impacts. As I have previously stated here in the committee today, it\u2019s not possible to predict the overall impacts because there are so many individual worker contracts and situations. I do, however, acknowledge that employees with variable hours and pay may be experiencing change through this time. In fact, most employees up and down New Zealand will have change in their contracts as we are moving quite a substantial shift from an entitlement to an accrual system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000679\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen it comes to the specific 200,000 figure: look, I think I recalled reading that in the news maybe last week. The example that I remember being reflected back to me was one particular case of somebody who had a particular contract and they said, based on that contract, this is the minimum entitlements under this law, they put that they\u2019ll go backwards. But I would simply raise the point that their contract, on the face of it, looks like they\u2019re already negotiated above the minimum standards now, so, in theory, they would only be going backwards in regards to the minimum standards. But if they\u2019ve already managed to negotiate above and beyond the minimum standards of the Holidays Act, I would be very surprised if they were also not creating an employment agreement that was contracting above the minimum standards of the Employment Leave Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022 data-id=\u00223a49e900d24bb0647897e43c6b673327\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000680\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223a49e900d24bb0647897e43c6b673327\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (20:05)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to point out for the other side of the Chamber that they possibly can\u2019t see that the Minister is signalling to you and we can see on this side. So if they think that we\u2019re not standing up, it\u2019s because we can see the Minister signalling, because we just had someone very eager to take a closure motion, Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a1351c9c11affcd4ea823b2270833889\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: That would be very optimistic, I might say. The member should have a look at how big this part is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000682\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229b8dbb5325d56705700ec235e04152aa\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI\u003C/span\u003E: Ha, ha! It\u2019s a very, very big part. Thank you, Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000683\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI just want to go back to that answer, actually. I had another question that I wanted to ask, but I\u2019m going to ask this one instead. You gave an answer there to Hon Phil Twyford\u2019s question around the variable hours. I get that for salaried workers, such as the New Zealand Air Line Pilots\u2019 Association, had they raised concerns about that and about how hours-based accrual for annual leave is ill-suited to the aviation sector because their employees are salaried but work variable roster-driven schedules, rather than fixed hours. Yes, there were some changes that were made during the select committee process and the select committee reported back with the work around the notional roster. I think that was good work that was done in that particular place. I don\u2019t think that that\u2019s the question Phil Twyford was actually asking about. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000684\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo we\u2019re talking about workers who are not salaried, but their standard hours of employment\u2014and I\u2019m going to go back to an example that I used in Part 1, and it was Cotton On, I think, employees, whose standard hours were three hours\u2019 a week, but there were hours extra and above that they were consistently working. So they\u2019re not salaried, they\u2019re not on a set amount, they\u2019re on the three hours\u2019 a week and they are then required to work consistently other hours on top of that as part of their employment agreement. Their leave is only calculated on those three hours, because those are their standard hours. It is not a notional roster\u2014they are not working on a notional roster. I believe that\u2019s what my colleague\u2019s question was about was the advice for those workers as to why a decision wasn\u2019t made to generate leave on every hour that they work. It\u2019s what we\u2019re trying to get to the bottom of here is what advice and why was the decision made to do that, rather than working on just the standard hours? So I hope that clarifies it for you, Minister. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022 data-id=\u0022632af4ea8e7da42990ba74c45dafe3ca\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000685\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022632af4ea8e7da42990ba74c45dafe3ca\u0022\u003ETEANAU TUIONO (Green) (20:08)\u003C/span\u003E: I actually think that\u2019s a good example. I was going to bring it up myself, but I do have the submission in front of me. I would like to test with the Minister whether these calculations are correct as it was submitted to the select committee. Under the Holidays Act 2003, an employee may agree with how the employee\u2019s entitlements to four weeks\u2019 annual pay are to be met. If we look at the Cotton On example, who consistently works around 20 hours\u2014so significantly above the three standard hours\u2014this would constitute a genuine working week for them and that would be like if they took a weeks\u2019 leave. But if we look at the calculations under the amendments put forward under this bill, then, under this definition, the Cotton On members who would only accrue hours on those three standard hours, over 52 weeks, these members would receive less than 12 hours of annual leave. So you have this example of a Cotton On retail worker working three standard hours, but actually working around about 20 hours, give or take, for an entire year. Because they\u2019re only being able to accrue just on those three hours, then their total sum of annual leave is only 12 hours. So I do want to test with the Minister whether that calculation is correct; if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000686\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy other question does go back to my other question around the potentially 200,000 estimated impacted workers, along with all of those other numbers. I think that the analysis was good enough, done by this particular union\u2014by the PSA\u2014that it did manage to get sector to sector to sector, that it should, I think, warrant a commitment from the Minister to actually do some analysis on how this will actually impact the workers. If it\u2019s not 200,000 workers, then how many is it? Even 100,000 would be absolutely terrible. To not know, I think, is not good enough. I would like to know if there is a willingness from the Minister to actually commit to see how this will actually impact workers\u2014their annual leave, in this particular perspective. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000687\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust to loop back to that Cotton On example, will these Cotton On retail workers, as in the example that we\u2019ve talked about through the night, who are accruing annual leave just for their three standard hours per week, over 52 weeks only accrue 12 hours of annual leave? That\u2019s a problem, because the purpose of this bill, as we have previously talked about, is to make sure that people have the ability to rest, have the ability to spend time with their family\u2014making sure that we get that work-life balance. So, I think it\u2019s a very specific question there around the impacts of this on those particular workers and, also, what the Minister thinks about committing to make sure to find out how this will impact workers in the long run.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022fd3fe4f8a8c9bee24da6d56b07d06a34\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000688\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fd3fe4f8a8c9bee24da6d56b07d06a34\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (20:11)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. In response to Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March, regarding the Ministry of Social Development and whether or not we\u2019ve engaged with them about people transitioning from jobseeker support to part-time employment, yes, my officials did engage with the Ministry of Social Development. I expressed my views in the Cabinet paper that I did not expect the changes to impact work incentives. I think most people do want to be in work and not on a benefit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022 data-id=\u00223b4885ed839ba5bec7ae16af39b37e73\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000689\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223b4885ed839ba5bec7ae16af39b37e73\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (20:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. There\u2019s a clarification that I wanted to make in this particular clause, clause 23, around an issue that Community Law Centres of Aotearoa brought up during the select committee process. They observed there that the bill, as we\u2019ve discussed here, replaces the week-based entitlements, but there seems to be a bit of an anomaly around how, if you\u2019ve got a worker who increases their hours during that period that they\u2019re working, the leave seems to be less than what they would have got had it been the weeks-based entitlement. Now, it means that they\u2019re going to have quite a lot fewer leave days or hours that they will be getting with that, and it seems that they would be worse off under this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000690\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI only ask if the Minister thinks that this is OK or is agreeable to this. I only ask this because it\u2019s quite common, particularly with the world of work now, that we have young people who are starting out at work\u2014particularly young people; there\u2019s others, as well, but young people particularly will start out and only have a few hours and, as they go through, they will start to get more hours. I\u2019d like some clarification around that, please, and if that\u2019s acceptable to the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u002244db75c302e5b0ff85e3ca15c402af57\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000691\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002244db75c302e5b0ff85e3ca15c402af57\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (20:13)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you for the question, and I\u2019ll respond to Jan Tinetti. Look, I think, in part, the way that the previous law worked was quite weird. Some people who had been working at a full-time capacity actually lost, once they moved to a part-time capacity, a lot of what you\u2019d expect if we\u2019d been in an accrual model, because now they were only getting a smaller portion of an entitlement. The same counterfactual is true: somebody who was on a smaller number of hours and who then moved to a full-time role could then, all of a sudden, get four full weeks of entitlement. So, some people levelled up and some people levelled down.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000692\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat this bill does is it makes the whole system a lot fairer, and how much leave you get is based on how many hours you have accrued over time or how much work you have done, which, I think, leads us to a better place. So, yes, I\u2019ll acknowledge there will be some change for some people going back and forth based on what the current law has done, but overall, it is a much fairer system. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000693\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Hon Jan Tinetti also queried why we don\u2019t just generate leave on every hour worked, rather than just standard hours. As I\u2019ve already stated tonight, attempting to cater for all additional and casual hours in the core leave system would generate an immense amount of complexity. That is the cause of much of the complexity and confusion that exists under the current Act, which we\u2019re hoping to remove.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022 data-id=\u0022b0422206ccb1f39343a55390ec213859\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000694\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b0422206ccb1f39343a55390ec213859\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert) (20:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Can I ask about clause 26A; it\u2019s about the issue about taking annual leave. I looked for a definition of \u201Call reasonable efforts\u201D, which is the standard that the employer\u2019s held to when they decide whether an employee can take the leave they asked to take. There was no definition in that. I\u2019d like to know, is that because there\u2019s a good definition in case law on this, or is it an intended consequence that there will be case law developed around the term \u201Call reasonable efforts\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000695\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen I noticed, when we got to the part that was about an employer being able to choose when leave was taken\u2014if they make all reasonable efforts, but they don\u2019t agree and then the employer gets to decide when that leave is taken, we used to have a rule that said that there was a switch. If it was statutory leave, then it was the employee\u2019s choice. If it was a day that was in lieu of statutory leave, for example, the employee got to choose when it would be, and the employer got to choose if it was an annual leave day. Is that still in play in this law? Have we changed that, or is it happening? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000696\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EDid anybody think about putting something in the law about what happens in a situation where an employer is facing a pandemic again? This was one of the realities of the last law\u2014it didn\u2019t deal with that very well at all. What we had were employers sending letters out to a whole lot of people saying, \u201CYou\u2019re on leave,\u201D and they wouldn\u2019t\u2014I don\u2019t think\u2014have met an \u201Call reasonable efforts\u201D kind of test. There were some that failed to give any notice whatsoever, but I did see the issue for the employers of things that came up that just meant they had to react quickly like that. Was that something that was discussed at all by the Education and Workforce Committee\u2014some sort of mechanism for the use of that in circumstances? Or did we decide, as the case law has, that that\u2019s rest and recreation, and so it\u2019s not appropriate to use annual leave in that way\u2014which is a very valid thing to decide, and, in fact, what I think the case law came down to in the end? Have we decided that\u2019s not a broken part of the law? I\u2019d like your comments on this particular section and what you envisage will happen from now on. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u00222473a22207c1bd955d6607720513a197\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000697\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222473a22207c1bd955d6607720513a197\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (20:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Further to that contribution, I\u2019d be interested in the Minister being able to expand on the amount of time she would think that an employee and employer need to take those reasonable steps in order to get to agreement on when the leave is taken. It\u2019s not just what those reasonable steps look like but the time frame in which that may occur, right? Because in some workplaces, the employee and the employer may not always be in day-to-day or frequent communication\u2014for example, whether it\u2019s remote work, etc.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000698\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIf there is no case law that the Minister is drawing on to define reasonable steps, I\u2019d be interested to at least hear from the Minister what her intent is with the language in there, and particularly the time frame in which that agreement must happen or the Minister expects it to happen. It\u2019s important, in my view, because sometimes people do have to make leave requests that are time-sensitive due to unexpected circumstances. If the Minister is able to provide further guidance not just on what those steps look like but what would be a reasonable time frame in which that is decided, that would give greater clarity to workers\u2014and employers, actually\u2014across the country on how she expects this to work in practice. Otherwise, I think\u2014and as Helen White points out\u2014without a definition, it could be very broadly interpreted by both parties.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022 data-id=\u0022078411ad77a126e4b3bd2eb7ae6d6466\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000699\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022078411ad77a126e4b3bd2eb7ae6d6466\u0022\u003ETEANAU TUIONO (Green) (20:20)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. My question is around Subpart 1, \u201CAnnual leave\u201D, clause 24(1)(c), and it\u2019s around when an employee\u2019s receiving accident compensation. My first question is: what we see here is that the capitals \u201CACC\u201D have been crossed out and we\u2019ve just got \u201Caccident compensation.\u201D So my first question is around clarification about what that is. Is that accident compensation as something that is distinct from the ACC system which we all know, or is it something else that the committee might not be aware of or some of us might not be aware of? So getting some clarification on that as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000700\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen I read 24(2)(b) and it talks about the amount of leave that is accrued while someone is under ACC, it just links it to that \u201Cstandard hours\u201D. So, just thinking back to other situations, and we have talked about the example of someone with three hours but they\u2019re actually working 20 hours or 30 hours or whatever, and something happens and they\u2019re on ACC\u2014accident compensation. Would it still be, as I\u2019m reading it, that they will still only get the accrual of that annual leave just on those standard hours, or is there something else that we\u2019re missing from that point? If the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety could expand on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000701\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI would also be interested in how the Minister thinks that notional rosters might pay in this perspective in terms of ensuring that there\u2019s clarity around those work patterns. I think of an example where perhaps there\u2019s a disagreement between the employer and employee around what should or shouldn\u2019t be a standard hour and being able to include those so-called casual hours into those standard hours. How does that work, and how does that link in in terms of the way that a worker might be receiving ACC and then being able to accurately calculate what their annual leave accrual will be?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022d092b706f7912a1e23ea80419a518e6d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000702\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d092b706f7912a1e23ea80419a518e6d\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (20:22)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Look, Teanau Tuiono and, I believe, other members asked questions about specific examples about not accruing on additional hours. I think, in part, there was an example of one particular contract with a small number of specified standard hours. Look, the advice that I have from my officials is that it\u2019s not just what is written in an employment agreement that matters. The definitions of additional and standard hours mean that if an employee is required to work hours and can\u2019t turn them down, they would be considered standard hours. I was advised that defining types of hours specifically for the purposes of the bill would ensure employees accrue leave on hours they are required to work. So catering for additional hours in the core system would add significant complexity, but it\u2019s quite an important distinction that if someone is actually required to work those hours, they are standard hours, whereas additional hours are things that workers can take or leave, and casual hours are also\u2014you can take it or leave it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022 data-id=\u0022cc5cfb7403f57fe3993f63c329d24e94\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000703\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cc5cfb7403f57fe3993f63c329d24e94\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B) (20:23)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. The primary impact of these provisions, as the regulatory impact statement (RIS) expressly acknowledges, is that there are significant numbers of employees who will lose access to significant amounts of annual leave. That\u2019s in the RIS. It\u2019s the very nature of the provisions in this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000704\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Council of Trade Unions, at the Education and Workforce Committee, gave an example of a worker with guaranteed hours of eight per week but who would regularly pick up additional shifts to give them an average of 32 hours over a four-day week. Now, after working for a full year, they will have, under the bill, 32 hours of annual leave available\u2014after a full year. That\u2019s basically enough to take, you know, one week off, whereas they would\u2019ve had four weeks prior to this bill. If the worker wanted to take days off work, under this bill, based on those hours, they would have enough leave for four days. Under the current Act, one day would represent quarter of a week and therefore they could basically take 16 days off, spread through the year. That\u2019s an extraordinary reduction in access to annual leave for workers who are working close to full-time hours.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000705\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI guess, for me, this is central to the concerns that we have about this bill. I\u2019d be interested to hear from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety what was the calculus in her mind and her colleagues to, basically, come to the view that that\u2019s acceptable for workers to lose that much annual leave. How is that acceptable?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022 data-id=\u0022951943281d2cc2bd3a4a7f884572b5ee\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000706\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022951943281d2cc2bd3a4a7f884572b5ee\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (20:26)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I have a follow-up to my colleague\u2019s last question, and it does relate back a little bit to Part 1, because we did discuss that part in Part 1. My colleague talked about the practical implications of the leave that people would be losing. We know\u2014and we\u2019ve traversed this\u2014that leave is being generated on the standard hours and then there\u2019s the leave compensation payment for the additional hours that are worked. Often, people will have to take that payment. Yet the Education and Workforce Committee, rightfully, inserted in that one of the absolute principles of leave was for rest and recreation. The fact that now we\u2019ve heard these practical examples and the fact that workers will be getting a payment instead, this is where I think there\u2019s a conflict, and I can\u2019t resolve that conflict easily, because you\u2019ve got money and monetising leave, which I think is a fundamental issue with this bill, that it\u2019s seen as a cost rather than the primary reason for rest and recreation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000707\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EMy question is on the advice that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety received on that new recommendation, which I believe is right, but how the leave compensation payment defeats the purpose of that recreation. So whether the Minister received advice, and why it\u2019s proceeding in the way that it\u2019s proceeding at the moment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002242067e22c7a349218b3b868f58eda79d\u0022 data-id=\u00222ec13a24d9ce9d5955951717a6f87898\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002242067e22c7a349218b3b868f58eda79d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222ec13a24d9ce9d5955951717a6f87898\u0022\u003ERACHEL BOYACK (Labour\u2014Nelson) (20:28)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to talk to a different clause now in Part 2, which is clause 29. That\u2019s what occurs when an employee may take annual leave: \u201Cstandard hours specified in notional roster\u201D. It talks about subsection (4), which I assume is subsection 4 of clause 28, which states that \u201CThe employee may, in accordance with this subpart, take as annual leave any standard hours specified in the work roster\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000709\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat I find confusing is whether standard hours are normally included in a notional roster, because my understanding\u2014and if the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety perhaps can talk us through this\u2014of the purpose of the notional roster is more around when it\u2019s got changes made to it, because when you look at 29(1)(b), it says, \u201CSubsection (4) applies\u201D\u2014this is in relation to a notional roster\u2014\u201Can employee has a notional roster; and (b) before the employer sets a work roster, (i) the employee makes a request to take annual leave; or (ii) the employee and their employer agree that the employee may take annual leave.\u201D This seems confused, because it seems to imply that the application is made prior to the roster being set, but if the roster were standard, then surely the roster would be fixed and we would know what the roster was.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000710\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo my reading of this clause brings me to quite a few interpretation questions. I guess, the overarching comment that I would make is that the original purpose of part of this law was to actually try to make interpreting some of this law clearer for everyone involved in employment practices. When I read this, as someone who used to practise in this area, I read this and become very confused around how these two clauses interact\u2014clauses 28 and 29. It causes me some concern that we\u2019re then going to have disputes between employees and employers about whether that\u2019s a notional roster, whether it\u2019s a standard/fixed roster, and what\u2019s, therefore, operating.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000711\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFor example, if an employee has a roster that says they\u2019ve got 20 hours a week but they could work across five different days, they might do eight-hour days, and it operates across different days within the week depending on what\u2019s happening that week. Those sorts of rosters can be quite common. We know that you\u2019re going to have 20 hours a week, but we\u2019re not sure exactly which days of the week you\u2019re going to work them. Under current law generally\u2014this is often a collective agreement or some case law\u2014let\u2019s say that, over six months, you\u2019ve built into working Monday, Tuesday, and half of Wednesday, ultimately, that would then become your consistent roster.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000712\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat this implies is that you can only apply for the leave before the roster\u2019s set, but if the roster is fixed, then how is it being set again? I\u2019m getting quite confused, reading clause\u00A029, especially in conjunction with clause 28, which implies that annual leave actually only applies when it\u2019s a standard hour that\u2019s specified in the work roster, as opposed to a set of hours that are different. When I read clauses 28 and 29, I\u2019m finding this quite confused in terms of interpretation. I can see that the way this is drafted is going to cause some confusion for employers and employees\u2014potentially some disputes. I\u2019d be really helped by the Minister actually giving a detailed response as to how clause\u00A029 will operate in practice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022d2e6844cdbdea24f551eaf6d8b9d71a8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000713\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d2e6844cdbdea24f551eaf6d8b9d71a8\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (20:32)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Look, firstly, in regards to Teanau Tuiono\u2019s query about clauses\u00A024(1)(c) and, I can only then assume, 24(3)\u2014this is about the words \u201CACC\u201D being changed to \u201Caccident compensation\u201D; are they distinct, or why has this been done?\u2014the change from \u201CACC\u201D to \u201Caccident compensation\u201D is purely editorial. \u201CACC\u201D is the department, and \u201Caccident compensation\u201D is what an employee receives. It\u2019s a good change to have been made in the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000714\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ETeanau Tuiono also asked what I thought about doing analysis on the bill and how it will impact workers in the long run\u2014yeah, why not? The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) has completed a regulatory impact statement for the bill, as has been required, and MBIE would be expected to monitor the impacts of the bill in the long term as part of its regulatory stewardship responsibilities. Helen White also asked a query about the intent of the \u201Creasonable efforts\u201D language in clause 26A. The requirement to agree when annual leave is taken retains the status quo. The addition of \u201Call reasonable efforts\u201D is intended to strengthen the provision and to provide that genuine effort to agree must be made.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022 data-id=\u0022b9e434b7592727af0a3454067d78b8de\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000715\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b9e434b7592727af0a3454067d78b8de\u0022\u003ETEANAU TUIONO (Green) (20:33)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Just to follow up on the answer from the Minister, I\u2019m glad to hear that she will be talking to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) about doing that long-term analysis because I think it is important. Is it the Minister\u2019s expectation that it will look at the potential impacts that that has had on workers? I say that in the context of the discussions that we\u2019ve had so far in this committee of the whole House stage around the impacts on an estimated 200,000 workers and those various sectors that I outlined. I think it would point to whether this bill is working or not. I think it is an incredibly important point to make that if this has actually, post the analysis by MBIE, impacted 200,000 workers and it has reduced their annual leave, then that is something significant that the House should pay attention to. I\u2019d be interested in terms of the follow-up to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000716\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI did ask an earlier question around the Cotton On example as well. I haven\u2019t yet heard a response on that\u2014whether that was correct or not. This is the example of the three-hour standard hours that the person was working where, over 52 weeks, they would only be receiving 12 hours of annual income. It\u2019s a very specific example, but I think it\u2019s important to give specific examples because I know that a lot of workers across the country will be trying to figure out whether they actually can afford to take annual leave. Can you really afford to take annual leave if you\u2019re only going to get 12 hours, or should we be pitching to try to get more of those casual hours so that they can pay their bills? These decisions have flow-on impacts to the decisions that people make. If they can\u2019t take holidays because they\u2019re only going to get 12 hours, then they actually can\u2019t afford to have a holiday, which, in my mind, defeats the purpose of the Act, which we\u2019ve discussed in an earlier part. I would like a specific answer to that question. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000717\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also think it\u2019s important for us to really tease out the relationship between the way that the notional roster will work to specify standard hours as well, so that we can avoid confusion. I guess on the back of what Rachel Boyack was saying as well, what advice is going to be given to the labour inspectorate, and what resourcing is going to be put into the labour inspectorate when, inevitably, these disagreements are going to happen? You could have a workplace or a work site where you\u2019ve got 30 employees on 30 different arrangements\u2014some of them are on different standard hours, and some of them are on multiple role agreements\u2014and if you\u2019re going to send one inspector in there to do all of that stuff, then can the system actually cope? I really am interested in the answer that will hopefully be presented to Rachel Boyack\u2019s question. How is this actually going to be resourced, and have all the different scenarios or the different permutations of how this will impact different work sites\u2014and we know that they\u2019re so varied and so different in terms of the way that different work sites work, so how is the labour inspector actually going to be able to contain this? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000718\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust to go back, I had a very specific answer on that question I had around the person with the three standard hours: are they going to, over a year, only get 12 hours annual leave? Because that\u2019s terrible; no holidays for them. Secondly, I had questions around the resourcing of the labour inspectorate in terms of what needs to be done and also the relationship between the notional rosters, which was brought up, because I think that clarity is sorely needed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002242067e22c7a349218b3b868f58eda79d\u0022 data-id=\u0022ee82921c8aee8bcd0fd3b814293f8c97\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000719\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002242067e22c7a349218b3b868f58eda79d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ee82921c8aee8bcd0fd3b814293f8c97\u0022\u003ERACHEL BOYACK (Labour\u2014Nelson) (20:38)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I\u2019ve just got two further questions for the Minister. I\u2019m hoping that I\u2019ll have an answer to clause 29 off the back of, hopefully, some advice from officials to the Minister. I actually just briefly want to touch on some of the other comments made by my colleagues Teanau Tuiono and Phil Twyford, which also related back to Part 1. This is just an extra piece of information. I realised that we have traversed this quite a bit, but it\u2019s an extra piece of information I just want to bring into the conversation. This is about the situation where a person has five regular hours, so that\u2019s what\u2019s used to build their annual leave entitlement, and then they may do 15 to 20 hours a week, and then that has the 12.5\u00A0percent compensation. What that has led to is that when they actually take their annual leave, they have a very small amount to access. What I wanted to specifically ask the Minister on that is that that\u2019s kind of a combining of two things that currently happens in the law. One is where you do have that fixed annually; the second is where you have holiday pay which can either be paid as you go or it can actually be held back and given in a lump sum. It appears that, in this legislation, an employee can\u2019t choose to hold it back as a lump sum.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000720\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Deputy Prime Minister, when he was in the chair earlier today\u2014and I was intending to push back earlier but didn\u2019t get an opportunity\u2014said, \u201COh well, people could save that 12.5\u00A0percent so that they\u2019ve got a pot of money sitting there for when they take that leave.\u201D  I\u2019ve worked in this area for a very long time, and I was once one of those part-time workers at university who received, I think it was, 6 percent holiday pay on top of my pay. Most workers on low incomes and part-time type jobs don\u2019t have the mechanism to save, especially when we\u2019re in a cost of living crisis like we are now. If that 12 percent they\u2019re receiving weekly is going to be the difference between fixing the car or not, or paying the power bill or not, or taking the child to the doctor or not, they\u2019re not going to save that for their annual leave; they\u2019re going to spend it at the time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the benefits of having that annual leave actually properly accrue is an employee being able to say, \u201CNo, I would rather the employer, essentially, built that money up so that, when I take that leave, I can also receive my holiday pay in a lump sum.\u201D My question to the Minister is: what advice did she receive in terms of the impact on those low-paid workers? I accept that, if somebody\u2019s on $100,000 a year or whatever, they should be able to put some money away each week to save for that holiday, but for somebody on a minimum wage job where the hours fluctuate quite substantially and they might be a solo parent, it\u2019s far more difficult to do that. That\u2019s my specific question. Why is it not built into the law that the employee can make a choice between having, essentially, what is a replacement for holiday pay paid out on a weekly basis, or get the lump sum?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000722\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, this is back to clause 29, and I do hope the Minister, when she makes her next contribution, will respond to my earlier question, but I just want to clarify, because I\u2019ve had an opportunity now. I wasn\u2019t on the Education and Workforce Committee to read through the definition of \u201Cnotional roster\u201D, which clearly states that it applies if it is not possible to determine one or more of the following: the number of the employee\u2019s standard hours, the days of the week on which the employee has standard hours, or the hours in each day that the employee has standard hours. Reading that, it\u2019s quite clear that the notional roster applies when you do have a difference, potentially, from week to week\u2014that 20-hour scenario I mentioned where each week you might work slightly different days and times of the day.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat concerns me is if an employee has worked, let\u2019s say for three weeks in a row, the same set of hours\u2014they apply for annual leave prior to the notional roster being put in place and they apply for those days that they were working; they\u2019ve been working Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday for three weeks. The employee receives the annual leave application and then\u2014I\u2019ll be honest, some employers don\u2019t always follow rules in a way that is beneficial to employees\u2014they say, \u201CWell, actually, no, this week, the notional roster says Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, not Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday; therefore, there\u2019s no annual leave, because you\u2019re not working.\u201D That\u2019s a scenario I\u2019m just putting to the Minister in terms of the confusion around clause 29.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000724\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat types of patterns\u2014I can see a situation where case law is going to come into this quite substantially to determine how many weeks determine the pattern, so that the employer couldn\u2019t fudge the notional roster to kind of, essentially, screw the scrum a little bit. Employers do that. I have seen them do that many, many times, especially in some of these casual type roles. I\u2019d be really interested in the Minister\u2019s explanation of how clause\u00A029 will work in practice, off the back of my earlier contribution and this addition just now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u002226397f0a38c8fd92e4724da6ea6b97fe\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000725\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002226397f0a38c8fd92e4724da6ea6b97fe\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (20:43)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I\u2019m happy to respond to a number of the contributions here tonight. Firstly, to Teanau Tuiono, who queried employees on accident compensation not being able to accrue leave on additional and casual hours and what role the notional roster would play there: the notional rosters, by definition, account for standard hours only, but separately the bill provides that leave does not accrue during periods when an employee is on unpaid leave and receiving weekly compensation. In part, this is to avoid the potential for a large leave liability for long-term ACC clients.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000726\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Hon Jan Tinetti had a query around the leave compensation payment (LCP) and whether or not that defeated the purpose of rest and recreation and whether or not I received advice on this. I did receive advice on how variable hours could be accommodated in the leave system. The intent of the LCP is to simplify the leave system. The LCP simply shifts the timing of leave pay. Under the bill, compensation occurs when hours are worked, but for every hour worked, employees will either accrue leave or receive a financial compensation. They cannot be required to work any hours that they have received the LCP on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000727\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Hon Phil Twyford had a question about the number of employees that would lose access to amounts of annual leave and what my thinking was when deciding whether or not this was acceptable. As I\u2019ve already traversed, the LCP will shift the timing of leave paid. For every hour worked, employees will either receive the LCP or they will accrue the paid time off. There is a compensation for work, for leave, either way. People don\u2019t simply lose out; they\u2019re still getting a financial payment either way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000728\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ERachel Boyack had a query about standard hours normally included in a notional roster and also had a secondary contribution, as a follow-up, on what the purpose was of the notional roster. The notional rosters address a situation where an employment agreement states that the employee has standard hours, but it doesn\u2019t include all the information\u2014for example, the days or the hours that are worked\u2014to enable leave entitlements to actually be determined.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000729\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ERachel Boyack also then queried clauses 28 and 29, about how that notional roster works in practice. Employees can apply for leave at any time. Clauses 28 and 29 determine which hours leave can be taken on. If a roster has been set for the week in question, when the employee requests leave, that will take precedent. If the exact schedule hasn\u2019t been set yet and leave is requested, the employee can rely on the notional roster to request leave.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000730\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a63260d53e462419fb447898c575b6df\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Phil Twyford\u2014members will probably need to keep moving through the bill now. There\u2019s a little way to go. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022 data-id=\u0022832dc1ea098708dd3e573883b5b3a33e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000731\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022832dc1ea098708dd3e573883b5b3a33e\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B) (20:46)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. In that vein, speaking to clause 33, the Minister\u2019s answer to my earlier question about the loss of annual leave and its kind of financialisaton, if you like, converting time off into a dollar payment, is quite a good segue into a discussion about clause 33, which introduces to the bill this idea that up to 25 percent of accrued annual leave may be cashed up by request.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000732\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOn a note in passing, the committee adopted or proposed that it should permit recovery of genuine erroneous payments, cash payments. I think that\u2019s uncontroversial, or it should be, but Labour\u2019s concern about these provisions is that they\u2019re coming on top of the effect of the leave compensation payment. The cashing-up provisions really compound that problem. They create a situation where it\u2019s very likely that significant numbers of workers will, by sheer dint of economic necessity, particularly low-paid workers, choose to cash up the 25 percent and will lose time off and their necessary rest and recreation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000733\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt will be well known to the Minister and all members of this committee that, in the OECD, New Zealanders work some of the longest hours. That applies to part-time workers as well, because they often have multiple jobs. Some people have to drive across town in between doing two or three jobs. We work bloody hard, and people need time off. They need time off for their health and wellbeing, for the wellbeing of their families. Our concern is that the cashing-up provision, combined with the kind of essential element of this bill, which is to convert significant amounts of people\u2019s leave into a dollar payment, is going to mean that many, many workers will end up without the necessary time off work that\u2019s necessary for their productivity but also for their health and wellbeing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000734\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe departmental report makes the observation that the unions, who came along to the committee, consistently reported concern about this\u2014that the cashing-up provisions undermine the rest and recreation that workers need\u2014and employers, in a kind of symmetry on the other side, just argued for administrative simplicity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000735\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222b17fd659f8d3b0500ec6e7bf87d6c6b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: That is like a recap of the select committee. I\u2019m wondering when the question is coming.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000736\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002297d96fef55f7ff6c22d7b720dbf41ae4\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, the question is: what evidence did the Minister use to weigh up those competing arguments? And what evidence really led her to settle on the 25\u00A0percent formula?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022f370cf7839bcfaa8ea493d7cd8ca37b7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000737\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f370cf7839bcfaa8ea493d7cd8ca37b7\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (20:50)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m very happy to take that contribution. Look, it was quite a simple way of creating the law for clause 33, getting to the 25 percent amount, in part because we\u2019re moving from the entitlement to an accrual system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000738\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EUnder the entitlement system, at the moment a person is able to cash up one week. This 25 percent provision is, essentially, an equivalency, as much as we have one, of having 25 percent. However, it does have, I guess, the additional benefit that for some people they do actually do more. They may not actually wish to take the full time off. I know a lot of people do like to take a full holiday, but some people actually don\u2019t and find it really hard to take time off. I know some employers out there actually have to encourage people to take leave sometimes because they\u2019ve got staff that just always want to work. If you have that personality type who actually really enjoys going to work and doesn\u2019t want to be forced to take extra leave because it\u2019s becoming a bit of a liability on the company\u2019s books, you could simply cash up 25 percent; it\u2019s not difficult.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000739\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn regard to Rachel Boyack\u2019s earlier question about what advice I received about the impact of the leave compensation payment (LCP) on lower-income workers or why employees couldn\u2019t choose between the LCP and accrual, look, the impacts of the LCP will be felt differently by different workers. Advice I received emphasised that many workers would appreciate the additional cash in hand that an LCP provides. The LCP cannot be optional, because its purpose is to account for the value of leave in relation to certain types of hours. Optionality in this space would have added confusion and complexity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000740\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere was also a query from Teanau Tuiono about whether or not the system could cope with added burden for the Labour Inspectorate and how it would be resourced. As always, the Labour Inspectorate prioritises based on harm. I would expect that the two-year implementation period would provide time for all parties to understand and be ready to implement and enforce the new framework. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment\u2019s enforcement approach will be focused on education and guidance in the very first instance. A simpler framework overall will help to aide our enforcement in the longer term, because it will be a simpler law for both the workers and employers to follow.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000741\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETeanau Tuiono also had a query in regard to a very specific example for one company. I did actually respond to that earlier, but I didn\u2019t use the particular company\u2019s name, mainly because I haven\u2019t actually seen that particular contract. I don\u2019t want to, within the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsTerm\u0022 style=\u0022font-style: italic\u0022\u003EHansard,\u003C/span\u003E say hand on heart what that would actually be. However, if you took a theoretical example of a company that had three standard hours for their workers, accruing 12 hours\u2019 leave over 52 weeks would be correct, but only if the employee is not required to work the hours on top of the three hours.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u0022633470d3cb8c183a1ca318dda230188d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000742\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022633470d3cb8c183a1ca318dda230188d\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Green) (20:54)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just following on the contribution from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, I wanted to know whether the Minister had any evidential basis for whether there\u2019s any sort of sectors or how prevalent this situation and this sort of a very hypothetical scenario that she presented is, where people just want to keep working and not actually take time to rest and instead cash in their annual leave. On the one hand, she talked about it as though this is prevalent. On the other hand, she also noted that there are people who kind of need to be pressured into taking rest because of the impact. I assume it\u2019s due to part of the impact it could have on their wellbeing. I\u2019m curious to know whether she recognises that the lack of rest that these provisions could create could actually worsen our health outcomes for workers. I\u2019m also interested in whether she received any feedback from the likes of Health New Zealand or other agencies on the very same impact it could have on people\u2019s wellbeing and health; and if so, what was it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000743\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m also interested in clause 33(5)\u2014moving on to the part where an employer is not required to give an employee a reason for declining the request. I was just curious and I want to know what the Minister\u2019s rationale is for having this written, because we have, basically, a requirement that the request is made in writing. I would assume that perhaps the employee may choose to put some of their reasons why they may be cashing it in, if there\u2019s such broad discretion for the employer to say yes or no. Perhaps, as the Hon Phil Twyford mentioned, it would be a situation of financial hardship that the person may find themselves in\u2014that they may just need that extra money due to the economic conditions and low wages that this Government has contributed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000744\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf an employer is not required to give an employee a reason for declining their request and that employee sees, for example, that their coworkers are having their cash-up request approved, would it not start raising issues of fairness within the workplace or potentially mask discrimination that may be occurring? I could see a situation where you have 10 employees, a group of them seem to be favoured by the employer and they\u2019re being able to make these requests and the employer seems to be favourable towards them, whereas another group isn\u2019t. If there\u2019s no reason for the employer to provide a reason for the decline, do we not risk entrenching certain biases and gaps that already exist in the workplace in relationship to these requests?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000745\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m asking the Minister what the rationale is for this and whether she received any advice or is concerned about this entrenching discrimination in the workplace, particularly along gender and ethnic lines, and whether she thinks that this very same provision could lead to tensions in the workplace if one group of employees find themselves on the side of the employer and the employer may be more willing to provide that cash-up? The other one was, just to recap on this, the evidential basis for the comments that the Minister made in relationship to people not wanting to take time to rest and whether she thinks that could actually have an impact on people\u2019s health.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022e6734d54e68b45379270143a680e015e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000746\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e6734d54e68b45379270143a680e015e\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (20:58)\u003C/span\u003E: I can tick off this contribution quite quickly. Thank you to Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March. There\u2019s nothing really controversial here in terms of requesting leave and bosses not necessarily needing to give a rationale, because that\u2019s just the current law. We\u2019re just keeping it ticking over into this one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000747\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222f05bed7f87c8af80bd8831a9f9b1397\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Hon Phil Twyford\u2014and we\u2019ll have a question, please. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022 data-id=\u0022563d653b9aa93cddb96a60d4475d471f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000748\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022563d653b9aa93cddb96a60d4475d471f\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B) (20:58)\u003C/span\u003E: I predict that too.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000749\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aaa069f96d2477abea5a13b4beccbf5c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Good. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000750\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002209c1dab30ac3f02ed5a25a2ed6b75e27\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: Clauses 34 and 35, essentially, ban employers coercing staff to cash up their annual leave, but, as the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety will well know, workplaces are not democratic environments. If you think about the position of part-time and casual workers, they\u2019re often getting hours at the whim of a supervisor or an employer. They\u2019re often very vulnerable to pressure and coercion. I wonder what advice the Minister\u2019s had about how effective this statutory ban will be on requiring people to cash up their leave in that kind of environment, when you consider the possibility of indirect pressure and coercion\u2014the supervisor saying, \u201CWell, it\u2019s company policy. We want you to cash up 25 percent of your annual leave. And how many shifts were you wanting to get next week or next fortnight or next month, by the way?\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022 data-id=\u002243eb7b0583cfde33b3f24599eaeb199e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000751\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002243eb7b0583cfde33b3f24599eaeb199e\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (20:59)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I also have a question regarding clauses 33 through to whichever the ones are that talk about cashing up\u2014I think it\u2019s clauses 33 and 34. It follows on from my colleague Phil Twyford\u2019s question before around why the 25 percent was chosen and the impact that that would have, and the advice that the Minister got. I totally, absolutely understand the answer that was given, but following on from that, at select committee, we saw that workforces are changing, and the nature of workforces is changing. There\u2019s more casualisation in workforces. There are more extra hours that are undertaken. Even when I\u2019ve spoken to peak body business groups, such as Business Canterbury, they have said the majority of their employers now will deal with more uneven work rosters. They will have more casualisation within that on top of standard hours.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000752\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe 25\u00A0percent makes sense, from the Minister\u2019s answer, but given the additional and casual hours that are being cashed out through the leave compensation payment (LCP), and we know that the likelihood of that being generated is increasing according to business peak body groups because of the changing nature of work, what advice did the Minister receive on the cumulative amount of leave converted to cash across the workforce? Both the 25 percent and the LCP together; what advice was given around that? To me, that seems to be the biggest question in this space, given that we\u2019ve heard about the vulnerability of workforces, and also the low-paid nature of some of these workforces in that area. I\u2019m really interested in the cumulative nature of what\u2019s happening.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022de08f9da233a6795ceb06f6c55910135\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000753\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022de08f9da233a6795ceb06f6c55910135\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (21:02)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m happy to answer a contribution by Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March about the evidence that I have that anyone actually prefers to cash out their leave. Yes, I\u2019ve received correspondence from both employees and employers who appreciate the flexibility to cash up some of their leave. The framework provides protections for employees, though, that they cannot be required to cash up. I also know Health New Zealand did not raise this with my officials.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022 data-id=\u0022abcca8ccf6ddae1a7f7459f0a3813013\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000754\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022abcca8ccf6ddae1a7f7459f0a3813013\u0022\u003EHELEN WHITE (Labour\u2014Mt Albert) (21:02)\u003C/span\u003E: First of all, I\u2019ve got a question that is quite fundamental, and I actually don\u2019t feel satisfied with the answer to Phil Twyford\u2019s question about the people who lose under the system, and it\u2019s acknowledged in the regulatory impact statement (RIS). I haven\u2019t heard the Minister acknowledge that she accepts that; that there are people who are going to be on a lot less. It\u2019s often those part-time employees. It\u2019s often women, actually.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000755\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat I want to know is: in a world where we need people to parent, we had a system that was weeks of leave. So, if you\u2019re working a short amount in that week, you could still work, in the context, particularly, of asking your employer whether you could take that time off to meet the needs of your kids in the holidays. Isn\u2019t this going to cause issues where those very same people aren\u2019t able to cover an entire week because we\u2019ve gone to a system of hours rather than weeks? Then we\u2019ve got the issue of the 25 percent which they can cash out, but it\u2019s actually 25\u00A0percent, in your words; you talked about that, Minister. In your head, as far as I understood, the explanation was that it was because 25 percent is a week. Isn\u2019t it, in fact, that the Minister, in the legislation, is assuming people are working full time and weeks, and in fact, the 25 percent is proxy for a week and the system\u2019s moved on from that and people are much, much worse off because they won\u2019t be able to meet those needs, which are part of the needs of rest and recreation\u2014are seeing our kids. That\u2019s my first question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000756\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy second question is that I was really alarmed when I read the RIS and I looked at paragraph 77, and it says, \u201CPart-time employees, who account for approximately 21\u00A0percent of the total workforce, would receive less sick pay while employees on weekly compensation payments would not accrue annual leave while they are off work.\u201D It talks about women and disabled people being the ones who are part-time, and the employees who are in manufacturing and agriculture are the ones who will be suffering the work-related injuries. Have you got a response to that? Those are the workers that we are really going to have as the losers of this legislation\u2014our part-time workers, our women, our disabled, and our manual workers who will suffer injuries. I\u2019d like to know that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000757\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen I\u2019ve got a question about clause 38, and that clause is about sick leave. Now, my understanding is that the law had a capacity in it until now where it was possible, if you were on annual leave and you got sick, it could be put into your sick leave and you would recover that annual leave to use for rest and recreation, because you\u2019ve been sick during it. This clause 38(2) distinguishes itself from the other sections. It says that the \u201Cemployee may, with the employer\u2019s agreement, take as sick leave any period of sickness or injury that \u2026 would otherwise take as annual leave.\u201D That\u2019s different, isn\u2019t it? Can you just confirm that we\u2019re changing the law and reducing the rights of workers with regard to sick leave?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000758\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI see that that\u2019s not the case in clauses 39 or 40. Both of those are about different types of leave: bereavement leave and family violence leave. They are ones where we prescribe that the employer \u201Cmust\u201D. In what circumstances is an employer going to say, \u201CLet\u2019s change this so that it\u2019s sick leave and swap it out\u201D? It seems to be only if they agree to it, and it\u2019s not what I talked to the Minister about before. It\u2019s not a term like \u201Creasonableness\u201D\u2014that it can\u2019t be unreasonably withheld. There seems to be no constraints on when an employer can say \u201CTough, you might have had pneumonia but you\u2019ve used your annual leave. You won\u2019t be using your sick leave.\u201D Can I have answers to all those questions? Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u00228364f06b5bfacc0591a2fc814dbb9049\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000759\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228364f06b5bfacc0591a2fc814dbb9049\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (21:07)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Look, I\u2019ll take a couple of these contributions, firstly from the Hon Phil Twyford regarding clauses 34 and 35, about advice I have received about the effectiveness of prohibiting employers from requiring that an employee cash in their leave. The provisions are carried over from the current Act. The framework was designed to provide protections for employees. I\u2019m not aware of any issues where employers require employees to cash up under the current system. There are penalties that apply if this happened, under the bill, and employees retain the leave that they\u2019ve been required to cash up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000760\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ERicardo Men\u00E9ndez March also queried if there should there be a requirement for an employer to give an employee a reason to decline a cash-up request. I think I kind of ticked that one off a little bit earlier, but just for any doubt, requiring a reason for declining a request may not have any effect on reducing differential treatment. This is because only the employee that made the request would see the reason. If an employee believes they are being discriminated against or being unjustifiably disadvantaged, there are legal pathways available to challenge that under either the Human Rights Act or the Employment Relations Authority.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000761\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHelen White\u2014I must admit I did struggle to follow this contribution a little more, but I will attempt to give it a go, because I think one of the reasons why I struggled to follow it is because I\u2019m a little bit worried that the contribution directly harms stereotypes of women, in particular that women are taking part-time jobs in order to take all of that time off to look after their kids during school holidays, because it just doesn\u2019t work out in practice. There are, I think, 12 weeks of school holidays a year, and if you are taking it as, potentially, a woman working one day a week part-time and if you then tried to take all of that as annual leave, that gives you four weeks, and then you\u2019d have to be taking nearly every other single day of work as a sick day off in order to cover the period of school. It just doesn\u2019t make sense as an example. I\u2019m struggling to follow that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000762\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f6c65af45fb333ca547317fd80f221e4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Teanau Tuiono can take a  call, but I did say, when I first came in, that we need to be on point. I\u2019m finding we are going into a lot of examples but we\u2019re not getting specific questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022 data-id=\u002264ad1e9f4346794827e0c406b5c86c54\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000763\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002264ad1e9f4346794827e0c406b5c86c54\u0022\u003ETEANAU TUIONO (Green) (21:10)\u003C/span\u003E: I do think the point\u2014as I understood the point that Helen White was making\u2014around the differences in the section around relationship between annual leave and other entitlements was an important distinction. We have clauses 39, 40, and 41. Clause 39 is \u201CEmployer must allow employee taking annual leave to take bereavement leave\u201D. Clause 40 is \u201CEmployer must allow employee taking annual leave to take family violence leave\u201D, which is different to the beginning of the formulation of clause 38 where it says, \u201CEmployer may allow employee taking annual leave to take sick leave\u201D. Those are differences. What I think I heard was that the Minister indicated that this had come through on the previous Act, but that wasn\u2019t particularly clear in her answer. I would like to get the clarification on whether that is the case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000764\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy additional question to that is: was there any analysis done on the recently passed health and safety Act\u2014previously the health and safety bill\u2014in terms of all the sick leave provisions? This is the first one that we\u2019ve come across, and I know that we get into it a bit further in, because the regime has now changed. I think the person conducting a business or undertaking carve-out is 20 employees or less. They only have to focus on critical risks. Therefore, all the non-critical risks\u2014the things that can get people sick\u2014are not covered under the health and safety Act in the way that they previously used to be. I want to know whether the Minister has done, and the officials have done, any analysis of the impact of that Act on all of the sick-leave provisions\u2014in particular this one here around clause 38 that the \u201CEmployer may allow employee taking annual leave to take sick leave\u201D\u2014because it points to the types of decisions that workers are going to have to make.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000765\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf we go back to a number of the examples that were brought up tonight where you have somebody who\u2019s on three standard hours\u2014or five standard hours, or whatever\u2014but, effectively, working 20 hours a week and they only accrue 12\u00A0hours of annual leave over a year, which I don\u2019t think is a good thing, and then they\u2019re faced with the decision of \u201CWell, actually, I\u2019ve now got to cash out my annual leave because I\u2019ve gotten sick, and I\u2019ve only got these 12 hours.\u201D, those are very difficult questions for workers. Was there any flow-on impact from this clause, any analysis done by officials, around the implementation of the health and safety Act, in particular the way that non-critical risks are now no longer covered in the way that I think they should be under that regime? If so, what does that information say? What does that analysis say? If that analysis was not done, why wasn\u2019t it done? That was a major, major reform that came through this Chamber just a month ago and which will have an impact on the choices that workers have, which are linked to very specific provisions within this bill. I\u2019d like to have an answer to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000766\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust to back the truck up a little bit, once again, in clauses 39 and 40, there is an imperative in there that an employer \u201Cmust\u201D do something, but when it comes to the sickness clause, which is clause 38, where it says, \u201CEmployer may allow employee taking annual leave to take sick leave\u201D, why is that distinction being made in these three clauses? Then my follow-up question is: on the impact of the health and safety Act\u2014the reforms that were passed in the House just recently\u2014was there any analysis done on the impact on this? If not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u002270a42a8d3a5f7a47ffcefc399672ca29\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000767\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002270a42a8d3a5f7a47ffcefc399672ca29\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (21:15)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m happy to take that. Look, I think clause 38 is actually quite straightforward. If someone is on annual leave and they\u2019re expected to be taking annual leave but then it turns out that they\u2019ve actually become ill, they can request that, actually, they\u2019d prefer to keep their annual leave days back so they can use them at another time, because had they been working at this particular point in time, they would have been on sick leave, not annual leave. This makes it harder for an employee, at the next juncture in time, to say, \u201CActually, I\u2019d like annual leave.\u201D, when they may have run out, because they were using annual leave when they were sick. It actually allows for a little bit of flexibility about \u201CHey, had I been working this week, I probably wouldn\u2019t be on annual leave, because I\u2019m not enjoying my holiday anyway; I\u2019m sitting at home with the flu. Could I please just have that as my sick leave instead, because I will take my annual leave at a later juncture in time.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000768\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002232632704a2594ee1b96e617d06beae80\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c551a5263ba51805b52df591c4d65566\u0022\u003EHelen White\u003C/span\u003E: You can already do it, but you just have to give it to them. Now you don\u2019t.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000769\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002212b8afd3c5a2179e52861a3cbc082553\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN\u003C/span\u003E: I was just reading out parts of clause 38.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022 data-id=\u0022d7f7d71c1f6c41ccbd999dae91b1949f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000770\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d7f7d71c1f6c41ccbd999dae91b1949f\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B) (21:16)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to speak to clauses 45 through 48 about annual closedowns. Those clauses make it clear that employers may have annual closedowns, they have to give notice of them, but they can, during those closedowns, require their staff to take unpaid leave or annual leave.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000771\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ENow, that\u2019s not a new principle in the law, but my question for the Minister is: what modelling and what advice has she seen on the impacts of the annual closedown provisions on employees who now will have much less annual leave available to them, much less leave accrued, not to mention the possibility of 25\u00A0percent being cashed out, or on new employees who under the new accrual rules will have less annual leave available to them? What are the implications of these clauses for workers, under the provisions of this bill, which allow them to be forced to take annual leave or unpaid leave during annual closedowns?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022bd92c348c43b95d646f6dea81850c19b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000772\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bd92c348c43b95d646f6dea81850c19b\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (21:17)\u003C/span\u003E: In relation to some of the queries I could hear fluttering around the Chamber, in terms of the difference between the words \u201Cmust\u201D versus \u201Cmay\u201D in relation to bereavement leave and family violence leave\u2014which are phrased as \u201Cmust\u201D compared to \u201Cmay\u201D change annual leave to sick leave\u2014the \u201Cmay\u201D reflects the existing Act and provides flexibility, for example, where the employee may have run out of sick leave.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002242067e22c7a349218b3b868f58eda79d\u0022 data-id=\u0022307d9b55e52d2ef4d59e132f51127e58\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000773\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002242067e22c7a349218b3b868f58eda79d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022307d9b55e52d2ef4d59e132f51127e58\u0022\u003ERACHEL BOYACK (Labour\u2014Nelson) (21:18)\u003C/span\u003E: I do just want to follow up on that particular point with the Minister, because she was implying that this was something new coming into the Act and that, if an employee who is on annual leave becomes sick, this was a new thing and all of a sudden they could transfer it to sick leave. That\u2019s in the current Act, and it\u2019s actually a \u201Cmust\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000774\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat it means\u2014absolutely, the Minister\u2019s just responded to say that, if an employee has used up all their sick leave, they can continue on annual leave. That is what the current law says, so this is nothing new. The new piece is that the employer doesn\u2019t have to agree to it any more. What that means is that the employer can say, \u201CNo, no, you\u2019re sick. You\u2019re supposed to be in Fiji. No, no, you can be stuck at home sick on your annual leave. Good luck to you. Never mind that you\u2019ve got plenty of sick leave available.\u201D That\u2019s the change. It\u2019s moved from \u201Cmust\u201D allow that switch to \u201Cmay\u201D allow that switch. Why has the Minister done that, is our question? It\u2019s actually unfair on employees.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000775\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to come now to clauses 45 and 46, and this is around annual closedowns, and the Hon Phil Twyford has already made some contributions on this. The concern I, again, want to raise here is in relation to the use of annual leave. Clause 45(a)(iii) has a requirement that \u201C1 or more employees to take all or some of their annual leave;\u201D. Essentially, an employer can say, \u201CWe\u2019re going to have a closedown. Use all of your annual leave.\u201D What does that mean for an employee who, throughout the year, may have things come up like a child\u2019s graduation, the wedding of a sibling, or all sorts of things that would lead to somebody wanting to be able to take annual leave? This gives the opportunity for an employer to require an employee to use all of their annual leave during a closedown period. Now, that\u2019s just unreasonable. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000776\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFurthermore, the employer, under clause 46, goes on and may have different annual closedowns for different employees. What has led to this? What particular requests from employers have led to this? I\u2019ve worked in areas where I represented workers who had annual closedowns. Timber mills were a reasonably common one, and other food-processing places often did have a closedown, and, also, places like banks would often have a small closedown over public holidays, only around Christmas time. It is quite unusual to see multiple closedowns, and I\u2019d be really interested in which specific industries, with their specific roles, the Minister has considered in terms of this. I understand that my colleague here, Helen White, who\u2019s also had some experience working in these areas, has some questions around annual closedowns as well, and so I\u2019d appreciate the Minister responding to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000777\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust coming back to the Minister\u2019s response on clause 38, this is not something new. There is a limitation being placed on employees\u2019 rights in this area. The Holidays Act already allows workers to make a switch. They must be able to make a switch. The only time you wouldn\u2019t make it is in the case where there isn\u2019t sick leave available. It\u2019s not some kind of new, special thing the Minister\u2019s come up with, saying \u201CHey, have I got an idea for you!\u201D The Minister is, basically, saying that an employer can say to a person that they must continue to use their annual leave even if they\u2019re actually unwell, which is not the purpose of annual leave. I think that\u2019s appalling, actually. Thanks.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002227d19573a8ba4d8283b17374978c8ea2\u0022 data-id=\u002247e8465e4a06e6ddba3f07be6a2d05b3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000778\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002227d19573a8ba4d8283b17374978c8ea2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002247e8465e4a06e6ddba3f07be6a2d05b3\u0022\u003EGRANT McCALLUM (National\u2014Northland) (21:21)\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000779\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000780\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000781\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000782\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000783\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000784\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000785\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002270b94614955b86b4387fcda98fca18ee\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti\u2019s tabled amendments to clause 22(1) inserting \u201Cafter hours\u201D and deleting clause 22(2) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000786\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000787\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000788\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000789\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000790\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000791\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000792\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221bb2e5baa1ae4f9bf67d0bca364b3303\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the Hon Jan Tinetti\u2019s tabled amendments deleting the word \u201Cstandard\u201D from clauses 23, 31, 32, 81, 82, 83, 94, 95, and 96 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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000793\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti\u2019s tabled amendments deleting the word \u201Cstandard\u201D from clauses 23, 31, 32, 81, 82, 83, 94, 95, and 96 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000794\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000795\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000796\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000797\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000798\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000799\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000800\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022873fe713035796ef1e0bc1c9daac5b69\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti\u2019s tabled amendment inserting subclause (2) into clause 23 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000801\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000802\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000803\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000804\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000805\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000806\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000807\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c45eeff13290e28968d438ae1cf46983\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti\u2019s tabled amendments deleting clause 24(1)(c) and (2) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000808\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000809\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000810\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000811\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000812\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000813\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d3a93fbb54011c37dd2d579e95fba206\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Teanau Tuiono\u2019s tabled amendments deleting clause 24(1)(c), (2), and (3) and clause 74(1)(b), (2), and (3) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000815\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000816\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000817\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000818\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000819\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000820\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000821\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002287bb651a4d7eea47332fe11ac203bba9\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Teanau Tuiono\u2019s tabled amendment deleting clause 31(2) to be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000822\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000823\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000824\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000825\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000826\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000827\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000828\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002263ff1e0ea4d2b0c56381b40ca6e7157b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the tabled amendments from Teanau Tuiono, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, and Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March deleting clauses 33 to 37 lend themselves to being grouped. I will put a single question on them, unless members indicate that they wish to vote\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022 data-id=\u0022ea2260439db4c2cafa7e21b9cb5f7d31\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000829\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ea2260439db4c2cafa7e21b9cb5f7d31\u0022\u003ETEANAU TUIONO (Green) (21:29)\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Madam Chairperson. I would just like to get clarification from the Chair as to why those have lent themselves towards being grouped.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000830\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b11564b11bdd6011da7a1a93cf01f640\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Because they were similar in nature, and if one failed, the rest were deemed to have been not passed anyway, and so we said that we\u2019d group them\u2014unless the member felt that there was one that was specifically different.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022969ca704e47456298d6414bffa71f8f9\u0022\u003ETEANAU TUIONO\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, but speaking to the point of order, I just wanted to inquire as to what lent them to being grouped\u2014what was the commonality between those three different amendments?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000832\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eac11cd0134c74d3b6bb1e8fa5f947c6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: They formed a single alternative proposition, collectively. The member doesn\u2019t have one specific that he\u2019d like to single out\u2014no?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000833\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227def7b09246da269d7b0beb47fd88fdd\u0022\u003ETEANAU TUIONO\u003C/span\u003E: My one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000834\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222baf30174694e5cedaebe89f9c76fe06\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: We won\u2019t make that a reason.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000835\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that tabled amendments from Teanau Tuiono, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, and Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March deleting clauses 33 to 37 be agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000836\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000837\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000838\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000839\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000840\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000841\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000842\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002283003a6531e38c6e99b0dfe854f47bd2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Teanau Tuiono\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 38(2) replacing \u201Cmay\u201D with \u201Cmust\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000843\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000844\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000845\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000846\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000847\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000848\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000849\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224de3efebc73da44f703e4cf25b7cfb4f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti\u2019s tabled amendment deleting clause 43(2) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000850\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000851\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000852\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000853\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000854\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000855\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224ac7c2932ae8af6d145490467b49daea\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 51(1) replacing \u201C12\u201D and inserting paragraph (m) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000857\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000858\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000859\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000860\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000861\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000862\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000863\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226a2f2379d15954fc55aea0ff4001c72e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Teanau Tuiono\u2019s tabled amendment inserting clause 51(1)(d) and new clause 60A relating to Easter Sunday be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000864\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000865\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000866\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000867\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000868\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000869\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000870\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226a3a9048f71e73de39cf6b01c4fa6871\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Teanau Tuiono\u2019s tabled amendment deleting clause 55 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000871\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000872\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000873\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000874\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000875\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000876\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000877\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d68086969efbdaa77c8c6eea5c5a6ae1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Teanau Tuiono\u2019s tabled amendment replacing clause 63(2) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000878\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000879\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000880\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000881\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000882\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000883\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000884\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228323fe4aa3367cfbfbe760e48379c07a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, the tabled amendments from Teanau Tuiono, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, and Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March deleting clauses 67 to 71 lend themselves to being grouped. I will put a single question on them\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022 data-id=\u0022ad0910c03d3d2382bf96570782f066b8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000885\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ad0910c03d3d2382bf96570782f066b8\u0022\u003ERICARDO MEN\u00C9NDEZ MARCH (Musterer\u2014Green) (21:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Madam Chairperson. Thank you. If it\u2019s common practice that you\u2019ll outline the reasoning as to why they\u2019ve been grouped into one\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000886\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b98cfa68e02abfc25efbd035211bf65d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. It was exactly the same as\u2014let me just get the right wording here. It\u2019s because, together, they form a single alternative proposition.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u0022277bc3d2f9a7c77f078cf28419233999\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000887\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022277bc3d2f9a7c77f078cf28419233999\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (21:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order. This has been done previously in this voting session, but I understand that you\u2019re using Standing Order 315 to do this\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000888\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002214133ec5d7b0a84b38e3f6789c0d2c6a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, that\u2019s correct.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227bbdc373400477a093cd46ce8b0f4e61\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014and it\u2019s Standing Order 315(3) which allows the Chairperson, at their discretion, to put a single question on a group of amendments, but there are three preconditions to that. One is that they form the same subject matter and another is that they\u2019re necessary to enable the committee\u2019s effective consideration of the bill, but the most important one is that the amendments stand in the name of a single member.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000890\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ENow, clearly these amendments do not stand in the name of a single member, and, therefore, each amendment needs to be taken separately. These are clearly not alternative grounds for taking\u2014because if we simply had it that it\u2019s necessary to enable the committee\u2019s effective consideration of the bill as a stand-alone ground, then any number of amendments could be taken as a single question. With these three things, each of them has to be satisfied, and these amendments are not in the name of the same member and, therefore, they simply cannot be grouped.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000891\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f8ac1164444b71a00e482178426ab1c8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I understand what the member is asking, but, actually, these three paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) are not combined or consecutive. They stand alone. One of them says that the amendments stand in the name of the same member, but the other ones, and the one that I\u2019ve worked on with these ones, is that they form a single alternative proposition.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000892\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002271d7235ce1272b67182249b57bef06df\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB\u003C/span\u003E: Well, that simply cannot be the case, because if you could group any number of amendments from a single member simply because they are from a single member\u2014which is what your interpretation would have us do\u2014that would make a nonsense of the Standing Orders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002218d89e7d56bca167e282b60eb002fb90\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: No, but that wouldn\u2019t be a grouping just because something was from a single member. It would have to have\u2014if it\u2019s related to a different clause or it doesn\u2019t do the same thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000894\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022901b1f9cd4deab2604f36633f7511786\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB\u003C/span\u003E: Well, then, you are agreeing with me that we\u2019d need one, two, and three.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000895\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bf42b8755ab8cc0d7e0bf660266f69c9\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: No, I\u2019m not actually agreeing with you. I\u2019m saying that if these are combined and they form a single alternative proposition\u2014i.e., they are doing the same thing\u2014then they can be grouped. If a single member puts up propositions that didn\u2019t make a\u2014if they were making different propositions, then they wouldn\u2019t be grouped as the same thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000896\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022271930e15192d978df0c8d4c613f853e\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB\u003C/span\u003E: Well, with respect, that makes no sense, because if you can group\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000897\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226c8bc0cd922ede744a2f013ad1c8d958\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it makes sense to me, Mr Webb, and so we\u2019re going to move on and we\u2019re going to take the vote because I\u2019ve given my reasoning why we\u2019ve grouped them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000898\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002278ddcc314aa9a48a670ee5b29407627e\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to recall the Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000899\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022df98771f6048692a3a91f93dc69c8a02\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection. Thank you. The question is that the tabled\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000900\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298c1995a3396432382c4b04f94f6462f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022806cec5ae3e0e274f114a6b0f7f7abc0\u0022\u003ERicardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order\u2014sorry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000901\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002222478531a6f3392d56fe99f1107299ff\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: No, I\u2019m taking the vote now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000902\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question is that the tabled amendments from Teanau Tuiono, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, and Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March deleting clauses 67 to 71 be agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000903\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000904\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000905\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000906\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000907\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000908\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000909\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022468b7132b3cf772b156fcb1a76cecf3f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti\u2019s tabled amendment deleting clause 72(2) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000910\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000911\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000912\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000913\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000914\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000916\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b6b220687d6b8d8db23787c76c43814f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti\u2019s tabled amendment inserting subclause (2) into clause 73 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000917\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000918\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000919\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000920\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000921\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000922\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000923\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b2bb7d622a5f017c99bf4b53a5b5da18\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Teanau Tuiono\u2019s tabled amendment replacing clause 89(2)(a) with new paragraphs (a) and (aa) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000924\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000925\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000926\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000927\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000928\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000929\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000930\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002294ae2a3989e3076e3b17214252679921\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Teanau Tuiono\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 121, definition of \u201Cleave hourly rate\u201D, replacing paragraph (a)(iii)(B) to refer to \u201Cthe hourly rates payable\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000931\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000932\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000933\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000934\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000935\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000936\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000937\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b12a3a66005e0b4e721b4fd2b965b6f3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Ricardo Men\u00E9ndez March\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 121, definition of \u201Cleave hourly rate\u201D, replacing paragraph (a)(iii)(B) to refer to \u201Cthe highest hourly rates payable\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000938\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000939\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000940\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000941\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000942\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000943\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000944\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022838258a65de16641b749e24ff8e2dcd4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Teanau Tuiono\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 122 replacing subclause (4) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000945\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000946\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000947\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000948\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000949\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000950\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000951\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000952\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000953\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000954\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000955\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000956\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000957\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002209cfb4276313852decccc3156b708c3a\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000958\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022eab6fb1c5a67e070b9e39dfc6883a722\u0022\u003EPart 3 Leave records, enforcement, and other matters, and Schedules 2, 3, and 4\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229bbcac09d1396008f9d3369ea1fde3d2\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 133 to 200, \u201CLeave records, enforcement, and other matters\u201D, and Schedules 2, 3, and 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=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022 data-id=\u0022f28b4f923cabf54d9318ee687ac08b1c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000960\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f28b4f923cabf54d9318ee687ac08b1c\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (21:48)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to talk to clause 133, which is around the leave records content. The new architecture that we have in this bill requires detailed records of hour classifications, rosters, accrual, leave use, leave compensation payment, and other payments. Enforcement depends on employees being able to understand and challenge those records. This is where Labour has an issue, in that the theoretically auditable scheme is not necessarily accessible by the employee. The distinctions multiply the data an employee must verify. Workers with the least bargaining power, and that\u2019s the workers that we\u2019ve been talking about throughout the evening, are less able to contest classification. I know that this has, again, been canvassed really well throughout the departmental report, but when we look at all the different reports that have come around this bill, including the departmental disclosure statement, the regulatory impact statement, and the departmental report, we have some questions around this particular part of it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000961\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ELet\u2019s start with the departmental disclosure statement. It says that the benefits depend on effective compliance and regular effort. My question with that is: what quantified advice did the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety receive on the additional inspector fulltime-equivalent payroll expertise that would be needed for this, and what funding would be required around that? Because it doesn\u2019t kind of go into that anywhere, and to understand this particular clause well, it would be useful to understand what we need additionally, with the inspectorate, what payroll expertise would be needed as part of that inspectorate, and the extra funding that would be required, if any.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022 data-id=\u00222f825b40accba942da6b509a8560f053\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000962\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222f825b40accba942da6b509a8560f053\u0022\u003EHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (21:51)\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. Earlier, my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb sought to recall the Speaker in a bid to get a ruling on what, I think is fair to say, was a fair bit of confusion regarding a statement that the Speaker made to the House a couple of sitting weeks ago.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000963\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAt the time, a point of order was raised, and a discussion was held, and at that point, it was made clear by the Speaker that this was not a new ruling, and that it was a clear guidance to the House as to how he intended existing Standing Orders to be interpreted. It is entirely appropriate, when there is confusion and clarity sought, for the Speaker to be recalled, and it is a long-standing convention in this House that when a Speaker be called, particularly for legitimate reasons, that that be allowed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000964\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, the point of order has two elements to it: one, that motion should have been taken as a motion, not as leave, and it should have been voted on. And so, the Government parties, if they wish to break that convention, should be on record as voting against it; secondly, I\u2019m very conscious that it is eight minutes to when the House is due to rise for the evening, so I do not intend to move that motion now, but I will do so tomorrow when the committee of the whole House stage continues in a bid to be able to finally get some clarity from the Speaker as to how these amendments are to be grouped so that we all know exactly what we\u2019re dealing with and we can move forward.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000965\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228d67e68068710bbbb1bae5893dd0d14a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I will take that request to the Speaker and inform him that that\u2019s what you\u2019re intending to do in the morning in the intention of getting some clarity from him.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022 data-id=\u00223d3b5d7a5868b547a5dc55b9ae6003db\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000966\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223d3b5d7a5868b547a5dc55b9ae6003db\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B) (21:53)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. The theory behind clauses 133 onwards is that this fearsome list of records that employers are required to keep is, at least notionally, able to be understood, audited, information-gathered, and then used by employees to contest a classification or a decision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000967\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019d like to know, given that the Law Society in their submission identified significant complexity in these provisions, whether or not there was any user testing done to test the idea that employees could actually use the data that employers are required to keep in their records under these provisions. If there wasn\u2019t any user testing done to see whether it is actually feasible and practical that someone could use this information to challenge a decision, why should we accept that the new record obligations, as complex as they are, won\u2019t lead to another kind of chapter of systemic problems that the Holidays Act suffered from?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000968\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002240e79234033995b585869c5dd5d534db\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: This debate is interrupted and the time has come to suspend the House, which will resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000969\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EDebate interrupted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000970\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterItalicsCentred\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 9.55 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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000971\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00225d368ad21e0448ea5ce0f2b16d22de3f\u0022\u003EExtended Sitting\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000972\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00228b4fed3b122248ec48afde4d53aa9706\u0022\u003EWednesday, 29 July 2026\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000973\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002207d45f70ca8767632b1135810f9b955d\u0022\u003ESpeaker\u0027s Rulings\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000974\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00223dafddc90f3bb2246e84b6d0732cf83b\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u2014Grouping of Amendments\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f685876122e37007514d64ed1c0f0db1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Good morning, members. Welcome back to the committee stage of the Employment Leave Bill. Before I give the call, I\u2019d like to clarify a ruling that I made last night about the grouping of amendments. I\u2019ve had time to reflect on the decision to group amendments in the name of two Green Party members\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000976\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220a1fed6971b31d0a38fb9d432e777990\u0022\u003ETeanau Tuiono\u003C/span\u003E: Three.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000977\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db8fb74425acdbef21f15894776a661b\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014actually, I think there were three; there were three Green Party members\u2014under Standing Order 315(3). This gives the Chairperson discretion to group amendments if conditions set out in paragraphs (a) to (c) are met.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000978\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe conditions are: \u201Cthe amendments stand in the name of the same member:\u201D, \u201Cthe amendments lend themselves to being grouped on account of their content or subject matter, or they form a single alternative proposition:\u201D, \u201Cgrouping of the amendments is necessary to enable the committee\u2019s effective consideration of the bill.\u201D On reflection, and after considering the points made by members last night on the issue, it is clear now that all three conditions must be met to allow grouping, rather than just one or two conditions. This is the correct interpretation of the Standing Orders based on the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EStanding Orders Review Report\u003C/span\u003E of 2011 and chapter 38 of \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EParliamentary Practice in New Zealand\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000979\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn addition, I\u2019d like to remind members that it is a longstanding custom of the House that members agree to a motion to recall the Speaker to rule on a disputed matter of procedure. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000980\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022957fad804b5a31cd70431a1889295bc2\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I want to thank you for that clarification. It is clear that whilst it is a Standing Order that has been in place for some time, it is not one that has been used often\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000981\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fd74a828f55f1087b01a6173ab52256f\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, that\u2019s right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000982\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224e2741fcd530de02920db98d3ed3018b\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014and it is entirely understandable that as we work through this new approach, that there be a few wobbles, so we certainly don\u2019t criticise presiding officers for that and recognise the reflection that you\u2019ve placed on that and the clarification that you have provided.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000983\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022adc40f48cb19bc9fd4262cc25c038375\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ed703eb87fc25bb182377a0bc936aa42\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Last night I indicated that it was our intention to recall the Speaker, not to relitigate, but to provide clarity for the entire House\u2019s benefit, because we want to ensure that everybody knows the conditions under which the committee stage and amendments would be considered, keeping in mind that the Chair\u2019s statement was just as relevant to Government amendments submitted late as it was to Opposition amendments to change the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000985\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ENotwithstanding your clarification there, it is still my intention to seek that clarity from the Chair. Having said that\u2014given the detailed clarification that you\u2019ve provided\u2014keeping in mind that this is relatively new territory, it seems to me, listening to the statement you\u2019ve just made, that warrants a new Speaker\u2019s ruling. If I could in the first instance get clarification from you, perhaps after referring with the clerks, that it would be considered such and included in \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003ESpeakers\u2019 Rulings \u003C/span\u003Emoving forward, then there probably is no need to recall the Speaker. If we\u2019re not in a position to provide that at this point, it\u2019s still my view that it would be best\u2014in no way at all undermining you\u2014to provide the clarity that the committee quite clearly needs. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000986\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022578078259d6ec133b0ad59394801458e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. I\u2019m happy to make that a new Speaker\u2019s ruling. A colon made a big difference and that\u2019s where the misinterpretation was created and so very happy to make that a new Speaker\u2019s ruling.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000987\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f26749b71d7b73bd95a7707c08b7dbe7\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you for the clarification. On that basis, there\u2019s no need to recall the Speaker. I believe the committee has the clarity that it sought.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000988\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224d5622792faff2567dce9f494da4f59a\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. There was one other matter, last night, around the issue of any attempt to recall the Speaker, even having leave refused or a vote to turn down, so that makes it very difficult for any Opposition to recall the Speaker. I\u2019m very happy to go away and ask the Speaker to clarify that because it\u2019s not much point having an option if nobody can ever\u2014it doesn\u2019t matter what side of the House people come from; everyone\u2019s in Opposition at some time, and it\u2019s not a satisfactory arrangement that that can happen, so we need to clarify that as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000989\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224fe57140595f93932e21b6fcf0c33a25\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to that\u2014thank you, Madam Chair. That would be useful. It is a longstanding convention and I can think of one instance so far in this Parliament where it has been voted down. We didn\u2019t pursue it at the time but certainly, in an instance like this where it is quite clear that it is a genuine attempt to seek clarity, it was disappointing that that wasn\u2019t followed through and the convention wasn\u2019t followed. I can think of one instance in the previous Parliament where that was the case, and on reflection there was, I believe, an apology given because the wrong decision was made at the time. It would be good to get that clarity so that convention is followed. It\u2019s a convention because it isn\u2019t a Speaker\u2019s ruling, and it isn\u2019t a Speaker\u2019s ruling because we don\u2019t want it abused at the other end, either.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000990\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022596652fdcf6e542ce2dd779674c6adff\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, yes, and it\u2019s pointless if it\u2019s not possible.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000991\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b27d6090c07e47fb960e52f168ce01b3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223530113230315bc12c232d2e76e41d31\u0022\u003EHon Kieran McAnulty\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, correct. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000992\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00225894a9b4f3637ae668781c67379b7f3b\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000993\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022558bfac33c1300e5db57acbad06b79c2\u0022\u003EEmployment Leave Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000994\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a3064faf35c8ba30ad9fe69fe04174a8\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000995\u0022\u003EDebate resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000996\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u002213a1194e47862b34bc6c43ce62cb4f65\u0022\u003EPart 3 Leave records, enforcement, and other matters, and Schedules 2, 3, and 4 (continued)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000997\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ef1957267df7a085029de957d4ac2c47\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: OK, thank you. Members, when we suspended last evening, we were considering the Employment Leave Bill and we were debating Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 133 to 200\u2014\u201CLeave records, enforcement, and other matters\u201D\u2014and Schedules 2, 3, and 4. The question is that Part 3 stand part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000998\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EJust before I take a call, last night, I found in Part 2 we were getting lots of speeches and not so many questions, so I\u2019m really looking forward to your questions on Part 3. Thank you. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022 data-id=\u00228d5d2f144ea9b99e5bb551bbcd7e5eff\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760000999\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228d5d2f144ea9b99e5bb551bbcd7e5eff\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (09:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Madam Chair. I just want to highlight the questions that were asked right at the end last night and we didn\u2019t have an opportunity to hear those answers from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. One from myself is: what quantified advice did the Minister receive on additional resourcing for the inspectorate, their payroll expertise, and the funding required, because that was something that we felt was very important to this particular part. The other question, I believe, came from my colleague the Hon Phil Twyford, around what the Law Society had identified as the complexity in clauses 133 and 140, and what employee user testing shows the worker can order hours, classifications, notional rosters, accruals, payments, and the leave compensation payment from the prescribed records. I hope I got that right\u2014that was me just clarifying a little bit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001000\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002248bf76e7afa25822fcfe13750ae98b56\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: It sounded good to me. I was here last night.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u00221b916ee829c0f7d3fc02525542045007\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221b916ee829c0f7d3fc02525542045007\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (09:07)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Happy to make a start this morning. In response to Jan Tinetti\u2019s queries about clause 133, about the record keeping requirements and the Labour Inspectorate, the priority while creating this bill was to give simplicity while ensuring employers keep information needed to demonstrate their compliance with the law. This overall will make it easier for the labour inspectors to carry out their core work, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment will have guidance on hand to support the labour inspectors. The Holidays Act being the current law has created a lot of work for the Labour Inspectorate through its complexity, and so a simpler system will help.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001002\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe Hon Phil Twyford asked last night about how we can be sure that employees can understand and use the record keeping requirements, and the first goal of the requirements under this law is to ensure that employers keep the information that they need to be able to show their compliance, while the bill itself creates a new requirement for employers to give a pay statement every pay period which must include key information employees need to understand and track their leave entitlements. I see that as a great improvement over the current law; that all employees will actually have access to their own leave pay statements.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022 data-id=\u00225e400cdf2ec29794354e386e03e15c74\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225e400cdf2ec29794354e386e03e15c74\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (09:08)\u003C/span\u003E: Just quickly following up, then, on that: what advice did the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety receive, if any, on reversing the evidential burden where an employer fails to keep accurate records, because I think ensuring that is a pretty important part of this. There is something else that comes in this particular part or subpart that I think is really important and that is what is disclosed on the pay statement, so will every pay statement disclose each hour category, it\u2019s leave consequence, the leave compensation payment rate, and the notional roster used, because I think, again, this is where we need some clarity around that from this particular part. If not, how can the right be enforced in practice? If that\u2019s not the case that it\u2019s going to be on there, how is that enforcement going to look in practice? There\u2019s two questions there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022 data-id=\u00221e33874de589849df4f98bdb139ad805\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221e33874de589849df4f98bdb139ad805\u0022\u003ETEANAU TUIONO (Green) (09:10)\u003C/span\u003E: I am interested in how the notional roster will work, and I was wondering if the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety could step us through that. It is a new part that has been introduced into this legislation, and I know that that will create the need for new processes. I was wondering if the Minister could step us through in terms of the way that those records\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221815ac438d1989ad96380a42606d9113\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Could the member just quote the clause number, for my purposes? Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fa7871723d19d49de630d32e51fa1509\u0022\u003ETEANAU TUIONO\u003C/span\u003E: Clause 133, \u201CLeave records:\u201D. With the notional roster, which is the new element introduced in an earlier part\u2014that should form part of the leave record. I\u2019m not too sure how that would play out, so getting some clarity around that would be good, and also a bit more detail on how the Labour Inspectorate will be resourced as well. We did have a bit of a discussion in a previous part around concerns that if you\u2019re going to have, for example, multi-role agreements and a number of different agreements at particular worksites, well then that can create a burden, particularly if there\u2019s a dispute between employers and employees. Because of that, that could create extra burden, so what work, what analysis, has the Minister done with officials to determine whether the resourcing is actually even there to comply with that? If I could get some answers to that, that would be good.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u002279cff05a8817a03ed46d0a0834b98370\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002279cff05a8817a03ed46d0a0834b98370\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (09:11)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, look, very happy to take that last part. I believe I have touched on the essence of part of the last portion of that contribution in response to Jan Tinetti, in regards to the fact that the bill itself will simplify the law and therefore it will actually make the job of the Labour Inspectorate easier than the current status quo.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EBut in regards to the specificity of the questions from both members regarding the notional roster as well as what\u2019s specifically on the leave form, I will wait for the advice from officials.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022 data-id=\u0022987494b8bc5f77ab0f920c925269b6bd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022987494b8bc5f77ab0f920c925269b6bd\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (09:12)\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry about that. I was just looking for the particular part, and it was one that had come up in the submissions that we heard at the Education and Workforce Committee. I think that it specifically is in relationship to clause 136(3). I\u2019m trying to keep this very short here, but I just want to put a tiny bit of context around it so that we understand where the question is coming from. The Law Society considered that the intent of clause 136(3) was unclear and recommended clarifying in the bill whether this is intended to bar an application for non-party disclosure under section 24 of the Criminal Disclosure Act 2008. They considered, as drafted, that where the defendant is seeking disclosure of family violence, it would have a negative effect, and I note that the select committee recommended the changes to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EThe question that I had when I read through those changes: is the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety comfortable that this addresses those issues? I remember at the time thinking that this could have quite a big impact, so I just want to know that the Minister is\u2014and why the Minister feels that this particular change that has been made is going to address the concerns that came through from the Law Society. Probably a pretty simple question, but just thought we\u2019d put that in there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022733bb21ee4e16cb35c75bc96bad2dbc6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022733bb21ee4e16cb35c75bc96bad2dbc6\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (09:14)\u003C/span\u003E: Look, happy to take that last portion in regards to clause 136, and I acknowledge the Education and Workforce Committee did make a change to the law here in regards to the requests for access to leave records, to make it clearer that an employer may only provide a representative of the union access to an employee\u2019s leave records if the employee has authorised them to do so. I think that\u2019s the point that the member is raising\u2014that it\u2019s quite important, where you have quite sensitive information that you may not wish other people to have in their possession, that it is actually up to the employee to give authorisation. I am comfortable with where this has landed, especially because this clause does not affect any obligation on an employer to disclose information as required under the Criminal Disclosure Act. I thank the member for that contribution.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe member also asked what enforcement looks like in practice if records aren\u2019t kept. The bill provides for a graduated enforcement approach. It does create an infringement offence, which could be used by the labour inspectors as a spot fine if records cannot be produced. The member also asked whether or not we\u2019d considered reversing the evidential burden where improper records are kept. The bill retains the status quo, where employers are liable for a penalty if improper records are kept\u2014so nothing controversial there in terms of keeping parts of the current law in the future law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETeanau Tuiono asked for a little bit more information about the Labour Inspectorate resourcing. I am quite confident that the Labour Inspectorate is well resourced. As always, though, they do prioritise their interventions based on potential for harm. Under this Government, the member may wish to note that we have actually increased the resourcing for the Labour Inspectorate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022 data-id=\u0022af5196830c8d6d8e872cd65f3a4b1d78\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022af5196830c8d6d8e872cd65f3a4b1d78\u0022\u003ETEANAU TUIONO (Green) (09:16)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. If I can draw the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety\u2019s attention to clause 134, \u201CLeave records: form\u201D, and I did note the Minister was talking\u2014and I think it\u2019s a good point that, actually, these records must be in good nick and be easy to access so that people can make the determination about what was agreed to and what wasn\u2019t agreed to. But I was wondering about some more context around clause 134(1)(b). In (a), it\u2019s: \u201CThe leave record must be kept in written form;\u201D\u2014that\u2019s fairly standard. Remember the 1980s and \u201990s\u2014that was the only kind of way that you would have your leave record kept. But at (b), it goes, \u201Cin a form or in a manner that allows the information in the record to be easily accessed\u201D\u2014which is good\u2014\u201Cand converted into written form.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI was wondering, in this digital age, where you have employers and employees texting each other, if you will, whether that extends to text messages, whether that extends to screenshots of chats, etc., etc. I think it\u2019s an important thing to note, because if it ends up becoming in the middle of a disagreement between employers and employees, that could be an important thing to point to, well, actually, what was agreed to, particularly if they\u2019re potentially discussing the bits and pieces of a notional roster and you\u2019ve got an employee who thinks, \u201CWell, actually, I\u2019ve got three standard hours\u201D\u2014in the case of the retail work that we\u2019ve been talking about last night\u2014\u201Cbut, actually, I should have 20 hours, because that is the recognised working pattern.\u201D Perhaps the only way that they could get that agreement is via this text message or via this screenshot as well. If the Minister could help us to understand what that particular bit means in the context of the digital age, that would be good.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022a1a07bc73aa8051eabd7170f98713475\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a1a07bc73aa8051eabd7170f98713475\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (09:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019m happy to give this one a go. Look, clause 134 is talking about leave records being kept in either a written form or in a form or in a manner that allows the information in the record to be easily accessed and converted into a written form. I think the essence behind this clause, really, is about access to information. You\u2019re right: in the old days, I think people might have done a lot of their time keeping by hand. Nowadays, a lot of that is modernised and put on different systems. It\u2019s allowing for the flexibility of being able to convert what can be quite complex calculations, really, into being able to write them down. It\u2019s just allowing for flexibility in the modern age.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022798c55587ef6f4ac160dd785f6db252d\u0022\u003ETeanau Tuiono\u003C/span\u003E: Just to\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c56fcd5334945962d751bf1bd6d4d274\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, looking at your face, you\u2019re looking for a clarification?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022 data-id=\u0022e317bc1b016f0cf90bfd373b377f9015\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e317bc1b016f0cf90bfd373b377f9015\u0022\u003ETEANAU TUIONO (Green) (09:19)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, yeah. Because if you follow down to the \u201CLeave records: retention\u201D bit, I\u2019m just sort of\u2014AI (artificial intelligence) data centres are on the mind, Madam Chair. I was looking at being able to \u201Ckeep information that is in a leave record for not less than six years after the date on which the information is entered\u201D. What would be the acceptable forms, in terms of that retention of data, given that that data is so easily deleted\u2014you know, you unplug the wrong thing and the next thing you know, it\u2019s gone! I\u2019m wondering about the impact of that, given the limitations of digital data storage, and I was just wondering if the Minister could give us a bit more information on that aspect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224b396faf9edf222fe7221ab7bb428933\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister is just asking which clause you\u2019re referring to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002282d627385f43d437afbc0dd84321d43a\u0022\u003ETEANAU TUIONO\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s clause 135, \u201CLeave records: retention\u201D. Clause 135(1) states, \u201CAn employer must keep information that is in a leave record for not less than six years after the date on which the information is entered.\u201D It\u2019s fine if it\u2019s on some paper\u2014you could put it into a filing cabinet\u2014but if it\u2019s sitting on a USB or on a computer and then that computer gets lost or plugged into the cloud somewhere and there\u2019s some kind of issue because there\u2019s not enough water to keep the data centre cool, that could become a problem. I was wondering if the Minister has done any analysis on that particular aspect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022850f17733bebe2e690d95edc0fe093d1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022850f17733bebe2e690d95edc0fe093d1\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (09:21)\u003C/span\u003E: Look, I haven\u2019t done any specific analysis on data storage in relation to this bill, but I think the important point is that it is a legal obligation for companies, not just with the Holidays Act but with a range of different compliance standards under the law, to keep accurate records for a period of time. For this particular law in particular, it becomes quite clear that, if there has been an issue of non-compliance, this allows a period of time for those records to be looked at and to be analysed to ensure that they have actually complied with the law. It is up to companies how they, ultimately, store their own data or whether or not they do still wish to do it in traditional filing cabinets in the HR department.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022 data-id=\u0022e36cbbda2241c07df3ea9931e4a8a563\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e36cbbda2241c07df3ea9931e4a8a563\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (09:21)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to move to clauses 152 to 158 and Schedule 3, which covers regulations and historical remediation, noting that I\u2019m not sure where my colleague is moving to over there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229981426066eb55840e270e49b10270e4\u0022\u003ETeanau Tuiono\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m following you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221892ce64800c9a170e1bef9932986285\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah! So\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002219f03ffa4996040db97ae95e9bc2f028\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s OK; I can work with that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002255b8c1165d62c9477461d5021e0f1d58\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, OK, great. The issue around this particular part is that employers may opt into a regulation-based process to settle historical Holidays Act liabilities. The Government has said that it\u2019s optional and that the standardised process offers employees faster payment and employers legal certainty. We see that the committee safeguards are improvements that came through in this particular area, but they do not\u2014and this is the concern that we have on this side\u2014answer the constitutional and fairness concerns. We particularly noted again, and I know that this has come up a few times from the submission, that the Law Society said that the substantive process lacks transparency and retrospective rules may affect settled expectations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EOn that note, then, what constitutional advice, if any advice, did the Minister receive on delegating the calculation method while asking Parliament now to authorise that extinguishment? I\u2019m trying to keep this short, so I hope there\u2019s enough context around that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022908fdea3ca1f3fa2839ff468b4ba8422\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022908fdea3ca1f3fa2839ff468b4ba8422\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (09:23)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. While I wait for specific advice on that query, I will touch on Teanau Tuiono\u2019s query in greater length about the information that needs to be kept for the six years. Interestingly enough, this is a carryover from the status quo in the Holidays Act. It is required under the law for information to be kept in any form. The Contract and Commercial Law Act defines written form as including electronic means. However, the onus is always on the employer to keep the information for six years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022 data-id=\u0022c4f1fceaff84d6add54e235dc9e68902\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c4f1fceaff84d6add54e235dc9e68902\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (09:24)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. In carrying on in the same vein, I\u2019m going to keep it to one question at a time, again, to keep it short but also to give the Minister the time to get the answers to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe departmental disclosure statement says that the remediation design was not covered in detail by the regulatory impact statement and was exempt because it was developed under the delegated authority. I\u2019m looking for how comfortable the Minister feels that the Parliament can assess proportionality when the core methodology has had no published regulatory impact analysis. That is something that stood out for a couple of the submitters, and also me, around this when we were looking at this in depth, around the fact that we hadn\u2019t had that regulatory analysis around that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to make sure of how the Minister has assessed how Parliament can assess that proportionality, because we didn\u2019t have that regulatory impact over the core methodology. I hope, again, there\u2019s enough context. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022901aef8354232946469bf84198a78c46\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022901aef8354232946469bf84198a78c46\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (09:25)\u003C/span\u003E: Could I ask for a little bit of clarity. Is this in regards to clause 156?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d113ec3dcf24d55ce9bba71edbc982c9\u0022\u003EHon Jan Tinetti\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. Just let me go to that\u2014yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002220451f942db9e06085926455c55e7dcc\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN\u003C/span\u003E: Great. I\u2019ll do my best to help the member through this part. The regulations that could be produced for a remediation process have not yet been made. There would not be anything for any regulatory impact statement to analyse yet, because nothing has actually been done from my side, as the Minister, and not from the official side either.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ENow, once the law itself has passed, I\u2019m very hopeful that the regulations will be made with a lot of fulsome detail, but, unfortunately, we don\u2019t have that information at hand yet. However, the point to really note is that the remediation process set out in clause 156 doesn\u2019t exist unless a remediation process is actually made, and, at this point in time, there is not yet one. This is simply allowing for one to be made in future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a4300df69f1420d168533d0025077787\u0022\u003ETeanau Tuiono\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220ffee2efb00f89ce9c748e2c09d917ab\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Just in time, Mr Tuiono.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022 data-id=\u0022db36492018a1b2942336eb7e9a1f4225\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022db36492018a1b2942336eb7e9a1f4225\u0022\u003ETEANAU TUIONO (Green) (09:27)\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s a slow morning, Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d6cc897ee59acf17a4a3c67d79816d98\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: I was just about to take a vote, so you\u2019re very lucky.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002245a201de350405ff40aa944a6981ab3d\u0022\u003ETEANAU TUIONO\u003C/span\u003E: I was just thinking about what the Minister was saying around the record keeping as well, and I wanted to know what those changes mean in terms of the digital storage aspect, in terms of notional rosters.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt seems to me, with this as a new element, that that can create\u2014let\u2019s say there\u2019s a dispute between an employer and an employee around exactly what the conditions are around a notional roster. It would seem to me that, in order for the labour inspector to really get a very clear picture of what was agreed, they would need to look at digital records, both from the employer and the employee, to actually confirm what was actually agreed to be in that leave record.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is a new aspect which was introduced in this legislation, so I\u2019m wondering, in terms of the retention of those leave records, is it just what they believe they agreed on or does it cover the communications following up to the agreements, which would give a clearer picture of what was agreed on?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo there\u2019s two things, really, to get a clear picture of what that notional roster would look like in terms of digital storage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u002210acb13a1dd0cfe91853b16108f320a7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002210acb13a1dd0cfe91853b16108f320a7\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (09:28)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. In further regard to the query from Jan Tinetti about the remediation process and what constitutional advice I received about the regulations, I did receive advice from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment on the appropriate ways to design legislation. Importantly, though, the primary legislation is used to authorise the legal effect on employees\u2019 claims under the Holidays Act. I\u2019m satisfied it is appropriate to use regulations to set out the technical calculations. As I acknowledged before, those technical calculations have yet to be written.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022 data-id=\u00223427b0b8bf0df3314932b3beb873d28a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223427b0b8bf0df3314932b3beb873d28a\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B) (09:29)\u003C/span\u003E: Further on the remediation process, it\u2019s obviously very difficult to scrutinise that properly, given that it\u2019s yet to be drafted or presented to the Parliament, but what we do know is that the proposed framework won\u2019t require the consent of workers, it may extinguish some workers\u2019 ability to claim, and it may permanently suspend claims that are before the authority.  So, in light of that, I\u2019m interested in what advice the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety received about the extent to which that may be in conflict with the right to justice provisions under the New Zealand Bill of Rights.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019m also mindful, as the Council of Trade Unions submitted at the committee, that workers under these provisions may receive less than their legal entitlement, and that in fact may happen in a situation where they are not even contacted. That\u2019s a potential scenario. I suppose the question is: what evidence justifies extinguishing an employee\u2019s own chosen course of action without their agreement?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022dfd900c2708dc6fd3017ea488a48a43c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dfd900c2708dc6fd3017ea488a48a43c\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (09:31)\u003C/span\u003E: In follow-up to the Hon Jan Tinetti\u2019s contribution about the proportionality of the remediation process, there are safeguards built into the law. The Minister must have regard to data from remediations and must consult with employer and employee representatives before making the regulations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022 data-id=\u002227facba275c8da45fae29f45d845ff71\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002227facba275c8da45fae29f45d845ff71\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (09:31)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Actually, not in relation to the answer to that one but the answer from the previous question around the draft regulations on the remediation process not having their impact analysis\u2014and I totally understand that because it hasn\u2019t been written, you haven\u2019t been able to do the regulatory impact statement. Is there a commitment that there will be a full impact analysis on that, and also, so that people understand it, will there be worked employee examples, so that particularly employees will understand what it might look like for them\u2014and, at some stage, maybe, referring even to a select committee before an employer may opt in? At the moment, we haven\u2019t seen that, we can\u2019t see it, and that\u2019s where there\u2019s a little bit of a bone of contention, and it came through from some submitters as well. On this side of the House, we do have a level of discomfort at the moment because we can\u2019t see it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u002227f4ff87140321bbaa232a62c93f3a61\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002227f4ff87140321bbaa232a62c93f3a61\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (09:32)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. In relation to the Hon Phil Twyford\u2019s contribution about the remediation process and whether or not it\u2019s in conflict with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the Minister must be satisfied that the remediation process will result in reasonable compensation. It is put into the law. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) vet identified no inconsistencies with the BORA in the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022 data-id=\u0022812942d7ad0ddbc9037a3d44263e4aaa\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022812942d7ad0ddbc9037a3d44263e4aaa\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B) (09:33)\u003C/span\u003E: Why is it, Minister, that only the employer is given the ability to elect the remediation process? Why not the other party in a dispute\u2014the employee?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u00229245b4d8eac0d66c1773a550064216fb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229245b4d8eac0d66c1773a550064216fb\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (09:33)\u003C/span\u003E: In regard to Teanau Tuiono\u2019s earlier contribution about the record-keeping changes and what that means in terms of the digital storage of the notional roster in particular, clause 9 provides that notional rosters must be agreed in writing when entering an employment agreement. Writing extends to digital form. They must be kept up to date, and therefore they must always be on record for use during employment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022 data-id=\u0022cd460293f3691a948ae9ee5490e746bf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cd460293f3691a948ae9ee5490e746bf\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (09:34)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just probably my final question on this particular part\u2014although I do have some questions after that, but not many. In this particular part, during our submissions, there was\u2014and I have gone back and had a really good look at them, around the Council of Trade Unions and the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, who warned that workers may receive less than their legal entitlement or may never be contacted about that. I\u2019m quite interested to know what evidence supports reasonable compensation rather than full legal entitlement\u2014as it says there\u2014and what expected underpayment range was modelled. That\u2019s what we, again, have a level of discomfort about because we don\u2019t know what was actually modelled in that expected underpayment range. So, very quickly, my last question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022e0714ce22f420bfc1d55b6269e257c88\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e0714ce22f420bfc1d55b6269e257c88\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (09:35)\u003C/span\u003E: While I wait for some very specific advice from officials, I will tick off what I think is the high-level concern that the member has, which is that the Minister does need to be satisfied that the remediation process will result in reasonable compensation before signing off these regulations under the law. Importantly, through the detail where we work to find out the specific detailed calculations that could make up a remediation process, the Minister must have regard to data from remediations. I guess that means that remediations of the past that have occurred in practice or are real-world examples\u2014so it\u2019s not that the Minister just picks a number and says, \u201CThis is what I believe to be reasonable compensation.\u201D It will actually be based around previous and historic remediation cases, which shows there has been a level of satisfaction from both parties in previous real-life examples and that people have actually been comfortable with where reasonable compensation has landed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022 data-id=\u0022191927d6e64ff3109cd1bc6ebb5bbb40\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cdfceb3207b43e8a21b346f9376ddc7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022191927d6e64ff3109cd1bc6ebb5bbb40\u0022\u003ETEANAU TUIONO (Green) (09:36)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, I just wanted to sort of check with the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety\u2014if I heard it correctly\u2014that this bill is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and if it is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, there was the other question around whether an impact assessment could be done, because we don\u2019t know what the outcomes of this whole bill are.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe satisfaction for this bill being compliant with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, on the face of it, might be evident right now, but without an impact analysis to determine the actual impacts of this on workers, I think is an important point to make because, as has been reported in the media, there are reports out there that this will negatively impact 200,000 workers. If 200,000 workers are losing holiday pay, the ability to take sick leave or bereavement etc., etc., etc., I think that warrants an analysis to be done to make sure that this is actually compliant.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat I\u2019m saying is, it\u2019s important to give it another look. If it\u2019s correct, that is an incredibly large number of people, and having that analysis to check to see whether those numbers are actually correct, I think would be due diligence. I think that\u2019s an important point that was made by my colleagues just to the side of me as well, and I think that it would be good to get some commitment from the Minister that that will happen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022b7f330879028e8816b7aaa04e7d9fb0f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b7f330879028e8816b7aaa04e7d9fb0f\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (09:38)\u003C/span\u003E: In regard to the contribution from the Hon Phil Twyford, he asked about what evidence justified removing an employee\u2019s chosen course of action, as opposed to the employer\u2019s chosen course of action. The objective of the new legislation process is to provide a faster way for all parties to achieve certainty. I\u2019m sure the member will be aware that there are a number of cases that have happened. I won\u2019t go into detail on them, but there are a number of cases where people are still waiting to be paid because the remediation process has become so lengthy and drawn out and has taken such a long number of years. I certainly hope the member would appreciate that I\u2019m sure some members of the community who have been underpaid and are waiting for remediation would be very happy for a faster process to happen so they can get the money back that they are due. Allowing claims to be made under the Holidays Act, though, in parallel with the remediation process here, would create uncertainty\u2014and potentially for quite an extended period of time. Reasonable compensation under this law must be payable under the legislative process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fd2c9c3aa7974099bfcaac8ea7452994\u0022 data-id=\u0022365d299b7d6873cc6adaaca59982c139\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fd2c9c3aa7974099bfcaac8ea7452994\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022365d299b7d6873cc6adaaca59982c139\u0022\u003EHon JENNY SALESA (Labour\u2014Panmure-\u014Ct\u0101huhu) (09:39)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019d like to ask a question about clause 137, which is about the consequences of record-keeping failures. This clause seems to shift some of the practical burdens created by an employer\u2019s own record-keeping failures back on to the employer. However, this seems to depend on the authority exercising discretion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve got a couple of questions for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. The first: can the Minister explain why clause 137 gives the authority only a discretion to accept an employee\u2019s statement rather than a presumption in the employee\u2019s favour where it is the employer who has failed to keep the record in the first place? Supplementary to that question: isn\u2019t it perverse that an employer who fails to keep the proposed records\u2014the very failure that has caused, I believe in the health sector, for example, millions of dollars to the taxpayer\u2014why is it that, at most, the penalty seems to be about a $10,000 or $20,000 penalty as any other technical breach?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022227339e6658fa64c3d330ddc1468dbc6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022227339e6658fa64c3d330ddc1468dbc6\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (09:40)\u003C/span\u003E: In relation to the Hon Phil Twyford\u2019s contribution asking why the employer is given the ability to elect the remediation process: the process is intended to provide employers the option to address historical underpayments moving into the new law. Enabling employees to elect to use it could create complexity for employers where different employees may opt for different approaches.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ecbf3fe3999a5a16e437ecc17591d84e\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Jan Tinetti. I think we\u2019re pretty much on the\u2014you indicated before that you were pretty much at the end of this Part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022 data-id=\u0022bee5c50acc15d9cc64102fe5309f0494\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bee5c50acc15d9cc64102fe5309f0494\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (09:41)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah. I\u2019m not quite at the end of the Part but at the end of that\u2014but I want to move on\u2014but I\u2019m not trying to prolong this, Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f324f66bee4405db996d33230cfbd9f3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, I recognise that. I just think there\u2019s a good opportunity now, just for you as the spokesperson, to clarify anything left that have on this part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f10e5df461197859a48b4901ff1c56d3\u0022\u003EHon JAN TINETTI\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. Absolutely, Madam Chair, and I really only have another couple. I know my colleague here has a couple about the transition to the new Act, but I wanted to talk about, in just a couple of questions, clauses 159 to 185A, which is the consequential amendments and the restructuring of parental leave.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe think that the reported safeguards here are useful; however, employee entitlement must not depend on a private allocation dispute between old and new employers. Complexity from separate roles in hour categories will be amplified during the restructuring. I\u2019ve just got one question at this stage and, depending on the answer that comes from that, I may have a follow up question. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe departmental disclosure statement notes the transfer of personal leave information between employers in restructuring, and what I would like to ask is: what advice was received on data minimisation, particularly family violence information? That is something that we\u2019re quite keen to hear about. We had a bit of a discussion around this, that this could be a potential issue if that had not been thought about, so we do want to understand what the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety was basing this on around that data minimisation and, as I say, particularly in that family violence area\u2014being such a sensitive area that it is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022c609430e399a09223374fd322f28f7f5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c609430e399a09223374fd322f28f7f5\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (09:43)\u003C/span\u003E: Could I ask the member, is that in relation to any one specific clause?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc5df856d19845fdaba4418087cd3bba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002214eb72fe21c064dafe137933789c56ec\u0022\u003EHon Jan Tinetti\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s in relation to all that comes through there in all of those particular clauses. We grouped them into clauses 159 to 185A, and just really talking about that transfer of the personal leave information between employers in the restructuring process which comes into there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b9e42719447561ba6cbbfe95800cb76c\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN\u003C/span\u003E: Right. Yes. So the member is correct that some information needs to be disclosed between an employer and a new employer if there has been a transfer within the ownership of the company to determine liability for costs of entitlements that would be recognised by a new employer. I think everyone would recognise that that does need to happen in order to have a transition and people can still get paid and still have their entitlements paid out. It also helps to recognise some of the specified entitlements that an effective employee has accrued or may have become entitled to or not taken.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIt would be quite difficult, I think, on those grounds to then withhold information of entitlement to, for example, family violence leave, given that it might be that people are in the process of going through family violence leave at the period of transition from an old employer to a new employer. I personally don\u2019t share the concern that the member may have about the access to that information, given that access to that information is actually quite crucial in order to ensure that people are paid for that particular entitlement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022 data-id=\u002266a7b4756c8e0608de38d7675a58a855\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002266a7b4756c8e0608de38d7675a58a855\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B) (09:45)\u003C/span\u003E: This is my final contribution. In relation to Schedule 1 and transition issues, I imagine there must be some sense of foreboding about rolling this out given the complexity of it. The regulatory impact statement says that a 24-month implementation period may not be enough for some employers. The departmental disclosure statement estimates that the education payroll may take up to 10 years\u2014the education system being a graveyard for payroll systems, as we know. I\u2019m interested in what evidence the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety relied on to set a two-year transition for everyone else and what other sectors may have been identified as high risk.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn addition, I think it would be good for the committee to hear from the Minister, in relation to the transition, what implementation funding, milestones, and programmes are being put in place, and the criteria for green light, red light, and orange light through the implementation, given what\u2019s at stake.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022 data-id=\u0022a159cd8fc4d7c41d1cb56b487a3349cb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a159cd8fc4d7c41d1cb56b487a3349cb\u0022\u003EHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (09:46)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. Look, in regards to the time frames of 24 months, I think where we\u2019ve landed is quite sensible. Going from the top of my head, I recall very early on having conversations with people who were involved in payroll systems and the transition from an old law to a new law and the technicalities that would be put in place by having that transition, and many of these people asked for 12 months. Out of an abundance of caution, I do recall at the time settling on 24 months to ensure that if there were any larger issues with payroll requiring even more time, more employers and employees needing more time, that at least having a two-year period rather than fixed one-year period gave people a sense of comfort, because this is something that we do want to get right in those payroll systems as well as in the employment agreements. It also allows for a time for renegotiation between employers and employees.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m sure the member will be aware that, during consultation, the education sector did ask for an extended time frame, which I was happy to grant because I\u2019m sure everyone here is aware that the education sector, historically, has had issues with paying people correctly, and that was not something that we wished to happen under this law. Out of an abundance of caution, that we could end up with remediation problems going well into the future based on a transition that could go wrong, we\u2019ve given them quite a long extended time frame. However, it is possible that they do actually do that before the extension of the time frame rather than it being a backstop.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn regards to a number of the other queries that have been raised, the Hon Jenny Salesa queried clause 137 about why it gave the authority the ability to accept employees\u2019 claims rather than a presumption, and this clause essentially carries over the status quo under the current Holidays Act. It allows the authority to accept the employee\u2019s evidence as provided in the absence of evidence to the contrary. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETeanau Tuiono also asked whether or not the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety would commit to doing a regulatory impact statement on the remediation regulations. Officials will consider the requirements for any impact analysis as part of their work to develop the regulations and ensure compliance within those. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen the Hon Jan Tinetti had also asked about what was the expected underpayment range that was modelled, or evidence that supported reasonable compensation rather than an entitlement. Consideration of the previous remediation payments under the Holidays Act will be part of the work required to design the regulations under clause 156 of the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222204e041e14c40fcbec76cc14f0da486\u0022\u003EThe standard of reasonable compensation allows for a faster process; there is evidence to date that the current approach has taken a very, very long time for people to be paid.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022 data-id=\u0022aede269aa0e83b8226732b9394d3dc51\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022694c3cef004e40d78a26712dce80070d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022aede269aa0e83b8226732b9394d3dc51\u0022\u003ESUZE REDMAYNE (Junior Whip\u2014National) (09:50)\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001081\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001082\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001083\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001084\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001085\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001087\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001088\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001089\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001090\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001091\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 3 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001093\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001094\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001095\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001096\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001097\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001099\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001100\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001101\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001102\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001103\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001105\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001106\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001107\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001108\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001109\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 3 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat Schedule 4 be agreed to\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001112\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001113\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001114\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001115\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 4 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00220d7bdf112b398606adf34350de7c18a2\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d394ec5e2b7cb26232c4f24658cf209e\u0022\u003EClauses 1 and 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022633e0e9b2ec5bb1d194eb97b46900d9d\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to our final debate, on clauses 1 and 2: the debate on title and commencement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001120\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001121\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001122\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001123\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001124\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228960cf9a46127e4584df5823dab76059\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Teanau Tuiono\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 2(1) replacing \u201Csecond\u201D with \u201Cthird\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001127\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001128\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001129\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001130\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001131\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223bafa25db15ae2c5d2f646109299e0e1\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti\u2019s tabled amendment deleting clause 2(2) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001134\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001135\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001136\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001137\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001138\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228e862e519e32bc7966f588ba5d315678\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Teanau Tuiono\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 2(2)(a) replacing \u201Cthe day after Royal assent\u201D with \u201C1 July 2027\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001141\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001142\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001143\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001144\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001145\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221c140887ada66954086c12717b0354ae\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that Teanau Tuiono\u2019s tabled amendment to clause 2(2)(b) replacing \u201C1 July 2027\u201D with \u201C1 July 2028\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001148\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001149\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001150\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001151\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001152\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001154\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001155\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001156\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001157\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001158\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill to be reported without amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00226b22941af07c896a0966dd68baf830d2\u0022\u003ECrimes Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00220fa3b62660f1bef3e1c8d5ed9cee51ef\u0022\u003ECommittee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsClauseHeading\u0022 id=\u0022522ca21553362fdf385a370f002f6aa0\u0022\u003EPart 1 Amendments to Crimes Act 1961\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cb127e305f875a3eee1824361049eedd\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to the Crimes Amendment Bill. We begin with the debate on Part 1, which is the debate on clauses 3 to 28\u2014\u201CAmendments to Crimes Act 1961\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=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u0022703aadc4cb41c4e81b59145d8ccdbf47\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022703aadc4cb41c4e81b59145d8ccdbf47\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (10:01)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. At the start of this committee stage on the Crimes Amendment Bill\u2014just at the beginning of this committee stage, I think it might be worth outlining the structure of this bill so members are aware of the likely shape of the debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAlthough this bill has only two parts, the Crimes Amendment Bill Part 1 is split into six different subparts, and each of those subparts has a different policy proposal which we are keen to ask the Minister about. Each of them is discrete and almost unrelated to the other subparts. I know we will not be taking a vote on each subpart, but I\u2019m just indicating to Madam Chair and any person sitting in the chair that we do have specific questions around each of these areas and they are distinct from one another. Then, of course, in Part 2 we have the Summary Offences Act and other laws, but the Crimes Act provisions are distinct and they have been worked on and have a different legislative and policy history from each other. That\u2019s why I think it\u2019s important to indicate that we would like to be able to have the opportunity to question the Minister on those.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe first one that we\u2019re looking at is Subpart 1, and this particular subpart is looking at what would be colloquially known as citizens\u2019 arrest provisions. The Minister may wish to speak to the history of this particular proposal. I do have the report of the ministerial advisory group on retail crime with me in the Chamber, and I understand that this is something they have advocated for in terms of clarifications and changes around that. This particular right exists in the law already; there is already a right for citizens\u2019 arrests. That is the type of situation where you might have a security guard, most usually\u2014or, obviously, it could be any other person\u2014and when they see someone committing a crime, they are able to execute a citizen\u2019s arrest, and that has been the case in New Zealand for a very significant period of time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy question to the Minister, as an opening question in this particular subpart, is: what advice did he receive, and why was he convinced of the need to make these specific changes to citizens\u2019 arrests? Specifically, if we start with clause 4, you\u2019ll notice that the changes that have been made to various subsections mirror each other, although they apply to different sections within the Crimes Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA more procedural question that I have for the Minister\u2014if he wouldn\u2019t mind talking about the background of this particular section, as well, in relation to my previous question\u2014is that, when I looked at the primary piece of legislation, I could see there was an insertion of subsections (2) and (3) into section 35, but when I went back and I read section 35 of the Crimes Act, it appeared to me that perhaps there was a gap in the drafting or perhaps there was another numeral that needed to be included, because the provisions in section 35\u2014and I\u2019m just looking at this now on my screen\u2014do not have a subsection (1) in place; they have an (a) and (b). It might be that the Minister can receive advice that that\u2019s a minor and technical correction that can be made. I assume that, when we\u2019re inserting subsections (2) and (3), we will have a subsequent making of what remains in this provision, which is actually only the first sentence in section 35(a), made into subsection (1).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt would be good to get some clarity on that, but also some clear reasoning for the decision that the Minister made to insert these provisions as a policy decision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022 data-id=\u00226061cc20223fa5eb4f1a8f9dbc936ce4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226061cc20223fa5eb4f1a8f9dbc936ce4\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (10:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, and for people tuning in, we\u2019re dealing with the Crimes Amendment Bill. The previous member, Camilla Belich, talked about different elements\u2014yes, it does different elements, but it\u2019s all consistent, and I\u2019m happy to answer questions on any elements of it in terms of responding to part of the efforts of this Government to restore law and order in this country. There are different elements that this legislation addresses. We were concerned about the very high level of retail crime when we came into Government 2\u00BD years ago, exemplified by ram raids and, really, a breakdown of law and order in the retail space, with too many examples of people not paying, leaving the place, shoplifting, going out of supermarkets with trolleys full of food, and a limited ability to react.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe citizens\u2019 arrest powers were one of the recommendations of the retail crime advisory group set up early on in this Government, funded by the proceeds of crime\u2014so it was criminals that were paying for their efforts. One of the suggestions was the citizens\u2019 arrest power, which, as the previous speaker indicated, already exists in law. Ultimately, this is about somebody hanging on to somebody until the police arrive, and currently you can do that after 9 o\u2019clock at night but, for some reason, you can\u2019t do it before 9 o\u2019clock at night. At 8.55 p.m., if you hang on to somebody, technically you might be had up for assault yourself, but after 9 p.m. you could. It only applied to a certain number of offences before, and we\u2019re saying any offences against the Crimes Act. That was the change there in order to give an option to retailers, and maybe security guards, to use.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnother element was the coward\u2019s punch legislation. There\u2019s been widespread concern around the country about these particularly cowardly attacks where somebody attacks somebody with a punch to the back of the head or the neck with no warning and no indication of what\u2019s going to happen. There have been some significant cases that have been of great concern to people, so we wanted to send a stronger, clearer message and consequences for that, with aggravating factors and a specific crime. I do want to acknowledge and thank in particular Duncan Webb, in terms of an amendment that we\u2019ve agreed to around that, in terms of making it clear that, if a jury is unable to convict for the coward punch causing death, they could still convict for general manslaughter if certain circumstances weren\u2019t passed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen we\u2019re looking at the human trafficking and exploitation changes. We\u2019re very much against human trafficking and exploitation. It strengthens our laws to align with international standards. These changes have been welcomed as long overdue. That\u2019s an important element of it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen the protection of first responders; these are the New Zealanders that rush towards danger on behalf of the rest of the community, and it\u2019s an unacceptable thing for them to be attacked. That\u2019s why the bill strengthens protections for them, including police, ambulance personnel, firefighters, and front-line corrections staff. If you attack them in any way, there will be even tougher consequences for you so that we send an unequivocal message on that matter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere are different elements to this legislation, but it\u2019s all part of our broader effort to fix the basics in law and order and build a future where New Zealanders feel safe in their communities, and that we have a clear message around retail crime, around human trafficking, around coward punches. There\u2019s another element to this in terms of the protection for undercover police officers that we can talk about as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u00229f6d921f5bcb3e3c98602f76e1e84d0a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229f6d921f5bcb3e3c98602f76e1e84d0a\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (10:11)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just walking through the citizen\u2019s arrest provisions, I\u2019m very interested in the Minister of Justice\u2019s views as to what happens\u2014because this creates, essentially, a new obligation on police, because a person who does make such an arrest \u201Cmust, as soon as practicable, make contact with the Police and follow all directions \u2026 in relation to the arrested person\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, there\u2019s a couple of things in there, and obviously if the police say, \u201CLet the person go\u201D\u2014and you can imagine, if someone\u2019s stolen a bar of chocolate at a dairy, the police may well say, \u201CWell, look, just let that person go; we\u2019ll deal with it later.\u201D One of the dangers here is that, if you\u2019ve managed to subdue and restrain someone\u2014and that\u2019s a thing I\u2019ll come to a bit later\u2014that person is likely to be extremely agitated and may well deny they\u2019ve committed an offence and feel quite aggrieved. If the police are not going to attend, how is the Minister going to address the safety issues that have arisen here? That\u2019s my first question. If you\u2019ve got to release this person, who\u2019s going to be upset, to say the least\u2014particularly if they don\u2019t think the arrest was justified.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second question is this\u2014and many people in New Zealand, sadly, will know that the police don\u2019t always pick up the phone. We don\u2019t necessarily want the 111 line to be crammed. In fact, the 111 line doesn\u2019t go directly to the police. What happens if the police cannot be contacted? For how long can a person be detained and restrained with cable ties or whatever the case may be? How long is a person expected to sit there whilst a shop owner is trying to get a response from the police but they can\u2019t do it? There must come a point at which that detention becomes illegal because the police aren\u2019t responding. Again, that creates a safety issue as well. If you\u2019ve detained someone for an hour and a half and haven\u2019t managed to get the police, you think, \u201CWell, I\u2019d better let them go\u201D\u2014again, we\u2019re getting back to square one in terms of that safety issue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s two questions: how do we address the safety issue when the police say, \u201CWe can\u2019t make it; let them go\u201D, and what happens if, despite best efforts, you can\u2019t get hold of the police?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022 data-id=\u00223e6a6b15e4525c0d7323bf141e25ed36\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223e6a6b15e4525c0d7323bf141e25ed36\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (10:14)\u003C/span\u003E: In relation to the first question raised by the member the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, of course, it is not compulsory to perform a citizen\u2019s arrest on anybody in any given circumstance. The individual who\u2019s doing that will have to make a judgment about whether they think it\u2019s safe to do this in the circumstances. There\u2019s been a lot of concern raised by some people that this is dangerous. Well, we have every confidence in New Zealanders to be able to make that judgment for themselves. If they do think it\u2019s too dangerous to do this, they won\u2019t do it. If they think that they can safely hang on to this particular person, then we give them the tools to be able to do that. In terms of safety, it\u2019ll come down to the calculation made by the person who is deciding whether or not to perform the citizen\u2019s arrest.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn terms of the police arriving or not being able to get hold of the police, well, the clear part of the legislation is that you are obliged to get hold of the police as soon as practicable. I\u2019m not aware of instances where it takes two days to get hold of the police or any extended period like that. There may be a delay, but we have every confidence that people will be able to get through to the police at some point in a timely fashion, and then we need to follow the instructions of the police. If that instruction is \u201CWe don\u2019t have the capability to attend this in a timely fashion; therefore, you should release them\u201D, then those are the instructions, and they should be followed. This legislation doesn\u2019t change the need for police to prioritise their response, as they do now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022 data-id=\u002253d95825495261ae28c0c0ccfdf11f8e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002282ab0ea3cc1948dabe8e5cc6838658d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002253d95825495261ae28c0c0ccfdf11f8e\u0022\u003EDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (10:16)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister of Justice for answering those questions. I just want to talk to clause 4, which expands the citizen\u2019s arrest provisions, as the same line as the Hon Dr Duncan Webb just did. The concern is whether this clause strikes the right balance between empowering victims of crime and ensuring public safety. That\u2019s why I\u2019m interested in how the Government expects these powers to actually operate in practice and what guidance will be available for people who choose to exercise them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust scanning back through some of the submissions, Minister, this is one from the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions. I\u2019ll just paraphrase some of their statements here. They highlight that the proposed changes to citizen\u2019s arrest and defence of property provisions are of particular concern and represent a misguided approach to retail crime which will compromise workers\u2019 safety and employment rights. They also go on to say that expanding citizen\u2019s arrents powers and defence of property provisions with the intent that they may be used more frequently to protect business property explicitly exacerbates workplace risk.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy questions there, Minister, is: what guidance or public education does the Minister expect will be provided to retailers and members of the public so they actually understand the limits of these expanded citizen\u2019s arrest powers? My second question is: has the Minister received advice on how often police may be required to respond to citizen\u2019s arrests under the expanded regime and what operational impact that could potentially have on front-line policing? Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022 data-id=\u0022fb2bd7777fae4e012bac7585f48982dc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fb2bd7777fae4e012bac7585f48982dc\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (10:18)\u003C/span\u003E: Look, in terms of risks and danger to workers, of course, the far bigger risk to workers has been that they will be victims of crime. There were a lot more of them under the previous administration that that member represents. Every day, we were hearing stories of ram raids\u2014people who live upstairs in a little dairy and are woken at 3 o\u2019clock in the morning by somebody smashing into the ground floor and putting their lives at risk. We have endless examples of retail crime. The biggest thing we can do to improve the safety of workers in the retail space is to reduce the number of victims of crime and restore law and order, which is the broader programme of what the Government has been focused on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of this particular change around citizen\u2019s arrest, I again put back to you that the current law allows this to happen after 9 p.m., and I don\u2019t hear anybody saying that we should repeal that law or that somehow it\u2019s inappropriate. What I\u2019m saying is that it seems a very strange logic that these powers should be available at 9 p.m. but not available at 8.55 p.m. or 7 p.m. or 3 p.m., because it\u2019s the same situation that we\u2019re facing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think what we\u2019re doing is perfectly rational. Yes, we have extended the number of crimes. Before, there was a limit around the seriousness of the crime, and we\u2019ve extended that scope. But we have every confidence in the ability of New Zealanders to be able to assess the situation and either act or not act, depending on their assessment of that safety.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u00220b3e150bc178c2618ac1dbb1e094d9c0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220b3e150bc178c2618ac1dbb1e094d9c0\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (10:20)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. You can\u2019t really underestimate how important this is, because we are expanding the rights of citizens to infringe the liberty of another citizen. We\u2019re, essentially, sub-contracting the power of the State down to citizens who use their own judgment as to when this occurs. I just want to emphasise that this is a really important point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI point out that the Justice Committee recently looked at some Corrections Act amendments in terms of what preconditions had to exist before corrections officers could do things like use physical or mechanical restraints. In here, there\u2019s no such constraint. For example, it appears that a big adult could use physical or mechanical restraints, handcuffs, or even tying up the feet or whatever, on a young person. I\u2019m interested to understand if, when a person detains\u2014because it doesn\u2019t seem that this excludes children, in fact. They just have to be likely to have committed\u2014reasonable cause to suspect they\u2019ve committed\u2014an offence against the Crimes Act. What force can be used and what restraints can be imposed?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen\u2014this is really concerning, because the 8.55, 9 o\u2019clock distinction might be one that the Minister has got a point on, but if we look at the use of force\u2014the Minister has gone through and deleted, throughout the Act, the limitation on the use of force. Now, force can be used to restrain, but, under the current law, you can\u2019t strike someone or do bodily harm to that person. But those provisions are now deleted, so it appears that a person who is making a citizen\u2019s arrest can, in fact, bash the person who has committed the crime. Now, the police can\u2019t do that. They can restrain someone and use reasonable force, and they certainly can\u2019t do bodily harm. So, Minister, why have you removed the provisions which stop a person making a citizen\u2019s arrest from causing bodily harm to the person who is suspected of committing a crime, and why have you removed the provision which stops them hitting the person who was suspected of committing a crime?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u0022659bf1468222e47e3a09494f0c76cc46\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022659bf1468222e47e3a09494f0c76cc46\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (10:23)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just reminding the Minister I haven\u2019t yet heard a response in relation to the drafting issue I raised in my first contribution.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe question that Dr Duncan Webb raises around children is something that did come up in submissions, and I know that at various points in time, the Children\u2019s Commissioner has been consulted on this bill. A question for the Minister is: do these changes allow children of any age to be detained under a citizen\u2019s arrest? The reason that that\u2019s important\u2014because we\u2019ve heard the Minister say that these exist, and we\u2019ve heard his colleagues say that from their side of the House as well\u2014is exactly the point that Dr Duncan Webb was making: protections in relation to citizen\u2019s arrest have been removed in clause 8 and in clause 10 and in clauses 11 and 12 of this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI wanted to ask the Minister: in terms of the situation prior to these changes\u2014the current status quo\u2014what evidence does he have that there was a need to remove the prohibition on grievous bodily harm in these types of citizen\u2019s arrest situations? Can he point to an example of a case where there was an unjust, in his view, prosecution, or one that appeared to be unfair, due to the force that was used during a citizen\u2019s arrest?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do want to draw the committee\u2019s attention to the example that is put in place. We did see, and we\u2019ve seen in the regulatory impact statement, through some consultation that has taken place, the objection to inserting \u201Cthe use of physical or mechanical restraints\u201D. \u201CTying someone up\u201D is probably the colloquial way of referring to that. There are people that have raised concerns around this in terms of the impact and the type of justice system that we are looking to implement in New Zealand, where we are allowing or, in fact, encouraging, through legislative change, a change to the availability of a citizen\u2019s arrest to allow those kind of\u2014I just wonder if the clock is\u2014sorry. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do have some specific questions as well, which I would like to ask before we move on to a different part of the bill, before we move on to a different clause. I don\u2019t think we\u2019ve had an answer to what the exact process would be that the Minister imagines when a citizen\u2019s arrest occurs. He said that it\u2019s likely to be timely and he can\u2019t imagine it would take a constable a very long time to get there. But what about the situations where this has happened in a remote location or it is a rural situation? How long does the Minister envisage that that restraint\u2014and we\u2019ve seen that it includes perhaps tying someone up, and we\u2019ve asked the question: does that include a child? How long can that reasonably be considered to occur before that becomes something? There is, I think, at least a common law principle on unjust imprisonment. I wondered did the Minister receive any advice on the interaction between that common law right to not be unjustly detained and these citizen\u2019s arrest provisions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAdditionally, during the select committee process, we did hear concerns from retailers around the responsibilities that they were expected to engage with in that. I wanted to know: does he have a response for retailers who are concerned that their staff will be put in a situation where they are expected to detain people more readily? Is that his expectation from this bill, that that would be a process that they would go through?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI also have a technical question around the deletion in clause 4 of the term \u201Ccertain crimes\u201D, and then in clause 6 we have \u201Ccertain crimes\u201D maintained. I wanted to know: what was the reason for that discrepancy within the bill in terms of terminology? Why is it kept in one part and why is it deleted in another part?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMadam Chair, I didn\u2019t realise the clock wasn\u2019t on, so I won\u2019t use all of this call, but I do think there are some outstanding questions in relation to those technical elements and also, particularly, the interaction of the existence of the defence of self-defence and the fact that the Minister has inserted clauses which make it easier or, in fact, possibly encourage the use of physical and mechanical restraints and the defence of striking or bodily harm against a trespasser. I would be grateful if the Minister could address those questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022 data-id=\u002291b83994d940d396d1e441163ae0a3bd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002291b83994d940d396d1e441163ae0a3bd\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (10:29)\u003C/span\u003E: In terms of whether it applies to children, the answer is yes. We wouldn\u2019t want a regime that encouraged particularly organised crime to use children just to get around any potential response.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe point that I make, which relates to all the questions that have been raised, is that the obligation is on the person who\u2019s performing this to immediately contact the police as soon as practicable and follow their instructions. If it is in a very remote place, the instructions may be different to if they have the capability of arriving in a timely fashion. We\u2019ve got every confidence that the police will be able to deliver reasonable instructions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of defence of property, it is still required that any force needs to be reasonable force, so bashing somebody does not fall generally within the realms of reasonable force, as I\u2019m sure the member knows.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of requirements for employees, it is a perfectly legitimate response for a large retail entity to have a company policy that they won\u2019t use this. That\u2019s perfectly possible, so that may be a solution that a particular retail entity wants to adopt, and they can explain to their customers why that\u2019s their approach. A huge part of our retail sector is small, self-employed businesses, and they may have a different approach. We\u2019ve got a wide variety of people within the retail sector and this is about providing an option and a tool, but it is not compulsory in any way, shape, or form.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u002225845d115754311b236f4d8ab5994d3d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002225845d115754311b236f4d8ab5994d3d\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (10:31)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I\u2019ve been listening very carefully to the debate and the questions raised by my colleagues. The answers from the Minister of Justice show the loose logic about causation, and also response. The Minister himself has blown the debate wide open, in my view, when he talked about ram raids and made the same very loose assertion that actions taken by this Government\u2014legislative actions\u2014have reduced ram raids.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to ask the Minister, and this is referring to clause 4\u2014because that was where he made those comments\u2014what evidence he has that his Government has reduced ram raids. For example, has he taken into account the ageing of the youth offender cohort who were responsible for them? What impact did the actions of the previous Government have in terms of reducing ram raids, including fog cannons, bollards, and so on? What about the court responses, and what evidence does he have\u2014and I will say there is no evidence that there was a causal nexus\u2014that the laws were implemented when the ram raid numbers were coming down? In fact, the ram raid numbers were coming down when his Government\u2019s sentencing changes and so on came into effect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe reason I raise this, Madam Chair, is two reasons: one is that the Minister himself made the assertion that ram raids were coming down as a result of their legislative changes and their changes, so I\u2019d like to see the evidence for that\u2014there isn\u2019t any\u2014and, secondly, to show this committee and viewers that the kind of logic the Minister is using is completely inappropriate and is fundamentally changing the jurisprudence of our country, where now police have one set of rules, citizens have a set of rules, they\u2019re all conflated, and retailers are suddenly expected to be agents of the State.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAgain, Madam Chair, this was raised by the Minister himself, and so I\u2019d like the Minister to respond, please, to those issues that he brought into the debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022 data-id=\u002219125d00eb28591b6a9e74b9ff0c0998\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002219125d00eb28591b6a9e74b9ff0c0998\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (10:33)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I can, and the member Ingrid Leary is entirely wrong in her assertion that retailers have been turned into agents of the State. None of this legislation is compulsory for anybody; nobody has to do anything under this legislation in regard to citizens\u2019 arrest. It is purely something that people may choose to use if they want to. If they don\u2019t want to, they don\u2019t have to. They can just stand back and let people walk out of their shop, stealing whatever they like, if they want to. That\u2019s their choice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn terms of reference to ram raids, I was just referring to that\u2014it is not related to this legislation. I was just giving some context to this Government\u2019s efforts to restore law and order, and I leave that to the people of New Zealand to judge as to whether things have improved over the last 2\u00BD years. There\u2019s a whole range of factors behind that that I can point to, but I won\u2019t prolong the debate further on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228f242e036d58e8a959d73c74bc19173c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Before we move on, I think we\u2019ve gotten stuck on this bit, so please expand some of the questioning for the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u002246c450f6b3ccd8a1aedc128d1ef1630e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002246c450f6b3ccd8a1aedc128d1ef1630e\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (10:35)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, thank you, and I know that my colleague Camilla Belich wants surely to move to the slavery and trafficking provisions, but there\u2019s just one question\u2014and I\u2019ll keep it brief\u2014on this arrest in defence of property, citizen\u2019s arrest situation. That is the liability of the arresting person, the citizen, because if you look at each of these provisions, new section 35(3) identifies that the person will be liable\u2014and that could be civilly or criminally\u2014if they don\u2019t follow the directions of the police. There\u2019s a carve-out in there; it says: \u201CA person who, without reasonable excuse, breaches subsection (2) \u2026\u201D, so you call the police and the police say, \u201CLet that person go.\u201D I\u2019m just curious if the Minister can explain to me what would be a reasonable excuse for not following the directions of the police?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EWhilst he does that, just to clarify, because I think it\u2019s actually really important to put on the record that if the police say, \u201CRelease that person\u201D and they unreasonably don\u2019t, they themselves could be liable for crimes of, I don\u2019t know, false imprisonment, presumably assault, both of which would be serious; well, arguably kidnapping is the appropriate crime, because you\u2019re detaining someone illegally against their will. I think it\u2019s important that the Minister identify that a person who detains someone and doesn\u2019t follow the directions of the police without reasonable excuse could, in fact, be liable for a crime many times more serious than shoplifting or any other offence that might have been committed. Also, when will it be reasonable not to follow the directions of the police?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022 data-id=\u0022865fa2c90b78236a7268eab8b9468767\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022865fa2c90b78236a7268eab8b9468767\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (10:37)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I think the threshold of \u201Cwithout reasonable excuse\u201D is one that the courts are very familiar with and understand, so that\u2019s a matter there. A speculation might be that the arrested person has threatened violence, perhaps, but that\u2019s something that courts consider on a regular basis. In terms of liability for not following instructions, it is clear that potentially civil or criminal liability remains if anything happens outside the law, whether it\u2019s an unjustified arrest or subsequent injuries or use of excessive force.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u0022281705b5623f1958cfa6b4c6688b8078\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022281705b5623f1958cfa6b4c6688b8078\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (10:38)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Just kind of a final thing on that subpart: is the Minister going to be undertaking some education around the appropriate use of these changed powers, and also, is the Minister intending to review the use of these powers, if in fact some of the concerns that the submitters raised in select committee do bear out in terms of the utilisation of these slightly altered powers? It would be good, I think, to know whether that was his intention on both those counts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI would like, now, to move on to the second subpart, if I might, which is a part of the bill that the Labour Party supports and agrees with, which is the changes in relation to human trafficking. I just wanted to acknowledge that this whole bill is a collection of quite a few different things. In here, we have a member\u2019s bill, we\u2019ve also got various coalition agreements put in place here, and we\u2019ve got recommendations from the ministerial advisory group on retail crime. I\u2019m not sure if it\u2019s worked entirely, putting all of these different parts together, especially in terms of some other sections of this bill, but this particular part, I think, is one that is worthwhile. I personally support it, and also the Labour Party supports it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think it\u2019s something that\u2019s been called on for a long time, and I know that it came as part of a member\u2019s bill that I think was originally\u2014possibly, I might be incorrect in this; it might have been in Nicola Grigg\u2019s name, and then it was in Greg Fleming\u2019s name, and it was pulled from the ballot. I think it had its first reading, but it is now part of the Crimes Amendment Bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt does do some important work that links up to the work that Parliament is doing on modern slavery in terms of definitions and making sure that there is the appropriate modernisation and alignment in terms of something that all New Zealanders would disagree with, which is any form of slavery or exploitation. We\u2019re talking about the very serious end of these with these particular provisions as well. I just wanted to acknowledge that to start with\u2014the history of this particular subpart. I do have some specific questions in relation to this, although I\u2019m probably likely to spend less time on this particular subpart compared to the other subparts because there is, I do believe, widespread agreement that these are good, positive changes for New Zealand to implement. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe questions I had for the Minister are quite specific, so I hope he can hear these questions. I wanted to know whether he, in terms of the definition of \u201Cexploitation\u201D, considered putting in child labour or slavery, servitude, sexual exploitation, or harbouring. I think some aspects of that were part of the original bill and were removed at the Justice Committee. I want to know whether he is minded to include those definitions in an amendment that could be brought to this House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other thing that I wanted to ask him specifically was about the change in relation to the definition of the act of coercion\u2014that\u2019s in clause 15, and it changes section 98B of the primary legislation. This is a change to \u201Cagainst the person\u201D, and I just wanted to know the reasoning why the change in relation to a person was chosen. If he could get some official advice on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe next question I had is in relation to clause 15(3). In this definition of \u201Cunauthorised migrant\u201D, there\u2019s reference to a State. When I was reading through this, I wasn\u2019t clear\u2014and maybe that\u2019s a deficiency in my analysis\u2014whether the State is defined in \u201Cunauthorised migrant\u201D will always be New Zealand or whether this is, in fact, a reference to any State. Obviously, this is a particular provision which does have some international elements to it, unfortunately, where we have less control over the rights that people have. I just wasn\u2019t clear on that, so I would be grateful to know the answer to that question. I think that\u2019s all the time I have for that, but there may be some other questions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022 data-id=\u002251e08e4c566f3ecc2bcf36bfc3142a87\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002251e08e4c566f3ecc2bcf36bfc3142a87\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (10:43)\u003C/span\u003E: Just in answer to some of the questions raised. She asked about whether we would be issuing guidance around citizen\u2019s arrests. Yes, the police will be issuing guidance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of reviewing it, well, frankly, legislation is always under review. There\u2019s not a specific time set aside, but yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI thank the member for her support of the human-trafficking and smuggling element of this legislation. I think there has been widespread support across the House for this to be done, and I\u2019m pleased that we\u2019ve been able to progress that. In terms of the question that was raised around whether child labour was specifically referred to, my advice is that that is already captured by the broader definitions in the legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of the definition of an unauthorised migrant, \u201Cthe State\u201D applies to any country, not just to New Zealand. That was the question that was raised. Obviously, the goal of this part of the legislation is to strengthen our trafficking, smuggling, and exploitation offences and make the more workable. I\u2019d just draw attention particularly to removing the need to prove coercion or deception where the victim is a child. It increases penalties for slavery and child exploitation and clarifies that a victim cannot consent to being trafficked. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022cd5b00b9ead688c435cb18d8358da9d9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cd5b00b9ead688c435cb18d8358da9d9\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:44)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to check one quick thing in case it hasn\u2019t been addressed\u2014but, Minister, feel free to just nod if it has been addressed\u2014around clauses 8 and 9 amending sections 39 and 40.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019m grateful that the Minister of Justice mentioned that there will be guidelines issued by the police, but I just want to check, when we\u2019re looking at citizen\u2019s arrests, particularly sections 39 and 40 when it comes to mechanical restraints, what sort of safeguards will be placed there for people to not arbitrarily or unnecessarily placed mechanical restraints on children? As we know, there are no age requirements with some of the changes that we see in clause 4.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI am going to move on to Subpart 2, \u201CSlave dealing and human trafficking offences\u201D. I do want to just follow up on the previous speaker Camilla Belich\u2019s question around the definition for \u201Cunauthorised migrants\u201D in clause 15(3). I particularly want to focus on paragraph (b) of that and just ask a question to the Minister on how, then, would one, either through immigration or through other means, determine or uncover if a document was \u201Cobtained by deception, fraud, forgery, or other unlawful means\u201D? I note that some of the forgery that we do see could be in other jurisdictions, and can be quite sophisticated, but also in jurisdictions where translation or methods of obtaining documents might not be what we, here in Aotearoa New Zealand, see as the standard process of obtaining those documents. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI guess, one half of the question is: how do we uncover if they are fraudulent or forgeries? And, number two, what other checks and balances do we have to not have unfounded bias towards certain countries and their systems to obtain official documents? Those are my questions for the time being.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u0022fb4a3229ceec827b78c27358f2759661\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fb4a3229ceec827b78c27358f2759661\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (10:47)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I do just have a few more genuine questions in relation to the workability of the trafficking changes, which, as I\u2019ve said, we support, and we\u2019re hopeful that these will be a really positive change in relation to the way that we address trafficking in New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the major changes in relation to these particular amendments is around the need for the Attorney-General\u2019s consent for prosecutions. I think it might be worthwhile if the Minister could just explain that change, because it appears to me that this is\u2014as I\u2019ve said, we\u2019re supportive of that\u2014something that will still apply in relation to offences that occur outside of New Zealand, if my understanding of that is correct. If the Minister could maybe explain that, that would be really helpful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI had a specific question in terms of clause 17(2). I looked at the original legislation and clause 17(2) repeals section 98E(3), and that is a generality paragraph. It just was an interesting thing, to me, to see that\u2014and I\u2019ll see if I can bring it up quickly if I have time. I was confused as to why it was suggested to be deleted when it appeared to give a bit more flexibility to\u2014sorry, I don\u2019t actually have it right in from of me, so I don\u2019t want to spend too long looking for it. Anyway, when I did read it previously, prior to this committee stage, I had a question around why that was deleted, and if I can bring it up again, I will.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThese are the questions that I have. The final one that I\u2019ll raise is in relation to trafficking. I did have an overall question, which is: does the Minister have any information about how prevalent these trafficking offences are? I\u2019m sure they\u2019re abhorrent to almost anyone who reads that this is something that may in fact occur. Does he have any information on that occurring?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThen I have just a question related to my colleague Lawrence Xu-Nan\u2019s question. It\u2019s new clause 16, but it\u2019s a change in new section 98D(4) in relation to the person\u2019s understanding, or that \u201Cthey believed on reasonable grounds\u201D that a trafficked child was over 18. I just wondered what those reasonable grounds might be, because that seems to be a little bit at odds in terms of the usual presumption, where we would say that if you\u2019re looking at trying to determine an age of a child in relation to an offence, there would a be duty to be able to assure yourself that someone is of a certain age, rather than the opposite, which is that you might think, on reasonable grounds, that maybe they are a bit younger. That kind of stood out to me in terms of that section. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs I\u2019ve said, we\u2019re generally very supportive, and so I\u2019m asking these questions from a workability perspective. I\u2019m wondering if the Minister of Justice could just enlighten us to ensure that those are the best possible changes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022 data-id=\u00221cffe1abb1fb235b2c53088206a134b0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221cffe1abb1fb235b2c53088206a134b0\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (10:51)\u003C/span\u003E: Just running through some of those questions. In terms of removing the requirement for the Attorney-General\u2019s consent, it just removes an unnecessary barrier to prosecution, speeds up the trafficking prosecution, and brings it into line with other serious transnational offences.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of Mr Xu-Nan\u2019s question around how we determine whether documents are fraudulently obtained or brought through immigration, Immigration New Zealand is the department responsible for determining the legitimacy of documents. They are experts in that. It is an area of expertise that they have. It ensures that individuals who have fraudulently obtained documents will be captured.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of the data of the scale of the problem, that is by its nature rather hard to get because this is a secretive business. We\u2019ve had indications that we\u2019ve missed the ability to deal with examples in the past, and that\u2019s why we\u2019re changing this law. The overall scale of it in the context of New Zealand, we don\u2019t have a good handle on, but we will be in a better position to get a better handle on it when this legislation is passed, and we will have more tools available to respond to it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn terms of the sort of reasonable belief in terms of the age, other offences in the Crimes Act such as sexual contact with a younger person require both reasonable belief and that reasonable steps be taken to find out somebody\u2019s age. So, for the child trafficking offence, if the offender reasonably believed the victim to be over the age of 18, the general trafficking offence remains available as a charging option. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u00221d9772d656c270015d222840f3c48216\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221d9772d656c270015d222840f3c48216\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (10:53)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I have just one question. It is around exploitation and the definition of it, and this is in clause 15. My concern is, essentially, that the way we look at slavery, forced labour, and exploitation is kind of a little old-fashioned in that it looks for threats of physical harm or physical restraint. If we look, for example, at the definition of \u201Cforced or exploitative labour\u201D, it\u2019s identified as being \u201Cexacted from the person under the threat of, or by causing, harm\u201D, whereas what we actually see is people being seduced, if you like, into a relationship that is a coercive relationship, but often without any physical harm being threatened.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf we take, for example, Gloriavale, which has a long history of very problematic relationships of servitude, there may well be no threats of physical harm or restraint, but the relationship is one of such coercion and control that there is in real terms no ability of the people there\u2014and in other cults, as well\u2014to refuse the demands of their superiors. What we have then is forced or exploitative labour. Even though they\u2019re not physically restrained and there\u2019s no suggestion that they\u2019ll be physically punished if they don\u2019t follow orders, but because of years of, essentially, reinforced training and feedback, they are compelled, and the demands put on them, along with the absence of any remuneration for their hours of work and so on and so forth, add up to something which, at least in my view, should be recognised by the law as forced or exploitative labour. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETaking the argument outside of that concrete example, is the Minister of Justice of the view that this framework around exploitation will be met in cases of non-physical coercion and control, and, if not, is any work being done in that space?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022 data-id=\u002265448c8972da0014f87aa1c771828a42\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002265448c8972da0014f87aa1c771828a42\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (10:56)\u003C/span\u003E: The definition of exploitation\u2014and it\u2019s a fair point that that the member raises\u2014has been written to align with the Palermo Protocol. It doesn\u2019t require there to be threats of physical harm. Courts have interpreted harm to include psychological harm and threats of harm to others included in the definition of harm, so that\u2019s in response there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u0022de3b1a89521e2ddb93a3a24d7804a5bf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022de3b1a89521e2ddb93a3a24d7804a5bf\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (10:56)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate that colleagues may still have some questions around trafficking, but I did want to ask around the linked provisions of undercover protection officers which is in Subpart 3. This, in relation to the link to Subpart 2, is, I think, not in itself objectionable, but I do have some questions around the way in which this will be implemented because it does appear to be quite an extensive protection for undercover officers. I appreciate that, especially in this exploitation space, undercover officers do some very difficult and disturbing work. Certainly, in New Zealand, there has been, in relation to child exploitation, a certain amount of ability to prevent exploitation from occurring not only with the police but also through the Department of Internal Affairs, so I think that it is important to recognise the prevention element of this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI am interested to know this from the Minister of Justice, especially in relation to new section 98AA(7C) in clause 18. This provides a certificate to be signed by the Commissioner of Police that someone was acting as an undercover police officer, and it\u2019s quite strongly worded that it is conclusive evidence of the fact that they are acting as an undercover police officer. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I know that most, if not all, Commissioners of Police will be able to act in a prudent and responsible way in terms of these certificates, but we have had some issues in New Zealand in the past when some of the actions of undercover police officers have been questioned as to whether the extent of their deception was necessary in relation to the task that they were to provide. We\u2019ve had examples of people having relationships with people who were unaware of their identity and families, and there have been issues in the past that have been raised as to the extent to which an undercover police officer should act in this way. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI don\u2019t know enough about any of the details of those cases to which I\u2019ve referred to know whether to make a judgment here about the appropriateness of that, but it seems to me that a statement around the conclusive evidence of the fact that they were at a particular time acting as an undercover police officer, and as a result of that, essentially, there being\u2014in my reading of this\u2014no particular way that any of their actions could be scrutinised does appear to be significant. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust specifically, again, in a situation\u2014we\u2019re not talking about documents now. But if we talk about someone who was acting in bad faith or who sought to utilise these provisions without good faith, I think it would be worth the Minister just stepping the committee through how he sees these particular provisions working to enhance safety, as a protection against any bad faith actor in the future. Of course, we\u2019re assuming that that won\u2019t be the case, but when we\u2019re legislating, we need to make sure that it\u2019s robust enough to ensure that no inadvertent loopholes are found where bad faith actors are permitted to conduct that activity without scrutiny.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022 data-id=\u002205a88fed876cc8a6d257902fcd915bce\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002205a88fed876cc8a6d257902fcd915bce\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (11:00)\u003C/span\u003E: I can assure the committee that the protections in this subpart that relate to undercover officers draw on, or align with, the protections for those available undercover officers investigating drug or firearms offences. It\u2019s standard practice for protections of this kind\u2014the certificate is part of that. We could have a broader discussion around that whole process, but this bill is not adopting a new system; it is aligning it with the current approach that is taken in other areas of the law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022443f23de4cbd464f91833e6c466c98c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dcfe5f2061ed56b00f423337cd563d6b\u0022\u003ETodd Stephenson\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chair!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u0022d17118d8894c73df1aa44a3f9a08beda\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d17118d8894c73df1aa44a3f9a08beda\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (11:01)\u003C/span\u003E: I understand my colleague does have a genuine question, not a closure motion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022573f6fd1301cf90c281bceb658c356b6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s right. We\u2019ll move into that part shortly\u2014very shortly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dbb3497246f1b38acf6b2389718b93b7\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, and thanks to the Minister of Justice for that. We are now, I think, probably at quite a significant part of the bill\u2014which is in relation to Subpart 4\u2014which is what is known as the coward punch provisions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI have to say, if you were heartened by the bipartisan and cross-party support for the previous provisions, unfortunately, the exact opposite is occurring in relation to this particular subpart. I think it\u2019s worth noting that this is a Government bill, and we have amendments on the Table; we have amendments from the Minister; we have amendments from New Zealand First, which is a Government party; and we have amendments from the ACT Party in place. Also\u2014and the Minister talked about this earlier\u2014the Government has accepted some assistance from my extremely intelligent and good-at-drafting-legislation friend, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, in terms of these provisions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is not at all a reflection on the people working on this bill, but this is a bit of a mess. I think it is incumbent on the Minister to explain to the committee how we have ended up in a situation where\u2014and I\u2019ve looked back through the original regulatory impact statement (RIS)\u2014the Minister has been battling not only with his coalition partners but also with the ministry on this particular provision. There have been constant battles in the way that this particular provision comes to the House\u2014and this is very serious. We should all keep this in mind in our debate on this: we have had families in New Zealand who have been devastated through the loss of their loved ones through violent attacks, and we must keep that in mind. The motivation for trying to change some of these laws is to alleviate some of the suffering to those people\u2014not only the victims of those types of attacks, but because we have a grievous bodily harm provision in here, the survivors of those attacks, and to give comfort to their families. It\u2019s something that I don\u2019t think anyone in this Chamber would disagree with. These provisions go further than just the families that have, unfortunately, had to suffer through these attacks, and they do apply and potentially have an impact on whether prosecutions on coward punch - type offences will actually be successful in obtaining a conviction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere are quite a few elements to this, and I imagine that this will be a larger part of the committee stage debate because of all the views that we do have on it. It is important to note that, when we went through the select committee process, the clear advice that was received from the Ministry of Justice was that these provisions should not go ahead. The amendments from New Zealand First, and the amendments from the ACT Party, and, in fact, the select committee\u2019s own involvement in this is to try and find a way forward where there can be a fair law that works for New Zealand, despite these various views on how this coward punch provision\u2014in relation to manslaughter and in relation to grievous bodily harm\u2014will be put in place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is a significant provision and a significant change to our law, and it\u2019s one of political significance, and one that does not reflect well, from an Opposition perspective, on the unity of the Government or, to be fair, the leadership of the Minister in relation to this provision. He has the opportunity to respond to that\u2014I\u2019m that sure he will want to do that\u2014but we do have several contributions, and I think other parties will also want to make contributions, because this is such a contentious, such a fraught, and such a difficult part of this bill that I imagine will be amended in the future. If the Minister wouldn\u2019t mind responding.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022443f23de4cbd464f91833e6c466c98c0\u0022 data-id=\u002263e05c057f24107ec4c0ef2f102747c8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022443f23de4cbd464f91833e6c466c98c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002263e05c057f24107ec4c0ef2f102747c8\u0022\u003ETODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (11:06)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I am going to ask the Minister of Justice some questions around clause 19 of the amendment bill, but, first, I do want to acknowledge that the Government is still united. The Government is still united on dealing with law and order, and I want to acknowledge the Minister\u2019s leadership on actually dealing with getting victimisation of crime down over this term.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhy ACT has put up an amendment in relation to the so-called coward punch is pretty simple, because we want to make this offence actually useful. Camilla Belich is right\u2014we heard lots of testimony at the select committee about these heinous acts. Again, a coward punch is, basically, when someone is attacked out of the blue\u2014almost inevitably without any kind of provocation\u2014they have no chance to defend themselves, and the outcome is death. That is a very, very serious crime. Also what we heard, Minister\u2014and again, I\u2019d be very keen to get your reflections on this\u2014is that in sentencing\u2014and at the moment it would be a sentence of manslaughter, but, obviously, the circumstances are that of a coward punch\u2014we were seeing people receiving just an average sentence of three or four years. Some were even getting home detention. Again, I want to thank the select committee because we did discuss this at length.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat my amendment does is it actually says that, if that new offence is going to be charged\u2014and we\u2019ll just call it the coward punch offence; it\u2019s slightly more complicated than that, but let\u2019s just call it that for this questioning\u2014there needs to be a consequence with that. What my amendment does is say that, if that offence is proved, there is a minimum term of imprisonment of eight years. What we\u2019re trying to do is say, \u201CYes, we\u2019re happy to support the creation of a new offence. It\u2019s got some new elements that have to be made out, and it does actually require\u201D\u2014again, as Camilla Belich said\u2014\u201Cthe Crown to prove different things, but if they are able to do that, there should actually be a sentencing consequence for that.\u201D Obviously, the Crimes Amendment Bill only deals with the Crimes Act. Again, ACT has got some experience in this. We, obviously, got three-strikes reinstated, and, again, I want to thank the Minister for his support on that. We knew what we were doing there. We made sure that the right, different pieces of legislation were amended.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBecause, obviously, this bill only deals with the Crimes Act, my amendment on behalf of ACT has been very carefully drafted to ensure that the outcome I\u2019ve just described can be achieved and that it\u2019s done within the scope and the nature of the Crimes Act. I would be keen to get the Minister\u2019s perspective on this, because I know he is also concerned about sentencing outcomes, because that\u2019s what New Zealanders want\u2014they want to see consequences for serious crime. Again, as I said, with the three-strikes regime, serious physical and sexual violence is now dealt with in a regime, but I do think there is still a community call to make sure that other serious offences actually get imprisonment as the outcome, not just home detention. Thank you, Minister. I would be interested in your reflections on my amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f36277cb754947fa93977a31a33abd49\u0022 data-id=\u00225af4d29918f57ed538a17d7cf70b0875\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f36277cb754947fa93977a31a33abd49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225af4d29918f57ed538a17d7cf70b0875\u0022\u003EHon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police) (11:10)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chair, thank you, and I recognise the member Todd Stephenson, who has just taken his seat, in regards to providing an assurance that the Government parties are united in terms of the seriousness of the coward punch. I would like to talk just specifically to Amendment Paper 650 in my name, relating to Subpart 4\u2014to coin the phrase, the coward punch provisions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAgain, similarly to the ACT Party, New Zealand First has been very keen to ensure that this piece of legislation is workable, but New Zealand First has advocated for many years to ensure that coward punch is recognised and differentiated because of the unique and particularly brutal nature of the coward punch. For those that are watching at home, we\u2019re not talking about a stray punch in a fight. We are talking about a system where someone has been attacked in a way that they are not only not able to defend themselves but not even able to prepare for the impact of that assault. We are talking about a very unique type of offence and therefore recognising it in law\u2014and acknowledging the very hard work the Justice Committee has done to address the anomalies in this piece of legislation. This is about sending a very clear message that we, as a society, find this intolerable. This is why New Zealand First has fought so long and so hard, with various members\u2019 bills over the years, to get this to the House. I will acknowledge our previous MP Darroch Ball for his hard work in this space.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat we\u2019re trying to achieve here is an assurance that upon conviction, there is a differentiation. I acknowledge the work that has been done to make sure that we will still have a manslaughter conviction if the ingredients of a coward punch aren\u2019t achieved. But we also are seeking a minimum term of imprisonment of eight years, and this is to ensure that upon conviction, we are taking seriously the nature of this assault. We all recognise that manslaughter occurs in varying degrees around the circumstances that give rise to someone losing their life, but when the intention is formed for a coward punch, we are setting into a very different realm. We\u2019re not just talking about the fact that \u201CI was in a fight and things went awry.\u201D; we\u2019re talking about someone who formed an intention to attack someone in a method that has a high likelihood of causing serious harm, if not death.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe amendment that we have put forward is recognising this will require some amendment to the Sentencing Act to ensure that there is a very clear message that there is a minimum term of imprisonment applied. This is about ensuring that there is a differentiation, that there is a real recognition of the level of harm that will be caused here. Yes, it is a complex piece of legislation. It has been difficult to reach this point. I\u2019m fully aware of how much work has gone in through the select committee process to achieve this workable legislation in there. But I think we are united in the seriousness with which we consider this type of assault. I think that the amendment that we\u2019ve put forward is to ensure that there is a seriousness attached to a conviction in this space and that once the ingredients of this offence have been proven and a conviction is applied, that should equate to a term of imprisonment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt is not without precedent that we have minimum mandatory sentencing. It is, I know, a subject that is challenging, but I think it is important that we recognise the enormous level of harm and loss and send a clear message that this type of assault, this type of attack on an individual, when there\u2019s such high likelihood of the level of harm that is caused, should be differentiated in the manslaughter space. Therefore, I ask the Minister to give that his consideration in the amendment process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022 data-id=\u0022569c06956d72fb5464a642882a234b1f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022569c06956d72fb5464a642882a234b1f\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (11:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chair, thank you. I just want to acknowledge the two previous contributions from Government parties in relation to this coward punch legislation. I think they\u2019ve traversed well the real public concern that there has been around this particularly heinous crime and the cowardly nature of it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat we have in this legislation is a tougher consequence in terms of the maximum penalty for a coward punch with grievous bodily harm\u2014so not causing death, but grievous bodily harm\u2014of 15 years, and, causing injury, of eight years. Then we\u2019ve brought in a specific offence in relation to a coward punch leading to death. Already, of course, the manslaughter provision is significant, but we felt, on balance, that it was necessary to, in the legislation, have a particular offence relating to this to make it very clear to the public that the Parliament of New Zealand denounces this particular act and there are specific consequences for it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, there\u2019s a lot of debate around how best to achieve that, and because the manslaughter offence\u2014we wouldn\u2019t want a situation where the higher hurdle of proving a coward punch wasn\u2019t met and somebody got off scot-free. I do acknowledge the legislative proposal from Duncan Webb to make it clear that a jury could also consider a general manslaughter charge. The advice was that that would be the case, but it doesn\u2019t hurt to make it clear in the legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhen it comes to the question of mandatory minimum sentences, there is a disagreement between the Government parties on that matter. I\u2019ll just explain our logic from the National Party point of view, which is to say we\u2019ve done a lot over the last 2\u00BD years to restore real consequences for crime, such as bringing back three strikes and, in particular, putting a cap on the amount of discounts that judges can apply\u2014capping that at 40 percent. I think people were rightly concerned when discounts were going into the 60s and 70s percentages and people were being convicted of serious violent offending and ending up on home detention. We\u2019ve made that very significant change. Allied to that was stopping funding cultural reports, which some people might think is a minor thing, but it actually is an important signal that we don\u2019t agree with the culture of excuses for crime\u2014that, somehow, if you committed a crime, it wasn\u2019t your fault; it was society\u2019s fault. The combination of those two things, we think, sends a very powerful message from the Parliament to the judiciary that we want to have greater consequences for crime and, in effect, tougher sentences.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, people will go on about, well, the independence of the judiciary and so forth. No\u2014Parliament sets the sentencing framework, and it is perfectly within the rights of Parliament to set minimum sentences or mandatory sentences. The tradition in this country has been to set maximum sentences and allow judicial discretion, with the exception of murder, where there\u2019s a minimum mandatory.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOur view is that, given that we\u2019ve made substantial changes in this area\u2014we\u2019ve limited the amount of discounts, we\u2019ve brought back three strikes, we\u2019ve done away with cultural reports. Our view is that that will have a significant impact and achieve a lot. It\u2019s only really just coming into consideration for cases now that the law has been passed, come into effect, and it applies to new cases. If we find, in a few years\u2019 time, that that message still isn\u2019t getting through, well, then, the next cab off the rank is to consider more minimum sentences, but we haven\u2019t got to that point yet. I think it\u2019s worthwhile assessing the progress that we\u2019ve made with the changes that we\u2019ve made before going to a minimum sentences regime, which is a very fundamental change to our sentencing framework as a whole.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s a difference of opinion, but we\u2019re all very determined to restore real consequences for crime. We\u2019ve made real progress, and this is another step in that path.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u00224eb6e567b1090b2f921ae61a997d82ef\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224eb6e567b1090b2f921ae61a997d82ef\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (11:20)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank the Minister of Justice for acknowledging the work that was done in the Justice Committee by me and others, around making sure that the creation of this offence didn\u2019t create an anomaly whereby if you weren\u2019t convicted of it, you got off scot-free, even though it would meet the test for culpable homicide by manslaughter. I see the Minister has tidied that up by putting it in the right place in his Amendment Paper, and we\u2019ll support that Amendment Paper\u2014although, to be clear, it is because it has improved something which is pretty bad, so it just makes it slightly less bad. For that reason, we\u2019ll support the Amendment Paper, but we certainly don\u2019t support this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to explain why we don\u2019t support the coward punch provisions. Any death\u2014and we heard some terrible and sad and tragic stories of deaths caused by punches\u2014which is caused by an illegal act needs the most serious response of the law. But there\u2019s fundamentally two reasons why coward punches don\u2019t work. One is: why is it more heinous for a person to be killed by an unexpected strike to the head than an unexpected push to the chest? Both of those things cause deaths. In most coward punches, the death is caused by the head striking the ground. Why is it more heinous for a coward punch\u2014two burly people who, in the recent case out of Wellington, were two fairly hefty people having a dispute and an unexpected punch, than some huge guy who threatens a smaller person and says, \u201CI\u2019m going to punch you in the head.\u201D, and does so. It\u2019s not a coward\u2019s punch but it\u2019s heinous and requires a fierce response by the law. Why is a coward punch more heinous than a man in a domestic violence situation who hits his spouse and she knew it was coming? They are all heinous deaths and we shouldn\u2019t be separating out one kind as requiring a special response. They should all be treated as most serious crimes and many of them might reach the threshold for murder if they were reckless as to whether death ensued or not, but if in fact that was not contemplated\u2014they didn\u2019t think that they would cause death\u2014then manslaughter is the right conviction and the law should treat it appropriately. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other problem is this: you\u2019ve created an incoherent offence where the prosecutor has to prove a list of things. I can imagine the courts spending hours discussing where the neck starts and finishes. What is it for it to be \u201Cunexpected\u201D? These kinds of evidential debates are entirely unhelpful. What the real question is is: did that person assault the other and were they reckless as to death or not? In the wider context, what was the disparity of power between those persons? We should equip the judges, and I accept some of the concerns around the sentences that have been imposed, but what we don\u2019t want to do is to create an absolutely incoherent offence that makes no sense internally, because there is no real difference between a punch to the head and a kick to the chest when death ensues, and there\u2019s no difference between saying, \u201CI\u2019m going to whack you.\u201D, and doing so, to a small person and slapping someone in the face unexpectedly. Just remember: a slap which someone didn\u2019t expect meets this test if someone then falls over, strikes their head and dies. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s the other reason why we certainly won\u2019t be supporting any minimum sentencing, because it makes a nonsense of how the offence would work. So we will not be supporting this. We don\u2019t support these coward punch rules.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u00221d9e16843ff56c6636b2fffde2f1a191\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221d9e16843ff56c6636b2fffde2f1a191\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:25)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to, first, because this is my first call since my previous one\u2014so I do have two quick ones that touch on a previous section, but I\u2019ll be very succinct. Just clause 16, \u201CSection 98D replaced\u201D. I just want to check with the Minister of Justice, in replacement section 98D(1)(b) and (3)(a), if those lists are exhausted. That\u2019s all\u2014if the Minister wouldn\u2019t mind just checking.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EI will now move on to Subpart 4. Can I also just check with you, Mr Chair, in the Minister\u2019s Amendment Paper 660, there\u2019s a deletion of clause 19A, which is now in Subpart 1A of Part 2. It is in a separate part, but it is integral to this section. Can I just check with the Chair if it is OK for us to also discuss that particular bit in this discussion, as part of Part 1? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228a3177f1e841adab23c4864c7dfec16c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Greg O\u0027Connor)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, it is. You\u2019ll obviously relate why.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022106396420b8b9df5a4f68b9fe59d5fe2\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, absolutely. I do want to start by contributing towards some of the other amendments and also in response to what the Minister has said. Again, this probably was one of the more fraught aspects of this bill during the select committee stage. I think it is important also, following on from the contribution by the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, to remind the committee as well that, number one, with any sort of manslaughter or murder under the Crimes Act, what we are looking at is both the mens rea and concurrence. The mens rea component, specifically if you\u2019re looking at section 167(c) and (d) of the Crimes Act 1061, does address murder in the context of certain recklessness and also the use of an object\u2014for example, if you hit someone with a vehicle.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo I think if there were any ounce of intention that was determined by the court and by the judge and jury of this section, that the strike to the head or neck was done intentionally, there are grounds that it will be considered murder as opposed to manslaughter. I do also acknowledge what the Minister has mentioned before: that there have been other changes\u2014whether it is the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Act or the reinstatement of the three-strikes legislation\u2014and that we are going to be seeing some of the changes. But I think it\u2019s also important, I guess, for the committee to remember that while the Minister has said that cultural reports are something that have been defunded or given lower priority under the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Act, you can pay your way to go beyond the 40 percent threshold. So we\u2019re still not really looking at a case of equity there. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOne of the questions I have for clause 19 and particularly the new section 171A\u2014and, again, this follows from the contribution by the Hon Dr Duncan Webb\u2014is: how would this be interpreted in a court of law? So, I guess, particularly if the Minister wouldn\u2019t mind giving some examples on new section 171A(1) of what is the expectation around the interpretation of circumstances, and what, then, are we looking at when we say, \u201Climited or no opportunity\u201D? Again, some of those can be considered subjective. Are we looking at a reasonable person test or, when we\u2019re looking at the test for that, are we looking at a subjective test or are we looking at an objective test? That\u2019s incredibly important, again, when it comes to criminal law, and that\u2019s relevant to this section as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think I would leave that question there, but just noting to the Chair that obviously will be moving on clause 19A and I have mentioned the Minister\u2019s Amendment Paper 660 on the Criminal Procedure Act. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u0022d0836f04356bfe0ffe62b2bd74fd9bf9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d0836f04356bfe0ffe62b2bd74fd9bf9\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (11:30)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Following on from the contributions around the committee on this harm by strike to the head or neck, I just had some technical questions for the Minister of Justice in relation to where he has landed on these particular provisions. We\u2019re aware of the issues surrounding the drafting of this, and the compromise that has been reached\u2014and this was inserted by the Justice Committee\u2014is new section 171B, \u201CAlternative verdict of manslaughter\u201D, inserted by clause 19A. I was present at the select committee, and I\u2019m aware of how we ended up getting to this place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do think it is important, even though there has been an attempt to try to get around the issue\u2014I think, fundamentally, the issue that the officials were advising against was that we did not have the correct primary legislation to put this particular offence in. That has led to some legislative gymnastics and awkwardly trying to squeeze this puzzle piece into a different puzzle, which is the wrong puzzle for this particular piece in the Crimes Act. However, we\u2019re aware of the history; we know that it\u2019s here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s also important that it\u2019s workable in terms of the way that it will be applied. In the \u201CAlternative verdict of manslaughter\u201D, we have a situation where we were clearly advised that the components of the coward punch provisions in relation to a situation where a death had occurred\u2014and we acknowledge that there\u2019s a grievous bodily harm offence, which was less problematic in terms of where it fitted into the legislation. The advice was that we were in a situation\u2014and this has been very influential on our decision not to support this part of the bill\u2014where it was so unworkable that there was likely to be fewer convictions when this was tried. That has led to the alternative verdict of manslaughter being able to be used in those circumstances.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFrom a practical perspective, I wonder if the Minister could explain\u2014and I appreciate that this a technical aspect of the bill; I know he has officials here to assist him\u2014how is this going to be communicated and work in practicality? When new section 171A inserted by clause 19 is utilised as a primary offence, how will it be communicated to defendants and their representatives that they must, as part of the trial process, also prepare a defence for manslaughter whilst being charged with the offence under new section 171A? From a defendant\u2019s perspective\u2014and it\u2019s important even though our sympathies are not with a defendant, and obviously they should be innocent until proven guilty\u2014what they are facing is a dual charge, which does at times occur in criminal law, of manslaughter by strike to head or neck or manslaughter as exists in the current law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMy question is: is that correct? Will it be necessary for this to be flagged when they are first charged with an offence? I think that is important, because they need to have clarity around the offences that they are actually defending. Will there be guidance around this to prosecutors\u2014the fact that it\u2019s most likely necessary that, when you charge under new section 171A, you will also have to charge an alternative charge of manslaughter at the same time. Otherwise, it\u2019s going to be very difficult, from a justice perspective, for this to actually work when it is implemented. I appreciate that this might not have been the Minister\u2019s ideal situation\u2014or maybe it is\u2014but I would appreciate some workability advice on how this will occur.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022 data-id=\u0022e3bc5c5e4120757956f4db1d6a1f6f87\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e3bc5c5e4120757956f4db1d6a1f6f87\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (11:35)\u003C/span\u003E: Look, I\u2019m advised that it\u2019s an operational matter for the courts and the Ministry of Justice to help people navigate their way through this process, and it\u2019s a common issue with alternative charges which does occur elsewhere in the law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn terms of a defendant knowing that they need to prepare for a general manslaughter charge as well, my assumption is that they will have a defence lawyer, and the defence lawyer will read the legislation, and the legislation makes it clear that, if a prosecution is brought against this coward\u2019s punch causing death, the jury could also consider a general manslaughter charge. I think it\u2019s pretty basic in that regard.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u002259d816906d9628b43f5506e464fc26dc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002259d816906d9628b43f5506e464fc26dc\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:36)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for the responses. I do think that some of the broader guideline aspect that we asked previously is actually important for us now. I think that, even in the simplest way, for any criminal trials or any manslaughter trials involving this, there should be some sort of additional guidance for the court and for the juries to get some sort of ministerial intent on the expectations of this section, as with the example I gave before on whether the \u201Climited or no opportunity\u201D in new section 171A(1) inserted by clause 19 is an objective test or a subjective test.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think the question that Camilla Belich raised is a really important one. Would there be an expectation that a person needs to be charged for both manslaughter by strike to head or neck in the new section 171A as well as manslaughter under, I believe, section 171 of the Crimes Act? How would that work in practice? As in, they need to have two charges\u2014because the issue is that, if there isn\u2019t and a person gets acquitted for one of them, are we then seeing what the Minister has put in his Amendment Paper 660 for an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act where there is this automatic manslaughter provision that then needs to be considered? Are they going to be considered concurrently as a result? I\u2019m looking at page 3 of the Minister\u2019s Amendment Paper 660, clause 28B, which is essentially a repackage of the existing clause 19A in this bill but is just being put into a more appropriate and consequential legislation, in the Criminal Procedure Act as opposed to in the Crimes Act. That being one of the questions\u2014again, if that is going to be the case, how would there be the expectation for the court to work through some of these considerations?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, I do want to touch on clause 20, just in terms of the \u201CWounding with intent by strike to the head or neck\u201D, noting that this, in terms of the wording, is no different from what we\u2019re currently seeing in section 188 of the Crimes Act, particularly subsections (1) and (2). I just want to check with the Minister, considering that we don\u2019t have a similar provision to what we\u2019re seeing in what is formerly clause 19A, now in the Minister\u2019s amendment to Part 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, clause 28B, is there an expectation as well that a person needs to be charged under new section 188A as well as section 188? Again, if any person is acquitted from section 188A and they\u2019re not charged under 188, they have to be acquitted overall, otherwise we\u2019re running into the issues of double jeopardy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to check that with the Minister initially because, again, for clause 20, we don\u2019t see the similar remedial provisions that we\u2019re currently seeing in both clause 19A and also Amendment Paper 660, clause 28B. I just want to check. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022 data-id=\u0022faa0578076f49389d4d27fdf039e4fea\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022faa0578076f49389d4d27fdf039e4fea\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (11:40)\u003C/span\u003E: In terms of the question of limited or no opportunity to defend themselves, the definition\u2014look, that is new wording, and my advice is that the courts will determine how to apply it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EIn terms of being charged with one or two offences, my advice is that you\u2019d be charged with one and then it drops to the other, if that is applicable\u2014the charge of coward\u2019s punch, and then it can drop to a general manslaughter charge.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022 data-id=\u00227c38d0fb519cef4505d6c7275241cc47\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b78723aefdc74b11a47482993ca56a74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227c38d0fb519cef4505d6c7275241cc47\u0022\u003EHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central) (11:40)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Of course, I want to move on to the first responders shortly, probably in this call, but it\u2019s interesting that the Minister of Justice talked about it dropping from this manslaughter by strike to head or neck down to manslaughter, because they\u2019re in fact both simply manslaughter with the same sentencing\u2014which is another reason why this manslaughter by strike to the head or neck offence makes no sense, because it\u2019s just manslaughter. It\u2019s just a variety of manslaughter with exactly the same sentencing regime as manslaughter simpliciter, if you like. I can understand why his coalition partners are scratching their heads as to why it\u2019s here at all and making the arguments that they are making.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI don\u2019t want to talk about that particular part of the bill any more. I do want to just look at offences against first responders and corrections officers. I\u2019m not sure the Minister talked about it, but in his Amendment Paper 660 he has expanded the definition of \u201Ccorrections officer\u201D substantially, and also included \u201Cpersons under the control of Corrections\u201D as an additional definition because it feeds back into what a corrections officer is. That seems to be overcomplicating this substantially, and it\u2019s a long definition in his Amendment Paper. I\u2019d be keen to understand why the first definition, which is simply the meaning given to a corrections officer in Section 3(1) of the Corrections Act 2004\u2014why exactly that didn\u2019t work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other thing I\u2019d like to just ask about this is that we\u2019ve got these first responders and corrections officers, and what has been done is, essentially, a closed list of constable, authorised person of the Policing Act, ambulance, first aid or paramedic, fire and emergency, and corrections officers. We had long discussions about who else should be involved in that, because there are a number of other people\u2014surf lifesavers came up. Now, they\u2019re not statutory officers, but a statutory officer that did come up that wasn\u2019t included, although there was a strong argument put that they should be, was M\u0101ori Wardens, who have statutory powers and they\u2019re statutorily-appointed and do, in fact, respond to disorder events, often on marae and at M\u0101ori gatherings.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019d be interested to understand why the existing corrections officer definition, which is very simple and elegant, didn\u2019t work, and also why the Minister wasn\u2019t eager and if he would consider expanding, in fact, the definition if we\u2019re going to have first responders to actually looking at some of these other people, such as M\u0101ori Wardens, who exercise statutory powers in specified situations and are equally subject to the kinds of risks that we\u2019re looking at here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022 data-id=\u0022e5f5a27ed687d69e83ad5ac02a8e07d5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224781da7e0ee64557a3bcb565f241de8e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e5f5a27ed687d69e83ad5ac02a8e07d5\u0022\u003ECAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (11:44)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Just for clarity, I know that we\u2019re moving past the coward punch section now, and I do have some questions on the next subpart, but it would be good to hear from the Minister of Justice, just definitively, some clarity around whether or not he will be supporting the amendments from his Government colleagues from the ACT Party and New Zealand First. I didn\u2019t quite catch that when we were discussing it before.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do have some questions around corrections officers, and again there has been a relatively substantive amendment put to this. I think we\u2019re at a stage where we have an amendment for Part 2 that was put in at select committee, which we will discuss later. We\u2019ve got amendments from all Government parties, actually, and we\u2019ve got a new Amendment Paper which adds in corrections officers. Now, this is not a part of the bill that we object to, because we understand that there are jobs that can have innate risk associated with them, and sometimes those people will go into dangerous situations and they won\u2019t have a choice. Many of us have an instinct to avoid a dangerous situation. Well, if you\u2019re a firefighter or an ambulance officer, if you\u2019re a paramedic, your job is to ignore those warning signs and actually rush in. Sometimes it can be physical threats from disasters, fires, for example, and accidents, or it can be threats from dangerous individuals.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs my colleague Dr Duncan Webb said, there was not a fulsome discussion on the extent to which this right would be put in place. One particularly dangerous, particularly important, particularly undervalued job is that of a mental health nurse. Those people walk into work every single day and are confronted with some of our most vulnerable people, who can act in a way that is unpredictable. They must care for those people and those people will not be convicted if they attack them. In the situation where there is sufficient mens rea for those types of attack, there are other jobs which are equally important to the safety of New Zealanders than those which are listed here. That\u2019s not to undermine at all the important work that those listed here do, and obviously corrections officers are one of those that the Minister has sought to put in through his Amendment Paper. My specific questions that I wanted to understand in these particular clauses that have been put forward\u2014there is talk in the regulatory impact statement around the fact that people who are volunteers would be covered, and I think that that is correct and that is the intention. It would be good to have, for the \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EHansard\u003C/span\u003E, that articulation\u2014if it is, in fact, correct that volunteers acting in these roles are also covered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe other question I have is specifically, in clause 23(3), people who would not be considered volunteers necessarily in the sense that we know that our volunteer firefighters have a very specific role, and they\u2019re considered to be volunteer firefighters and they do a large amount of the fire and emergency work throughout New Zealand. But we have, I think, probably a step down\u2014maybe not a step down, but a step sideways\u2014a different category of people in clause 23(3), who are members of the public, really. That\u2019s my question for the Minister\u2014that we have any person acting in the aid of a constable also covered in relation to these provisions, and they are also protected by these aggravated assault provisions. I want to know to what extent volunteers are covered\u2014if, in fact, this Minister\u2019s intention is, as provided in the information, that formal volunteers are covered\u2014and also, if people who are assisting in the course of a first response - type of situation would be covered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022 data-id=\u0022401669eabf26d924b7e808645b0f9cce\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002291c0e777ce3d4711ace36a15c7e22ffe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022401669eabf26d924b7e808645b0f9cce\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (11:49)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you for the comments and questions in relation to this piece of legislation. What we\u2019re trying to do here is recognise the specific circumstances of first responders who, on behalf of the rest of New Zealanders, go towards a dangerous situation on behalf of the rest of the community, and specific offences here against those people who attack them in the course of them doing it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, a question was asked around a corrections officer and the detailed description that we\u2019ve included in relation. The definition is long, primarily because there is a wide variety of front-line corrections roles and so that is a reflection of that. A question was asked around volunteers. Yes, the definition of \u201Cfirst responder\u201D is intended to capture those emergency service providers. It includes volunteer fighters as well as volunteers and students on educational placements as well, so that\u2019s pretty important as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, of course, many people over the course of the exercise have raised other groups of people who are sometimes assaulted in their work, and have asked why they\u2019re not included in this. I can absolutely understand those. Everybody will make a case and we don\u2019t in any way disparage the efforts and the risks taken by any New Zealanders, whether they be schoolteachers or health professionals. But all I can say is, through this process, we have particularly identified firefighters, police, ambulance, and corrections officers who routinely are dealing\u2014and there have been many instances where they have been attacked. That is where we\u2019ve started this conversation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f36277cb754947fa93977a31a33abd49\u0022 data-id=\u002254afa9c1edddb578b485a262ab67feeb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f36277cb754947fa93977a31a33abd49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002254afa9c1edddb578b485a262ab67feeb\u0022\u003EHon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police) (11:51)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to take the call. This is, again, an opportunity for me to speak in this part around the Amendment Paper that is in my name, Amendment Paper 649. Again, this is a reflection of the New Zealand First position around the seriousness of this offence and it is why we specifically included in our coalition agreement a minimum mandatory prison sentence because of the seriousness of the circumstances of the offences against first responders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI think it was important to highlight that in this discussion, this isn\u2019t about who is more important or less important when it comes to crime; it\u2019s the nature of first responders that we are pushing them into these situations and this is what we\u2019re trying to recognise, this concept that those that we are\u2014and you will hear frequently from ambulance officers that they are dealing with situations that are volatile, emotions are raw, and they are treated appallingly in some circumstances. This is about sending a clear message that these individuals that we ask to do so much on behalf of our communities are going to be protected at a higher level. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe amendment that we\u2019re putting forward is actually just to insert \u201Cat least six months, but not exceeding five years\u201D into the new section 193(3). Again, we recognise the seriousness of minimum mandatory sentences. We do acknowledge that that is a big decision for any court to make to say this but, again, this is about sending a clear message to the tolerance level. Having been in those positions where you\u2019re assaulted and you do finally get to court, there is a sense within the court environment that our first responders can expect this, that this is the nature of the work that you do and that somehow our first responders should be thicker-skinned or tougher or more able to deal with it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat we\u2019re asking here is for our courts and our system to say to those who think about it, \u201CThis is the proviso. This is the thing that we want to be widely communicated and recognised.\u201D This is why the amendment is so important to New Zealand First around making sure that our first responders are treated as a different category, that we\u2019re asking so much of them; it\u2019s not unreasonable that they ask something of us to ensure that level of protection is applied to them. I would appreciate the Minister\u2019s consideration on those matters.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022 data-id=\u0022b83b7e640825148a4297affcc71e0c68\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bac3dcb6103a48d3bcead8563342a856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b83b7e640825148a4297affcc71e0c68\u0022\u003EDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:54)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to follow up from the response from the Minister of Justice regarding previous clauses, clauses 19 and 20. Thank you, Minister, for clarifying that if it\u2019s not charged under section 19, it will now automatically be charged under the second one, which is the Criminal Procedure Act in the Minister\u2019s Amendment Paper 660. But I just want to see if the Minister has a response to my question around clause 20, because clause 20 doesn\u2019t have the same level of provisions as we see with clause 19 where if one doesn\u2019t go through, it defaults to a second. I wondered: if the Minister had any consideration around if a person isn\u2019t charged under new section 188A, will they be charged under either section 188A(1) or (2) instead? Otherwise, a person will need to be charged for both crimes in order for there to be, I guess, the avoidance of a loophole with acquittal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003ENow, on to Subpart 5. This is an area that we also think is important and the Minister has clarified in terms of some of the other groups, but just also noting in terms of the Minister\u2019s definition for, I believe, \u201Cfront line\u201D that I think that\u2019s a key aspect. I want to check with the Minister in terms of new section 2(1)(c)(ii), amended by clause 21, which is specifically around designated services under the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act. Now, those designated services are specifically with regards to Fire and Emergency New Zealand, but I want to check with the Minister: would the Minister foresee something like this being covered for, for example, defence forces and for civil defence as well in the event of an emergency\u2014Because that\u2019s not covered under the definition of designated services\u2014or is there another provision within the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017 that naturally covers that? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227fabc244efc4464bd5cecb14ab6157c4\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for me to report progress. We have a special debate this morning\u2014well, slightly into the afternoon.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EProgress to be reported.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHouse resumed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b5beab63598d45e57ebdfba9c8747318\u0022\u003EEmployment Leave Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b5beab63598d45e57ebdfba9c8747318\u0022\u003ECrimes Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b5beab63598d45e57ebdfba9c8747318\u0022\u003EEnglish Language Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002229ba12f4cb3c24ff55d95f606ef825da\u0022\u003EReport of Committee of the whole House\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220acf95d76aa1314d0ec16d5e390206ea\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Employment Leave Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Crimes Amendment Bill and reports that it has made progress on the bill. The committee has also considered the English Language Bill and reports that it has made no progress on the bill. I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the report be adopted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EReport adopted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00222a6bd0a49cb4a067e4d6f11fba8b3847\u0022\u003EDebates\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002265aeb4b0f436faf658709d86bf0797b5\u0022\u003EPetitions\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ae95e7f604b2a9af8ebec8b625dfed59\u0022\u003ESpecial Debate\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002235984f61527b4059ae9284acf3c4076b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022051a81a5aef89881c00b01f6032f27fa\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, we come now to the debate on petitions arranged by the Business Committee under Standing Order 80. Would some honourable member care to move?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022 data-id=\u0022c90bc1265e74fa56ba1d3a5306c1cff2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c4943fd1cf914de0befcb7a16280f910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c90bc1265e74fa56ba1d3a5306c1cff2\u0022\u003EGREG O\u0027CONNOR (Chairperson of the Petitions Committee) (12:00)\u003C/span\u003E: I move, \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsCharacterItalics\u0022\u003EThat the House take note of the petitions that have been considered by the select committees in the 54th Parliament\u003C/span\u003E.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThank you, Madam Speaker. I rise as the chairman of the omnipotent Petitions Committee. The Petitions Committee was a creation of the last Parliament. I remember being on select committees where petitions were these things that arrived and sat around, usually, at the end of the agenda, because no one really knew what to do with them. They were really quite a specialised subject and they required quite a bit of work. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe whole petitions process is a very important part of our democracy. It\u2019s the way that our citizens are able to bring matters\u2014I might say, a wide variety of matters; a large, broad range of matters\u2014to the attention of the Parliament. Of course, when each of these petitions have been dealt with by a subject matter specialist, as they were on each of the committees, they got a varied approach, a varied response, and probably most of the submitters would have gone away not particularly satisfied they\u2019d been well-heard. So the decision in the last Parliament to form a petitions committee was not only good for the select committees but also allowed a certain amount of expertise to be developed around the Petitions Committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Petitions Committee now\u2014we are very, very good committee at the moment and we endeavour, when these petitions arrive, to look at them outside the political sphere, outside our parties and caucus sphere, and to see just what it is that the petitioner really wants and what is the policy issue, in particular, that we can address and then respond to and, perhaps, send it off to the relevant Minister and certainly back to Parliament and get a response where one is called for. Of course, like a lot of our work, there is a variety, and the\u2014shall we say\u2014thought that\u2019s gone into some of these petitions does vary. Some of the petitions that arrive on our desk really do cause us to wonder why this hasn\u2019t arrived earlier. Many of the private members\u2019 bills\u2014now the members\u2019 bills\u2014that have arrived on the floor of the House have originated from petitions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere are two particular petitions that I look at that really cover the range of petitions. We have had a considerable number. We\u2019ve had 155 petitions that have been reported back by the Petitions Committee; 69 have been referred to Ministers for response; and we currently have 109 petitions under active consideration by the Petitions Committee. As you\u2019ll see, there\u2019s quite a range of topics. Rather than go through each of these, and my fellow members of the Petitions Committee will be addressing some of the more specialised topics there\u2014also, before, I was just going to say we\u2019re very well-clerked as a committee, too; Tui Head, Isobel Tannock and, currently,Anna Platten and their team ensure that we do get the best of work and the best of attention. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EJust a couple of mentions of two particular petitions out of the range of the petitions we receive. One is a petition by Alistair Reese calling for a recognition of the oral agreement as part of the Treaty of Waitangi. Now, this is a very interesting petition. Those who understand their history\u2014and we all should understand plenty about the Treaty of Waitangi\u2014will know that the fourth unwritten, unrecognised clause of the Treaty is the right to religious freedom. The story around that was that Bishop Pompallier was a Catholic and he felt, and there was a fear\u2014you\u2019ll remember in the 1840s, at that time, there was a lot of religious warfare and certainly division taking place in Europe. New Zealand, in many ways, considered that it might be better to keep it a Catholic-free zone. Well, of course, the French had designs on New Zealand at the time. The French, being Catholic, would have realised that all may not have been well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESo Bishop Pompallier petitioned Mr Hobson and Rev. Williams, and there was an agreement at the time that we would have religious freedom, but it was never enshrined; it was never written down. The petition was to recognise the oral agreement as part of the Treaty of Waitangi. It recommends to the Government that a policy process be initiated that considers ways in which the oral agreement of Waitangi could be formally recognised, and encourages the Government to consider using public engagement tools such as deliberative democracy on the part of the process. Two kaum\u0101tua had actually originated this from Ng\u0101ti Ranginui: Patrick Nicholas and Huikakahu Kawe. Both were deceased, so the petition was picked up by Dr Alistair Reese. It referred to the oral exchange between Governor William Hobson and Bishop Pompallier at Waitangi on 6 February, referred to as the \u201Coral agreement\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe heard some very interesting submitters. We had submitters from the Anglican Church, from the Presbyterian Church, and from the Catholic Church, who came with the petitioner. What was particularly clear was that there was agreement among the churches that this is something that they would all be happy to have addressed; that, certainly in our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, we have the right of religious freedom, so, of course, it made sense that that should also be included in the Treaty. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHowever\u2014this is how we like to work as a committee\u2014we then heard from someone who has got a good constitutional view on this, and we got Sir Geoffrey Palmer in. Well, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, I\u2019d have to say\u2014and I\u2019ve sat on that committee for some time\u2014would be one of the more interesting submissions we have heard. Anyone who has heard Sir Geoffrey Palmer will know that he was in his element there. It was part of our history, part of our constitution, and\u2014again, noting that time is moving on\u2014he didn\u2019t recommend, at the end, after some great discussions around the committee, that we continue with the process of having a written version of this, to open that\u2014my words, not his\u2014can of worms at this stage, when, even within this House, the Treaty can be somewhat contentious; it was best left alone, and he himself, of course, having been the author of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, pointed out that we do have the right of religious freedom anyway. Again, I bring that as an example of just the type of work we\u2019re able to do as a committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOn the other hand\u2014another one: we\u2019ve had a petition from Zane Allan to ban geoengineering and weather modification in New Zealand. This is the good old chemtrails, and every MP would have had someone coming into their electorate office to talk about banning chemtrails. Well, the committee, rather than just deal with that, we thought, well, what is this all about? Why is this there? I hesitate to use the words \u201Cconspiracy theory\u201D, but why is it that around New Zealand, there are those who look in the sky and, when they see the Air New Zealand 530 from Auckland to Wellington flying over Mount Ruapehu leaving this beautiful vapour trail behind it, they believe it\u2019s a chemtrail? So what we did was we got one of our local academics, and asked: \u201CWhat is this? Where does it arise from?\u201D It arose, like so much does, from the United States. And, as you might imagine\u2014again, I\u2019m aware that my time is coming to an end\u2014we didn\u2019t recommend that any action be taken on this. I\u2019ll just look at those two particular petitions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll finish by saying that I think that the way that petitions are dealt with in this House\u2014I did make submissions to the Australian federal Parliament; they have a petitions committee. They largely don\u2019t hear from their citizens. They deal with the petitions on their merits, and they are very much lost in the system. I think the way we deal with our petitions and the system we have here is a very good one, and I would certainly be recommending that the Petitions Committee continue. Thank you, Madam Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220fd9b34890c180ce61b6d4f4d5d396b7\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. The next call, I\u2019m advised, is a split call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227ef423fda7b143b890e93f8018529ebe\u0022 data-id=\u0022a6151ccffa10693b514d640831433ec5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227ef423fda7b143b890e93f8018529ebe\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a6151ccffa10693b514d640831433ec5\u0022\u003EGREG FLEMING (Deputy Chairperson of the Petitions Committee) (12:10)\u003C/span\u003E:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001341\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001342\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=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EServing as your deputy chair, sir, Mr Greg O\u2019Connor, has been both a privilege and a genuine pleasure. Can I also mihi briefly to the clerks represented here today: to Benji, Anna, Kita\u2014who else is there?\u2014Lisa, and Mary. Awesome to see you guys. Also, a shout-out to Isobel and Tui. We have, as Greg said previously, been wonderfully served these last 2\u00BD, coming up three, years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs our chair has just reflected, this committee has considered an extraordinary range of issues over this Parliament. We\u2019ve done so with cross-party rigour, candour, respect, and, thankfully, no shortage of good humour. In the interest of time, and because Greg O\u2019Connor is not in your chair, I\u2019m going to actually read my speech to be very precise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA number of petitions have stayed with me long after the hearings ended, and none more so than the petition from the Problem Gambling Foundation. I\u2019m going to spend the rest of my time explaining why the committee reached the recommendation that we did and why I believe Parliament should take up that challenge in future Parliaments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe committee heard compelling evidence and thoughtful submissions; we reached a clear conclusion\u2014I\u2019ll read it here: \u201Cwe agree with the petitioner that the current regulatory settings are inadequate, and we are concerned that there are insufficient protections in place for vulnerable populations. With this in mind, we recommend that the Government review the regulatory settings around gambling advertising in New Zealand.\u201D I support that recommendation wholeheartedly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EEarlier this week, as I was heading to the airport, I mentioned to my youngest son that I would be speaking today about gambling advertising. Like most 17-year-olds, he\u2019s not rigorously engaged with my parliamentary work, but on this occasion, he leaned in and said\u2014\u201CDad, over half of the ads I receive on YouTube are for Betcha.\u201D For those members who don\u2019t know, that\u2019s the TAB\u2019s betting app targeting 18- to 29-year-olds. Think about that for a moment: here\u2019s a young man, who isn\u2019t even legally allowed to gamble, yet gambling advertising has become so normal, it\u2019s simply part of what he now sees online.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe reality is that gambling no longer waits for adults to seek it out; increasingly, it seeks out our young people. It arrives through sport, through gaming, through social media, through the phone in a teenager\u2019s pocket; advertising is the thread that stitches gambling into all those parts of a young person\u2019s life until it simply feels normal. It\u2019s not good. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe evidence that we heard as a committee was consistent: exposure to gambling advertising makes gambling appear normal, creates more positive attitudes towards it, and increases the likelihood that people will gamble. One New Zealand study\u2014here in Wellington, actually\u2014placed wearable cameras on children aged 11 to 13. The cameras took a photograph every seven seconds. Over four days, those children were exposed to gambling marketing, on average, seven times every day. That didn\u2019t even include what they were seeing online. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWhat is being advertised today is a world away from the gambling many of us grew up with. It isn\u2019t a Lotto ticket bought on a Saturday and checked on a Sunday; today\u2019s products are immediate. You can place a bet, have it settled, and place another within seconds. They\u2019re designed to be fast, they\u2019re designed to be repeated, and they\u2019re designed to keep people engaged\u2014they\u2019re designed to make people addicts. What\u2019s even more concerning is that many children are learning the mechanics of gambling long before they ever place a bet. Randomised rewards, loot boxes, and skins are now a normal part of many of the games they play. The evidence we heard showed that spending on those features was associated with a greater likelihood of gambling later in life. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf gambling has changed this much, then surely our approach to gambling advertising needs to change, too. We\u2019ve recently developed detailed advertising rules for licensed online casino operators, but outside of that new regime, Lotto, racing, and sports betting largely sit under a voluntary advertising standards authority code that relies on complaints after an advertisement has already run. That may once have been enough; I do not believe it is any longer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EParliament has recognised the need to protect children in other parts of the online world: we\u2019ve debated social media; we\u2019ve acted on mobile phones in schools; we understand that technology shapes behaviour\u2014surely, gambling advertising deserves that same careful attention.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EDuring New Zealand\u2019s opening World Cup match last month, children across the country were watching in classrooms and homes alike, celebrating a moment they\u2019d waited years to see, then came the advertising break; gambling promotions, inducements, the unmistakable message that betting was simply part of enjoying the game. Every one of those advertisements complied with the current rules\u2014and that\u2019s precisely the point: the rules themselves are no longer good enough.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIf the evidence presented to the committee teaches us anything, it\u2019s this: gambling is changing faster than our laws are. It\u2019s now up to Parliament to decide whether our protections should change with it. For as long as I have the privilege of serving in this House, I\u2019ll continue advocating for that review and for stronger protections that better reflect the digital world our young people are growing up in.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Petitions Committee issued the Parliament a clear challenge; I believe it\u2019s one we should accept. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e143750628615768615705b53713dd66\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I would just make the comment, in terms of reading speeches, that there were a lot of recommendations and quotes in there. It\u2019s when people don\u2019t understand their speech, which that member did understand their speech and used those recommendations and quotes to get the message across\u2014so I deem that as fine.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f537d6f7e9d0407792892b239af9ec7f\u0022 data-id=\u002202acc079f16a5ba74ccc639dc6c41018\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f537d6f7e9d0407792892b239af9ec7f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002202acc079f16a5ba74ccc639dc6c41018\u0022\u003EHon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister for ACC) (12:15)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It was a cold winter\u2019s night on Thursday, 23 July 2024, when an ACT Party MP and myself were in the Katikati War Memorial Hall, and we were with nearly 400 local residents who were scared, worried, and feeling angry about New Zealand Transport Agency\u2019s (NZTA\u2019s) proposal to put wire mesh barriers down a significant length of State Highway 2 between Katikati and \u014Cmokoroa. On that very night, we had some good news: we were able to communicate to those interested community members that common sense had prevailed and the board of NZTA had instructed their contractors to cease any further work on barrier installation. That was well received that night.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe all went home reasonably pleased with the outcome, only to find that next morning, that very night, NZTA contractors had continued to install a barrier mesh that blocked off a right turn into Wright Road. Now, members in this Chamber may say, \u201CWhat on earth has this got to do with petitions?\u201D Well, it\u2019s got to do with petitions because this is a serious local matter in my electorate that has been festering unresolved for two and a bit years, and there was considerable anger and outburst from the local community about it. A petition came to the Parliament, in the name of Rochelle Zajko and many of the residents who lived on Wright Road\u2014it affects about 1,000 people. This barrier, to give members some idea of the impact of it, means that, now, people wanting to turn in and out of this main road have to traverse an extra 6 kilometres in order to get in and out of their residential, business, or school road. Now, that adds enormous challenges for the people who have to do that. It adds time, it adds cost, it adds extra road-user charge mileage, it adds emissions, and it adds danger if it\u2019s, for instance, an emergency vehicle, an ambulance, a fire brigade vehicle, or a police vehicle that needs to traverse that extra 6 kilometres. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, the petition came to Parliament, and it was actually sent by the Petitions Committee to the Transport Committee. I have to say that the Transport Committee has done a very good and thorough job on investigating this petition. They are yet to deliberate\u2014I understand that deliberation will occur very soon and that will be a good thing. I\u2019m looking forward to it, as are the residents and citizens of Wright Road in my electorate\u2014they\u2019re looking forward to it, as well. But throughout this process, as I sat next to Rochelle, as she came to Wellington to make a submission on behalf of her neighbours and fellow citizens, there was an intransigent, arrogant, non-committal, unhelpful approach from officials at NZTA. We were told repeatedly that this was a decision not made by officials at NZTA, but a decision made by the board of NZTA. And so, what has happened in the subsequent time is that the barrier still exists, accidents have increased, risky U-turns are being done, and the lives of citizens have been impacted negatively.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to say to this House that, often, a design plan created on a screen in a cubicle at NZTA head office doesn\u2019t necessarily work in practice; and that NZTA, I think, have an absolute obligation to engage fulsomely, adequately, and sensibly with local people who have local knowledge about local conditions. That hasn\u2019t occurred in this case. In fact, it has been exactly the reverse.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAs I said, NZTA, in my view, have been intransigent in this. Where we are at now is that these poor people are still having their lives impacted, dangerous vehicle movements are occurring, accidents are occurring, and NZTA stubbornly refuse to reopen a right-hand turn into Wright Road. It\u2019s dangerous, it\u2019s unnecessary, it impacts negatively on people\u2019s lives, and it needs to change. And so, without wanting to overstate the case and in the vein of former American President Ronald Reagan when he was referencing the Berlin Wall, I say to the board of NZTA: take down your fence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e66329e431ea47019b41524c6ef2954a\u0022 data-id=\u0022c1cc28909102d181607c3ada75f7c849\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e66329e431ea47019b41524c6ef2954a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c1cc28909102d181607c3ada75f7c849\u0022\u003ECELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) (12:20)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It\u2019s been a pleasure to be on the Petitions Committee. I would also like to acknowledge the chair. He\u2019s open-minded, he draws on his extensive knowledge, and he doesn\u2019t close off options. We have some really good discussions and debates about what\u2019s practical\u2014can we deal with it, are we the omnipotent committee that we like to think we are, and should it be most appropriately passed to a Minister or a select committee? We would very rarely just say, \u201CThis is not relevant.\u201D I\u2019d like to also, as Greg Fleming did, acknowledge the work of the staff and the work behind the scenes of the library, and most agencies and ministries produce great information when we ask. Some have to be prodded, unfortunately. Sometimes the Ministers have to be prodded, as well. We also ask for input from a number of NGOs\u2014whether it\u2019s the Law Society, the SPCA, or many other organisations. They are incredibly willing to share their information, because they know that they will be listened to. Most of all, I\u2019d like to thank the collective voice of Aotearoa New Zealand, the people who have got a good idea that they think we should take up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOf course, let\u2019s look at a little bit of history. The first and, perhaps, most famous petition was the women\u2019s suffrage petition, presented in July 1893. Now, that was old tech\u2014glued-together pieces of paper. It was 270 metres long. Fortunately, we now get our petitions in electronic form. That was a dramatic and huge and important petition, and it resulted in action almost immediately\u2014it was presented in July; there was a law change in September 1893. I would like to see a lot more attention to the public\u2019s view, whether it\u2019s small things or big things, where we haven\u2019t already settled into some calcified party positions that do not allow potential to be realised. I have really enjoyed working with Greg, with Paulo, when he was here, and both Gregs\u2014it does get confusing when both the chair and the deputy are called \u201CGreg\u201D, but we managed to get through that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI wanted to draw attention to a couple of interesting petitions. One was a petition that arose from a real\u2014well, many of them arise from personal tragedies; people are thinking, \u201CThis awful thing happened to me.\u201D or \u201CI can\u2019t possibly afford to look after my disabled child or whatever and pay these fees.\u201D But one example came to us about whether banks can restrict payments for alcohol purchase for under-18s. We heard a lot of information. We also had some promises that things are being looked at. One of my hopes is we decided we could not pursue legislative change at this time, but\u2014my goodness!\u2014if we don\u2019t see changes in operational work, I hope that the future and the next term of Parliament will deal with that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI do want to take up something close to my heart. In April 2026, the committee reported back to this House on the fireworks ban. We had Animates, we had Suzanne, Raewyn\u2014three different petitions about banning private fireworks sales. We heard from Fire and Emergency New Zealand, we heard from the Ministry for the Environment, and we heard from the SPCA. We were persuaded that the harm to animals, the danger to private property, the nuisance and unpredictability was just not worth that freedom. I thought we came to a really well-argued conclusion, and I am deeply disappointed that this Government chose not to pursue this recommendation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis is not just a valve to reduce political pressure; this is a real avenue for political change and responsiveness to the people of Aotearoa New Zealand. Kia ora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022440a125e85954bae9f5d470b7551e4f3\u0022 data-id=\u0022201a5e54d431b74f29004432875d0639\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022440a125e85954bae9f5d470b7551e4f3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022201a5e54d431b74f29004432875d0639\u0022\u003ECAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (12:25)\u003C/span\u003E: This is a wonderful debate to take part in. The right to petition Parliament is a key right that we\u2019ve had going back to Magna Carta. In fact, in New Zealand, our first petition to Parliament was in 1854. It is an important institution, and I feel extremely privileged to be able to contribute to this debate with what remarks I have to say.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn New Zealand, most New Zealanders assume that if you have an end-of-life directive, sometimes called a living will, sometimes called a do-not-resuscitate order, an advance care directive, or, most recently in New Zealand, with a petition to Parliament in the name of Louise Duffy, petitioning for Barbie\u2019s bill. People assume that if you put your wishes down at the end of your days when a medical emergency or medical event happens to you that could end the natural course of your life and that if you\u2019ve put down your wishes and if you\u2019ve put that in a way that is valid and that says, \u201CI wish to pass at this time.\u201D, that would be respected. We assume it rightfully. We think it because, for example, section 11 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 has in there\u2014this is the full section\u2014\u201CRight to refuse to undergo medical treatment: Everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment.\u201D, and so we rightfully think, as Kiwis, that if we\u2019ve put our wishes forward and if we\u2019ve made it clear what we would like to happen at the end of life and if we wish to shuffle off this mortal coil and go gently into the good night, we would be able to do so in accordance to our wishes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHowever, we had a petition come to this Parliament that was heard at the Petitions Committee, but it was also heard at the Health Committee, a committee which I\u2019m a member of, and Louise Duffy came in and told us about the story of her mother\u2019s passing and the circumstances around that where a living will, an advance care directive, was in place but wasn\u2019t followed. Her mother, Barbie, was kept alive and\u2014as Louise, who has a power of attorney, believes\u2014in a way that was not in accordance with her wishes. Barbie spent, I think, 54 days, before she passed from a massive stroke, refusing fluids and refusing food to try and bring that suffering to an end. I heard this petition and was deeply affected. There was a beautiful photo of Louise\u2019s mother, Barbie, on the front cover, and you thought, \u201CThis happy, healthy, full-of-life lady had made her wishes clear, and they weren\u2019t followed.\u201D How can that be that she had to, in the way she did so often, take control of her life in a way to end it, in a way that she trusted had been dealt with already previously.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe heard this petition, and I thought, \u201CWhat can I do to help? How is it that this can happen?\u201D I got further into the topic and found out that this is not a rare occurrence. It\u2019s not incredibly common, but it does happen. New Zealanders just assume, as I say, because we\u2019ve got the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and we\u2019ve got these structures set up, that this is something that happens. But there isn\u2019t a standardised template. There isn\u2019t one agency, one group, that oversees this. There isn\u2019t a legislative framework describing how end-of-life advance care directives should be managed, handled, and carried through. There are legitimate reasons why this is a complicated method. There needs to be things like enabling medical professionals to make judgments, and so binding too hard is hard. That\u2019s potentially why we\u2019ve got into this position. I think a petition like this coming to Parliament has really laid out a very important issue that most of us might not have to think about until a loved one or we require it. I think that this was an incredibly important thing to bring to Parliament. I\u2019m very grateful that Louise Duffy has made us aware as a Parliament of this issue. We\u2019re coming towards the end of a term of Parliament, but I think that this is an important issue that we all should be aware of, and that the next Parliament should be looking into.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223597a89611534dfc4506ddfb9f8d7de9\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Before I take the New Zealand First call, Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori have asked to take the last call in this debate. I\u2019m just indicating to National that whoever\u2019s next on your list will have the next call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d92a09db28c44070bbfdcc9f0e6f3cca\u0022 data-id=\u0022e9cc2d0b82ab835ed010fe98cff88284\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d92a09db28c44070bbfdcc9f0e6f3cca\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e9cc2d0b82ab835ed010fe98cff88284\u0022\u003EJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) (12:30)\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m pleased to stand on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to this special petitions debate. Petitions are really important, because the right to petition is a fundamental democratic right. Democracy\u2014we know\u2014it\u2019s happening this year, come 7 November at the ballot box, but it\u2019s not every three years that democracy happens. In fact, it can happen every day of the week, because democracy is not a spectator sport. Those petitions that come to Parliament, where those matters and those issues that are brought forward by the people, make those issues front and centre of the work we do as members of this House. It\u2019s one of the most direct ways that the public can access and bring forward those issues. Some may be historically significant, others may be just new issues bubbling to the surface, but it\u2019s a way that the people can speak directly to power.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA formal petition, though, unlike something on a Facebook page, can\u2019t be scrolled across. It actually has to be acknowledged; it has to be processed and reviewed. I\u2019d like to acknowledge the work of the Petitions Committee under the chair, Greg O\u2019Connor, and the deputy chair as well\u2014other Greg\u2014for your work in taking quite a lot of work out of the rest of the committees, because in the past, in the previous Parliament, I was a member of Parliament in the Health Committee, and we looked at over 40 petitions through that three-year period. So thank you for the work that you\u2019re doing as part of the committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EEveryday New Zealanders\u2014we probably know them\u2014are the architects of some of the most and greatest social shifts in our history. The humble piece of paper with a signature upon it, that passionate New Zealanders, passionate citizens, have brought to the attention of this Parliament. If we go back to 1893, as my colleague from across the House has mentioned already, there\u2019s the women\u2019s suffrage petition\u201430,000 women and men, including my great-great-grandmother Edith Marcroft, signed that petition. It was on glued-together pieces of paper and was rolled out across Parliament\u2019s chamber. That enabled New Zealand to become the very first self-governing nation in the world to give women the vote. Votes for women!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI\u2019ll fast-forward now to today. There have been a number of petitions\u2014a couple of petitions this term\u2014I\u2019d like to speak to one in particular, that of Bob McCoskrie on behalf of Family First New Zealand. He wanted to define a woman as an adult human female in laws, public policies, and legislation, and that petition was referred to the Minister. Sometimes the Petitions Committee deal with it, sometimes it goes to another committee or it\u2019s referred to a Minister. And in this case Bob\u2019s petition was referred to a Minister. Just over 23,000 signed that petition. The petitioner said that \u201Cthe shift away from sex-based rights grounded in biological realities has profound implications for the rights of biological women, particularly in contexts such as women\u2019s sports and women-only spaces.\u201D The submission he put through said that \u201Clegal and linguistic clarity on common sex-based terms with the establishment of sex-based definitions in legislation\u201D is a way of mitigating the \u201Crisk to women\u2019s safety, privacy, equal opportunity, and freedom of expression.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe Government responded to that petition, and I\u2019ll just read a couple of pieces from the report. \u201CGender-specific language is now infrequently used in legislation (for example, the term \u2018woman\u2019 appears in only 30 Public Acts) however, it may be appropriate in certain policy contexts. In particular, where legislation is concerned only or mainly with people of one gender such as within the context of pregnancy or cervical screening.\u201D Someone needs to tell the Ministry of Health that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut it wasn\u2019t the end of the road for Bob\u2019s petition. It led to a member\u2019s bill in my name, the Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill, with the aim to anchor in law biological sex as a real and meaningful category, because replacing the historic meaning of woman, \u201Cadult human female\u201D, with a new definition based on internal feelings, has seen the term \u201Cwoman\u201D begin to lose its political, legal, and moral weight. The concern is that if that continues, the carefully constructed manipulation of the language while borrowing the historical full force of the word \u201Cwoman\u201D will see the erasure of women as a political class. It is a privilege to speak on this particular special debate on petitions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002290f442a79aea4ce0aeae083763135935\u0022 data-id=\u0022147cb18e878c5e359b854f57d2c53e3d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290f442a79aea4ce0aeae083763135935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022147cb18e878c5e359b854f57d2c53e3d\u0022\u003ECARL BATES (National\u2014Whanganui) (12:35)\u003C/span\u003E: It was a privilege to serve on the Petitions Committee when I first entered this Parliament and work with Greg and Greg and other members across the House. I appreciate the fact that they both put up with me and the way in which I commented and drove forward work on petitions during that period.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHaving served on the committee, it is clearly an important part of the parliamentary process, and I just want to acknowledge also the petition that came through on banning fireworks from a Whanganui constituent Raewyn, who came into my office, presented it to me, and I brought it down to Parliament. I want to just acknowledge the work of the Petitions Committee, after I left it, as they worked that petition through on behalf of my constituent, as I say, from Whanganui. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EHowever, I wanted to focus my contribution to this debate on outcomes that get achieved from petitions that go in front of this committee, and two in particular. One was on rates. Two petitions, one brought by Alan Peacock, and another by Leah Hawkins, who talked about the cost of living pressures that have been created by one of the biggest increases that happens year in year out, through rates, to families across New Zealand. Alan said in his petition that he told the committee he appreciates the tax cuts made by the Government in 2024, but believes that the savings that were made for households are \u201Cbeing eaten up\u201D by rates increases. I just wanted to acknowledge this particular petition\u2014the way that the petitioner argued that councils need stronger incentives to focus on core services, on infrastructure spend, on being careful with ratepayer money, and on ensuring they deliver better value for ratepayers. It is simply not credible for councils and councillors to continue to take the view that they have no contribution to make in ensuring rates are maintained and grow at reasonable levels. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAn outcome in many ways of this petition is it\u2019s fed into a position that the Government took in late 2025. As acknowledged in the petition, it says, \u201CIn December 2025, the Government announced that it will introduce legislation to cap council rates. It expects that there will be a transition period for councils to integrate caps into their long-term planning from 2027.\u201D It\u2019s one example of how this National-led Government is continuing to fix the basics, and of course build the future as we ensure we get councils focused on core responsibilities today so that our communities can prosper tomorrow.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe second petition that I wanted to speak to is one that is currently in front of the Petitions Committee around paid parental leave by Shane Sharma. This particular petition seeks a minimum 12 weeks of paid parental leave, specifically for fathers and supporting partners. As a father of three children, with our youngest only just having celebrated her first birthday two weeks ago, I know personally how important those early weeks are, and those early months are, for families balancing new children in the household with demanding roles. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis particular petitioner is aiming to get specific parental leave for fathers and supporting parents. While this petition is still working its way through the process, I did want to acknowledge that National has already taken a step towards, not a direct implementation of this particular petition, but we are committed to giving families more flexibility in how they access and use paid parental leave. We\u2019ve announced that if we are re-elected, we\u2019ll extend paid parental leave to 30 weeks, which would help with this, and would ensure that ability for families that are in different circumstances to use that leave in a way that is most appropriate for their family. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s all part of our focus on stronger families today. It is about fixing the basics and building the future as we give parents the support and flexibility they need, whilst helping build stronger families and caring communities across New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022 data-id=\u002218753bdbf4cdfcd38ad6a3e2ebd90486\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002200ae89b8149340638b3bd22c705616a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002218753bdbf4cdfcd38ad6a3e2ebd90486\u0022\u003EINGRID LEARY (Labour\u2014Taieri) (12:41)\u003C/span\u003E: This is a debate, and in that spirit, I would like to commend Greg Fleming for his wonderful speech about online gambling harm advertising. I wonder whether his actions would be more powerful if he had crossed the floor and voted against his Government on the bill they\u2019ve just introduced, which not only opens online gambling harm but also\u2014actually, he specifically referred to loot boxes, which are not covered by the definition in section 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBut I\u2019m here today to talk about the petition of Chloe Hatch about having mental health counselling services in all primary and intermediate schools, and I think it\u2019s important that we look at the policy reason\u2014as my colleague Greg O\u2019Connor has said\u2014behind the petition. The petitioner gives the reason that the mental health crisis is affecting not only teenagers and adults but also children. Many children have to navigate huge life challenges\u2014for example, abuse, bullying, grief at young ages\u2014and cannot afford the counselling and support they need. I absolutely agree with that. The crisis that the petitioner mentions is getting worse, and the children involved are getting younger and younger, particularly in our suicide statistics. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe are seeing children in New Zealand who are as young as 12, that I\u2019m aware of, who have passed away. In that vein, I would like to mention our family friend Ch\u00E9 Strickson-Pua, who died, tragically. When Ch\u00E9 passed away, he was worried that people wouldn\u2019t remember him, and I want to say his name in this House and acknowledge what a beautiful and outstanding young man he was and what a fantastic artist and friend he was to our family. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI agree with the petitioner that schools are not only a place for mental health interventions but, actually, they\u2019re a place for building resilience, and I refer now to the petition of Arzana Mehmetaj, which is about increasing funding for youth mental health services and reducing waiting times, because that petition hasn\u2019t yet been reported on. It\u2019s open until 25 September, which means that people who are interested can actually go online now and exercise their democratic right to participate and support that petition. That petition policy talks about wanting the Government to increase funding for youth mental health services and to reduce waiting times, as well. They give the reasons around many young people experiencing anxiety, depression, and other mental health challenges facing long waiting times before receiving support. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, the Mental Health Commission has highlighted that, and, in fact, they\u2019ve pivoted their work towards having a focus on youth mental health, such is the extent of the crisis. The Mental Health Foundation has successfully petitioned the Minister for Mental Health in a less formal way, who has responded to say that he will start counting the wait times for young people to access mental health specialist services, and we\u2019re hearing the same message from the front line.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe problem, though, with measuring only the wait times is that without measuring declined referrals, we\u2019re only getting half the picture. That\u2019s incredibly important to understand because sometimes the bar for accessing those specialist services can be raised when the services are not there if there have been Government cuts\u2014as there have been under the last term of Government\u2014and so we need to make sure that whatever we\u2019re measuring doesn\u2019t game the targets, but actually tells the whole story. I would urge the Minister to look at also measuring declined referrals across the motu so that we can really see what is happening with youth and young people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAnother development has been, really, that contracts this week for mental health providers\u2014many, many of them in the community are four weeks into not actually having contracts. That means no certainty of cash flow and an inability to plan. I understand from a journalist who\u2019s been working with me on this that for some contracts, many of them won\u2019t get signed until November, and that leaves great uncertainty for our community providers. Not only that, but the contracts have actually been made more centralised and are giving more power and authority to Health New Zealand. That is not going to serve our young people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI would just urge people to have a look at the Petitions Committee page. There are some fantastic petitions there. I want to acknowledge the two young people who I\u2019ve mentioned today who have brought these petitions to the House because they\u2019re absent in the Chamber, and it\u2019s through these petitions that we can bring their voice into our democratic process. I want to say that we really need to have the front-line services for acute youth mental health services that are currently not there\u2014something I hope the next Parliament looks at\u2014and I\u2019d encourage everybody to sign the petition around youth mental health so that we can continue to debate this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b7cff05e64f346e68983b2fdbfba3ad8\u0022 data-id=\u0022d19a15d5da509e03f7b894ab5fb805c5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b7cff05e64f346e68983b2fdbfba3ad8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d19a15d5da509e03f7b894ab5fb805c5\u0022\u003EDAN BIDOIS (National\u2014Northcote) (12:46)\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Speaker, it\u2019s a pleasure to talk to three petitions today that call for greater control of dog laws in New Zealand and to talk about what the Government is doing. As a dog owner myself, this issue is near and dear to my heart.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn particular, I want to talk about one petitioner, Melinda McGregor, whose mum was attacked viciously by a dog. Her hand was severed, with bites going through to her bone. The doctors agreed it was a vicious attack, and her mum was hospitalised for well over two weeks. She lives with dementia, and that attack dented her confidence and set her back. Despite this, the Waimakariri District Council told Melinda that they won\u2019t press charges against the dog owner because of her mum\u2019s dementia, and they felt that the case wouldn\u2019t stand up in court because she could not describe clearly what had happened. All the district council did was ask for the dog to be desexed and classify it as dangerous. Despite the overwhelming evidence and despite the victim and perpetrator, in this instance, justice was denied. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThere are stories like this across New Zealand, and there are other petitioners like Tracey-Ann Clark who have suffered vicious attacks from roaming dogs. Every year, 29,000 claims are made to ACC for dog-related injuries, and nearly half of them\u201414,000\u2014are due to dog bite injuries, with the remainder being injuries such as head trauma, fractures, and scratches. Nearly 3,000 of these incidences are to children under the age of 14, and over 1,000 result in hospitalisations, and injuries and costs that mount up into the millions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThis House is no stranger to the impact of the effects of dog attacks, with two lives being lost in New Zealand in the last 16 months alone. One was Timothy Rolleston-Bryan, and the other was 62-year-old Mihiata Te Rore, who was fatally mauled by a pack of three dogs. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EOur message is that Kiwis should feel safe in their community. We are concerned about the amount of serious dog attacks in this country, and dog owners need to be held accountable for their dogs. That is why this Government\u2014the National Government\u2014has announced that we are reviewing the Dog Control Act and conducting a comprehensive review, which these three submissions in petitions have clearly asked for, to crack down on roaming dogs and uncontrolled dogs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI believe, actually, that there is an update that is imminent from the Minister of Local Government around something that I\u2019m not allowed to announce. But something is coming out in the next 24 hours\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002203a774da0a03182f841cd370bb5e07fd\u0022\u003EHon Phil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, go on\u2014just do it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b7cff05e64f346e68983b2fdbfba3ad8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aec44f77be6934925f34d5d66f5536fb\u0022\u003EDAN BIDOIS\u003C/span\u003E: I won\u2019t announce it, but it is clear that before Christmas, we want this review to be done, and, next year, we want to legislate for those changes. This is an outdated piece of legislation, and the review is covering everything from penalties, desexing obligations, enforcement powers, and guidelines for local authorities. I wish to thank the Petitions for a comprehensive report, and also their three petitioners: Chained Dog Awareness New Zealand Trust, Melinda McGregor and Tracey-Ann Clark, who I actually helped sponsor this petition through Parliament.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003EOur message is very clear: dog owners need to take responsibility for their dog\u2019s actions. There need to be greater enforcement powers; there needs to be greater clarity so that everybody can feel safe when they\u2019re out in their own communities, walking their dogs, and being a part of their community. It\u2019s all a part of this Government\u2019s plan to fix the basics and to build a better, brighter, and safer future for New Zealanders. I commend these three petitions to Parliament. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022 data-id=\u0022d6ad031d5b93e576fbc58f1ad9b7d29d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229f071e5323b640f383726a46f39e8187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d6ad031d5b93e576fbc58f1ad9b7d29d\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B) (12:51)\u003C/span\u003E: At the end of last year I accepted a petition from Stephen Lincoln of Botany Downs in East Auckland. The petition called on \u201Cthe House of Representatives to urge the Government to advocate: that an ultimatum be given to the Israeli Government to stop the genocide in Gaza and the West Bank, to allow the UNRWA aid back into Gaza, and to negotiate the release of allcaptives;\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EI want to highlight Stephen Lincoln\u2019s petition today because the genocide in Gaza has been one of the biggest foreign policy issues of the last three years. It has touched so many people so deeply. It\u2019s my view, it\u2019s the Labour Party view, and it\u2019s the petitioner\u2019s view too, I think, that the National-led coalition\u2019s response to Israel\u2019s genocide in Gaza has fallen well shortof what many, many New Zealanders expected. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EStephen Lincoln\u2019s petition goes on to say that there\u2019s evidence of genocide happening in Gaza, \u201Calong with the illegal encroachment of settlements, displacing civilians and damaging infrastructure in the West Bank. The 1951 Convention on the Crime of Genocide has a binding treaty mandating signatories, of which New Zealand is one, to prevent and punish its perpetration. It goes on to say, \u201C[We] want the Government to implement sanctions and expel the Israeli ambassador if the ultimatum is not [actioned]; and to support a UN-brokered two-state solution [to ensure] justice and peace.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENow, if that had been the position of the Government, it would have amounted to the kind of principled and ethical response that most New Zealanders wanted. But, no, not this Government, who, by its muted response to the genocide and also by not extending diplomatic recognition to Palestine even when Canada, the UK, and Australia did, made New Zealand an outlier among the Western liberal democracies we normally line up with.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn response to Stephen Lincoln\u2019s petition, the Government laid out what it has done on this issue. It has condemned the terrorist attacks carried out by Hamas, urged Hamas to release hostages and designated Hamas as a terrorist entity in its entirety, called for a ceasefire in Gaza, repeatedly emphasised that all parties must abide by their international law obligations, provided $50 million in support of humanitarian relief, reiterated the two-State solution, and opposed the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EIn response, Stephen Lincoln said this: \u201CAll these well-intended responses will not deter the Israeli Government, emboldened by 2\u215F2 years of no consequences, following the never-ending revenge on Hamas, and full support from the United States.\u201D He wrote: \u201CYou refer to the Israeli-Hamas conflict. There is no conflict of equals. The last rocket fired from Gaza was in early 2024, 7 October 2023 was a terrorist attack, but the military occupation since 1967 has been brutal and deadly. You call for the release of Hamas hostages, now released, but silence on the more than 9,000 Palestinian prisoners. You label Hamas a terrorist group, but what about the genocide unleashed by the Israeli defence forces since October 2023?\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EFor the sake of completeness, let me set out the Labour Party\u2019s position on this issue. For a start, we recognise Israel\u2019s deliberate destruction of Gaza and the people of Gaza as a genocide. We would have had New Zealand intervene at South Africa\u2019s case against Israel at the International Court of Justice. We would have invited the Palestinian Ambassador to present their credentials here. We would have\u2014as we\u2019ve been saying for the last year or more\u2014legislated sanctions against Israel, consistent with the International Court of Justice\u2019s opinion on its illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand has long put international law at the heart of our foreign policy. As a small country, we depend on it, but as the genocide unfolded in Gaza, the credibility of much of the West, including New Zealand, took a hammering because of our silence\u2014because of our complicity\u2014and Stephen Lincoln\u2019s petition, I believe gave voice to many Zealanders who agree.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002242258c1d93e59bca4597d796a41f3e59\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=\u00223b11bafcf5b5427480393ffeef4fe6e8\u0022 data-id=\u0022319a94825544ad2284a701ec1ca5e864\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b11bafcf5b5427480393ffeef4fe6e8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022319a94825544ad2284a701ec1ca5e864\u0022\u003EORIINI KAIPARA (Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori\u2014T\u0101maki Makaurau) (12:56)\u003C/span\u003E: \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003EE te Whare\u003C/span\u003E, today I rise not simply to speak to a petition. It is the petition of H Hakepa, on behalf of \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Ete p\u0101ti tangata whenua\u003C/span\u003E, but I to acknowledge Miss Hakepa for the courage that she dare ask one simple question, and that is: why are M\u0101ori still being counted differently? Miss Hakepa did what every citizen is encouraged to do: she researched, questioned, followed the law, and scrutinised the numbers. After all that mahi, she reached the conclusion many M\u0101ori have felt for generations: the system isn\u2019t broken; it\u2019s working exactly as it was designed to work: to keep M\u0101ori representation behind M\u0101ori reality.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe committee acknowledged the issue is complex. It acknowledged M\u0101ori children are not fully reflected in the current calculations. It acknowledged there are real concerns, and then it recommended doing absolutely nothing. That sums up this Government perfectly. When M\u0101ori raise injustice, this Government commissions a report. When M\u0101ori prove injustice, this Government shelves the report. This petition asks Parliament to look honestly at how M\u0101ori electorates are calculated. It asks why general electorates are based on total population while M\u0101ori electorates are tied to adult roll choice. It asks why the whakapapa of our p\u0113pe, our tamariki, and our mokopuna somehow counts for less. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThese are not radical questions; they are constitutional questions that deserve constitutional answers. Instead, M\u0101ori are told to accept a formula that keeps us playing catch up. Officials defend the mathematics, but maths isn\u2019t justice. You can have a perfectly calculated equation and still produce an unjust outcome. When M\u0101ori electorates represent significantly more people than general electorates, that\u2019s not equality; it is inequality with a calculator. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe petitioner reminds us that when M\u0101ori seats were established in 1867, M\u0101ori were entitled to far more representation than the four seats that they received. More than 150 years later, here we are, still asking for fairness, not because M\u0101ori haven\u2019t grown and not because M\u0101ori aren\u2019t participating, but because every time our people grow the system finds another way to slow our representation down. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EToday, the Government wants to delay it even further. A petition asks for fairer M\u0101ori representation and the Government responds by making M\u0101ori wait longer. That\u2019s not a coincidence; that\u2019s a political choice. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ETe P\u0101ti M\u0101ori has a different vision. We believe every person who identifies as M\u0101ori should be automatically enrolled on the M\u0101ori roll when they become eligible to vote, not because we want to remove choice but because indigenous people should not have to opt into indigenous representation. The right to enrol on the general roll should remain, but the constitutional default for M\u0101ori should be the M\u0101ori roll because whakapapa is not something you opt in to; whakapapa is who you are.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWe also support reviewing electorate boundaries before every election so that representation keeps pace with the people. This petition and its response shows us that the establishment fears M\u0101ori political power. The current Government have desperately tried to silence and disenfranchise M\u0101ori because they know that \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Ete iwi M\u0101ori\u003C/span\u003E will be deciding the 2026 election. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EWh\u0101nau, we have until midnight of 6 August\u2014next Thursday\u2014to get on the M\u0101ori roll. The M\u0101ori roll is whakapapa in action. It shapes M\u0101ori representation, it strengthens M\u0101ori political power, and it ensures more unapologetic M\u0101ori voices right here in P\u0101remata. Our t\u012Bpuna did not fight for us to sit on the sidelines; they fought for our voice, our rights and for the future of our mokopuna\u2014every single one of them\u2014who belong here to Aotearoa. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThe laws affecting our whenua, our reo, our wh\u0101nau, our workers, and our future are made here in Parliament. If we want a different future, we must exercise our political strength at the ballot box. When we get rid of this one-term Government, \u003Cspan lang=\u0022mi\u0022\u003Ee te wh\u0101nau\u003C/span\u003E, and form a new Government of our own, we will fix the M\u0101ori electorate calculation. If you are M\u0101ori, you have a choice, and that is to take a t\u012Bpuna action, make a mokopuna decision, and join the M\u0101ori roll. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224cf6752dabf34d0eb8ae92457823e4ba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229a810d162084cbb1fb3a4d1455e1082b\u0022\u003EDEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The time for this debate has expired. The House stands adjourned until 2\u00A0p.m. today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2026072890ac0e21b4c5eaf760001421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsContinued\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022CharacterBoldCentred\u0022\u003EThe House adjourned at 1.01 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n  \u003C/body\u003E\n\u003C/html\u003E"